• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Did TATV show a contempt for the characters and actors?

I think I know the answer but would the military EVER promote a cadet to Captain as a publicity stunt or is the whole idea utterly and extremely ridiculous? And what did you think of the 'Kirk applies to be an Admiral after 3 years experience in deep space at age 29 going on 30' part of the plot in STB (I admit that made me laugh, and I'm an ignorant civilian).

No. Its ludicrous in any modern service area. The only place you've seen moves like this are 3rd world dicatorships where its handed out to the rulers immediate family like Kim Jong Un in North Korea. In Democracies its an impossibility becuase it just reeks of corruption.

As Captain of a Starship he's the modern day equivalent of an O-6. A brand new lieutenant its inconceivable even in times of great conflict for him to end up there after 3 years. Both logically and in terms of what you learn on the job. Take a great American hero of WWII in Dick Winters who was the prototype and lead for HBO's series "Band of Brothers". He starts the series as an O-2 (1st Lieutenant) and ends the series as an O-4 (Major) who likely would have been an O-5 shortly thereafter. Winters was a legitimate hero on order with other major hero's of the US and likely to be on a meteoric rise but he certainly wasn't just a cadet.

They "Typical" US length of time for moving from O-1 to O-6 is 22 years in the US and roughly 20 years in most other modern Military. Also that move at 22 years isn't a command necessarily though for some it is. That doesn't mean some people don't get promoted faster but 3 years is an absolute absurdity that really made me ignore most of the re-releases in alternate universe. The ONLY way this works is if you go back to non-standing Armies - Professional Services don't have these meteoric rises. The federation if they had no ships would have to pick a command structure that worked if say they had none and suddenly needed 300 , built them and had to staffed them yourself.

Non-Standing Army Promotion Examples:
Galusha Pennypacker is the youngest of the US Generals ever at the age of 20 , but he also started at 16. He recruited his own company to join the Union equipping and outfitting them initially (he came from wealth). However the reason for his promotion to General was that he was "mortally wounded" and his lifes goal had been to become a general in the civil war. (These was also the 4th time he was wounded in battle). Turns out it wasn't so "Mortal" and he survived it. Immediately after the war he was "demoted" to Colonel. He was also a Medal of Honor recipient and survived 5 gunshot wounds in several different engagements so giving him his lifes wish as he lay dying seemed like a good idea.

Personal: I saw this with the Iraqi Army as well after it was devolved and reconstituted. It was a total cluster, Colonels who couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag, Sergeants who were more poorly trained than American's just out of boot camp. Not a real "standing" modern Army which takes time to develop. I mean literally you could be under fire and the Captain wants to take a lunch break. It's a cluster that only happens in newly created forces (Note: I would have considered Younger Captains plausible in NX-01, since its a brand new fleet).

Why the TOS is plausible if meteoric:
Kirk's back story in TOS was a great back plot moment to me because it was at least plausible. He assumes command of the Farragut (a destroyer) when its Captain and First Officer are killed completing he mission. He's a Lt. Commander at this point (0-4). Presumably a year or two later he gets promoted by a board making him a full Commander. Promotion Boards in modern services love promoting someone "already doing the job well" So sometime a couple years later he receives a promotion to Captain despite his age.

From my own experience the "average" (typical) time in service from promotion to E7 in the Army is 13.5 years. Keep in mind some stay 20 and never reach it or reach it on their way out the door. I did it in 7 years 4 months but there were unique circumstances surrounding it. The fastest modern one is 6 years 3 months and its from the US special forces. 7 Years isn't unheard of certainly, but your talking about the fastest 4-5% of all promotions at that point. It comes from both hard working and the "opportunity" of being in the right place at the right time. In my case 30 days after I was promoted to E-6 I was in Iraq for the invasion. