Could Kirk have also been a captain in 2258 in Prime Universe?

[Cadet49]

In the NuUniverse, when Prime Spock meets Kirk, he seems surprised that young Kirk is not a captain yet. Is it possible that in the Prime Universe, Kirk was also promoted to captaincy of a starship in 2258? We know he was given a medal for the Axanar Peace Mission - maybe he did something extraordinary that warranted a promotion to captain? In the Making of Star Trek book, Roddenberry had indicated that Kirk had been the commander of another starship before the Enterprise, promoted at a young age.

Is there anything in canon to indicate Kirk wasn't a captain by age 25, the way he is in the NuUniverse?

 

[Gov Kodos]

In Trouble with Tribbles, and a few other episodes, it is indicated that there were quite a few confrontations and likely a war or two with the Klingons. In such an environment a young and capable command officer out of the academy can rise through the ranks very quickly. Garth of Izar's comments on Kirk's record, and Kirk's tacit agreement seem to back up a scenario like that.

 

[Christopher]

Is there anything in canon to indicate Kirk wasn't a captain by age 25, the way he is in the NuUniverse?

"Obsession," which is now assumed to take place in 2268, says that Kirk was a lieutenant on the Farragut 11 years earlier. So he would've had to be promoted at least three rank grades within a year -- although that wouldn't be nearly as drastic as what we saw in the movie.

Anyway, why does the question need to be asked? The whole point of the alternate timeline is that things don't have to happen the same way as they did in the Prime history (ask any Vulcan).

 

[Timo]

There's also the bit from TNG "Conspiracy" where Tryla Scott is said to hold the record in this particular sport. FWIW, the actress was 41 when portraying the role, and looked like it, so we face no clear limits and it's difficult to tell whether the character supposedly scored the record at thirty, twenty-five or perhaps fifteen years of age.

The dialogue also suggests that Captains Picard, Rixx and/or Keel were contenders, and that Scott may have only barely bested (one of?) them. Yet we haven't heard of any of these three making Captain at anywhere near 25 - even the bits about Picard taking charge of the Stargazer are ambiguously dated and not necessarily related to rank progression.

Yet it might be prudent to give Scott some breathing room here; it's already difficult to believe in "Captains at 25" (although not impossible when we consider Gov Kodos' argument), and we don't want to force poor Scott to get the fourth pip when her collar is still too narrow to hold even two...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Kirk Prime could have gotten command of a smaller vessel and had the position of captain, but not the rank.

Which is also what should have happened at the end of ST XI, come to think of it.

"Obsession," which is now assumed to take place in 2268, says that Kirk was a lieutenant on the Farragut 11 years earlier. So he would've had to be promoted at least three rank grades within a year -- although that wouldn't be nearly as drastic as what we saw in the movie.

Actually, that pretty much WAS what we saw in the movie. For most of his time on the ship, Kirk was a Lieutenant (confirmed by the transporter readout when they're trying to beam him and Sulu off the drill). Assuming Kirk had the rank and position of Captain at the end, then he was promoted - get ready - three grades. And of course we don't know how much time has gone by right before that final scene.

 

[Wingsley]

I suppose it all depends on how you interpret TOS and the 2009 movie. I see them as vastly different franchises, with only some superficial conceptual commonalities.

James T. Kirk in TOS was a brash and relatively young starship commander, but despite his claim to be only 34 years old in "The Deadly Years", Kirk always struck me as being a fortysomething bachelor. (Shatner was a couple years older than the character he portrayed anyway.) The Memory Alpha article on Kirk isn't all that clear, but it does suggest Kirk entered the Academy around 2250. I don't know how reasonable that would be, but "Obsession" suggests Kirk was a lieutenant as recently as 2257. (Although it's not clear whether that would be junior or senior grade.) The notion of Kirk-in-TOS being a magical whiz kid who climbed the career ladder at breakneck speed, going from cadet to captain in only a very short time, never seemed to ring true with the content of TOS.

More importantly, though Shatner's portrayal of Kirk seems to be a very different man in a very different kind of story than Pine's "NuKirk" in the 2009 movie. Take "Court Martial" for example. Despite Kirk's romantic dalliances, he comes across as rather old-fashioned, driven, career-minded naval officer who is wise and disciplined beyond his years. (Whatever they may be.)

"NuKirk" is indeed very different. He's a smartass and a whiz kid, borrowing as much from Mark Zuckerberg as from STARGATE SG-1's Colonel Cam Mitchell. Gone is just about all of the personality Shatner built for the role. Of course, the whole atmosphere of the 2009 movie is more like a breathlessly rolling cross between an explosion flick and a parody of TOS. It's a safe bet that TOS had a major action-adventure component to be sure, but it was basically an adult drama. The 2009 movie is much more comical than TOS ever dreamed of being.

So I'd say that comparing TOS Kirk to "NuKirk" is about is easy as comparing TOS to STAR WARS. The specifics of each version of Kirk would be as vastly different since what they each represent and the stories they arise from would be vastly different.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I suppose it all depends on how you interpret TOS and the 2009 movie. I see them as vastly different franchises, with only some superficial conceptual commonalities.

.

Franchise has nothing really to do with how the material is presented. It's the "superficial conceptual commonalities" that makes them part of the same franchise.

 

[Christopher]

I suppose it all depends on how you interpret TOS and the 2009 movie. I see them as vastly different franchises, with only some superficial conceptual commonalities.

There have been people who felt the same way about TMP, TWOK, or the later movies vis-a-vis TOS, about TNG vis-a-vis TOS, and about DS9, VGR, and/or ENT vis-a-vis the earlier series. Heck, back in the day, there were probably people who felt that about TOS's third season vis-a-vis the first two. I think there have been one or two people on this very BBS who consider TOS and TMP to be the entirety of Trek canon and discount anything after it. And do people still remember who James Dixon was? Star Trek is a lot of different creations by a lot of different people, and they engage in the pretense of sharing a common reality, yet not every viewer is willing to play along with that pretense.

But the intent behind the movie is that it's a timeline that branched off from the main one in 2233 and all the differences (aside from those that can be chalked up to different creative interpretations) are a consequence of that alteration.

More importantly, though Shatner's portrayal of Kirk seems to be a very different man in a very different kind of story than Pine's "NuKirk" in the 2009 movie.

I don't think anyone disputes that. The movie makes it very clear that this Kirk has had a profoundly different life from Kirk Prime because he never knew his father. Most of the other characters are basically the same people they were in the original history (except Chekov is inexplicably older and Uhura has a more fleshed-out personality), but the fact that this Kirk is very different from his counterpart is a core element of the story. He grew up as a directionless delinquent, but Pike saw his potential and pointed him in the right direction, and then Spock Prime let him see who he had been in another reality, which let him begin working toward becoming that same great leader despite his very different beginnings.

Basically the filmmakers' idea was that Nero had thrown history off-course, and the events of the film were about getting the universe back on track, to an extent. So it starts out with Kirk very, very far from his "first, best destiny" and tells the story of how he gets back on the right course.

It's a safe bet that TOS had a major action-adventure component to be sure, but it was basically an adult drama. The 2009 movie is much more comical than TOS ever dreamed of being.

Oh, yeah, that "Trouble With Tribbles" episode -- so tragic, all that famine and plague. And "A Piece of the Action," that dark, disturbing journey through the heart of mob brutality... the stuff of nightmares. *shiver*

And isn't it strange how the movie numbering jumped right from III to VI without anything in between...?

 

[Cadet49]

Anyway, why does the question need to be asked? The whole point of the alternate timeline is that things don't have to happen the same way as they did in the Prime history (ask any Vulcan).

The question is being asked because I was curious, since events like the Kobyashi Maru test also happened in both universes, and Spock was surprised in the cave that Kirk, at age 25, wasn't the captain yet - I don't see any cannon in TOS to contradict the idea of Kirk being promoted quickly of some ship, like we saw in the movie. Kirk could have been promoted in 2257 to Lt Cmdr, following the Farragut incident, then have done something major at Axanar to lead to the jump in rank. Didn't Picard jump in rank on the Stargazer,from Liieutenant to Captain, at age 28? Would match the belief of many fans that Kirk was the youngest captain in the fleet when for

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Spock was surprised in the cave that Kirk, at age 25, wasn't the captain yet -

Did Spock actually know Kirk's specific age, at that point?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Is there any evidence that Spock knew the date and therefore Kirk's age/status when he arrived?

 

[Christopher]

The question is being asked because I was curious...

The best possible reason.

, since events like the Kobyashi Maru test also happened in both universes, and Spock was surprised in the cave that Kirk, at age 25, wasn't the captain yet - I don't see any cannon in TOS to contradict the idea of Kirk being promoted quickly of some ship, like we saw in the movie.

That's a fair point. The filmmakers have suggested that the backstory for the Prime characters could've been pretty close to this -- although we know it wasn't, since Pike commanded the Enterprise a lot longer than he did here.

As for Spock Prime's surprise, as Nerys Myk said, he may not have been clear on the date yet -- he did know it later, but that was after the mind meld.

Kirk could have been promoted in 2257 to Lt Cmdr, following the Farragut incident, then have done something major at Axanar to lead to the jump in rank.

Interesting idea.

Didn't Picard jump in rank on the Stargazer,from Liieutenant to Captain, at age 28?

Apparently. The original suggestion in the TNG bible was that he'd served aboard the Stargazer for 22 years, without specifying that he was actually captain the whole time. But it's generally been assumed since that he did become captain at the start of those 22 years. I don't think his rank at the time was canonically established, though.

Would match the belief of many fans that Kirk was the youngest captain in the fleet when for

That idea about Kirk comes from The Making of Star Trek, which said on pp. 215-16:

Kirk rose very rapidly through the ranks and received his first command (the equivalent of a destroyer-class spaceship) while still quite young.

Kirk has been in command of the Enterprise for more than four years and was the youngest Academy graduate ever to have been assigned as a Starship Command Captain.

Keeping in mind that TMoST apparently used "starship" as a distinct category from "spaceship" -- something analogous to "capital ship," say. So that destroyer-class vessel may have been something he commanded while holding the rank of commander (though he would've been addressed as "captain" regardless of his actual rank).

There's actually been surprisingly little exploration in tie-in fiction of Kirk's pre-Enterprise command(s). We've had glimpses in the novel Enterprise: The First Adventure and a couple of '80s comic books, but few have followed up on that "destroyer-class spaceship" line.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Is there any evidence that Spock knew the date and therefore Kirk's age/status when he arrived?

I suppose Spock could have determined the current date right after he arrived in the Jellyfish (but before Nero captured him).

 

[Wingsley]

More importantly, though Shatner's portrayal of Kirk seems to be a very different man in a very different kind of story than Pine's "NuKirk" in the 2009 movie.

I don't think anyone disputes that. The movie makes it very clear that this Kirk has had a profoundly different life from Kirk Prime because he never knew his father. Most of the other characters are basically the same people they were in the original history (except Chekov is inexplicably older and Uhura has a more fleshed-out personality), but the fact that this Kirk is very different from his counterpart is a core element of the story. He grew up as a directionless delinquent

Sigh.

My dead grandmother can muster more enthusiasm in believing that TOS and the 2009 movie are somehow linked.

NuKirk is obviously a Generation Y antihero. That's what the whole movie is aimed towards: people who don't know the significance of July 20, 1969 because that's over a decade before they were born.

The 2009 movie was a clean break from TOS. A repudiation of the original and its genre. TOS was an adult drama, with only occasional half-hearted attempts at sci fi, comedy or horror. The movie completely casts that genre behind in favor of a more pure action-adventure.

Compare the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA to the Ronald D. Moore re-invention. They aren't even in the same genre. TOS and the 2009 movie have about as much in common, they just went in opposite directions. (The original GALACTICA was closer to being a kids show to play on network TV; Moore's remake was an R-rated sleaze opera, for starters.)

"Captain Apollo has a nice ring to it, don't you think?"

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't think anyone disputes that. The movie makes it very clear that this Kirk has had a profoundly different life from Kirk Prime because he never knew his father. Most of the other characters are basically the same people they were in the original history (except Chekov is inexplicably older and Uhura has a more fleshed-out personality), but the fact that this Kirk is very different from his counterpart is a core element of the story. He grew up as a directionless delinquent

Sigh.

My dead grandmother can muster more enthusiasm in believing that TOS and the 2009 movie are somehow linked.

NuKirk is obviously a Generation Y antihero. That's what the whole movie is aimed towards: people who don't know the significance of July 20, 1969 because that's over a decade before they were born.

The 2009 movie was a clean break from TOS. A repudiation of the original and its genre. TOS was an adult drama, with only occasional half-hearted attempts at sci fi, comedy or horror. The movie completely casts that genre behind in favor of a more pure action-adventure.

Compare the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA to the Ronald D. Moore re-invention. They aren't even in the same genre. TOS and the 2009 movie have about as much in common, they just went in opposite directions. (The original GALACTICA was closer to being a kids show to play on network TV; Moore's remake was an R-rated sleaze opera, for starters.)

"Captain Apollo has a nice ring to it, don't you think?"

Oh, please not this BS again. I was born a decade before the Moon landing. I and others of my Generation liked ST09. We have no problem seeing the connections between TOS, the TOS films and ST09. It was a blend of action, humor and character driven drama, just like TOS. Its hardly a repudiation.

I think your understanding of the term "genre" is equal to your understanding of the term "franchise".

 

[Dukhat]

The OP's topic is "Could Kirk have also been a captain in 2258 in Prime Universe?"

Could someone please point out where in that sentence it says "let's bash the new movie while we're at it?"

 

[Christopher]

I agree, there's no point in rehashing a quality or taste argument that's no doubt been exhaustively rehashed over the past three years. It isn't necessary to like a story to have a civil hypothetical discussion about it. And really, whether Kirk Prime could've had a similar career path is an equally valid question regardless of whether you consider the movie to be an alternate timeline (which of course it is in-story) or merely an alternate interpretation of a fictional premise (which of course it is metatextually). So there's no valid reason why the question even needs to be brought up here.

 

[Wingsley]

Oh, please not this BS again. I was born a decade before the Moon landing. I and others of my Generation liked ST09. We have no problem seeing the connections between TOS, the TOS films and ST09. It was a blend of action, humor and character driven drama, just like TOS. Its hardly a repudiation.

I think your understanding of the term "genre" is equal to your understanding of the term "franchise".

Now it's my turn to say "Oh, please not this BS again".

I never said anything about "like" or "dislike" of either the movie or the original series. We do, after all, live in a world filled with people who can't stand either one.

If you like both, then good for you. This isn't about preferences. I never said it was.

Linking TOS to the 2009 is about as credible as linking the original GALACTICA with Moore's GALACTICA. It's apples and oranges.

 

[Wingsley]

I agree, there's no point in rehashing a quality or taste argument that's no doubt been exhaustively rehashed over the past three years. It isn't necessary to like a story to have a civil hypothetical discussion about it. And really, whether Kirk Prime could've had a similar career path is an equally valid question regardless of whether you consider the movie to be an alternate timeline (which of course it is in-story) or merely an alternate interpretation of a fictional premise (which of course it is metatextually). So there's no valid reason why the question even needs to be brought up here.

Who rehashed it?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Oh, please not this BS again. I was born a decade before the Moon landing. I and others of my Generation liked ST09. We have no problem seeing the connections between TOS, the TOS films and ST09. It was a blend of action, humor and character driven drama, just like TOS. Its hardly a repudiation.

I think your understanding of the term "genre" is equal to your understanding of the term "franchise".

Now it's my turn to say "Oh, please not this BS again".

I never said anything about "like" or "dislike" of either the movie or the original series. We do, after all, live in a world filled with people who can't stand either one.

If you like both, then good for you. This isn't about preferences. I never said it was.

Linking TOS to the 2009 is about as credible as linking the original GALACTICA with Moore's GALACTICA. It's apples and oranges.

You played the "Generation" card. And that's just BS.

The links are quite obvious. Folk with out blinders will plainly see them.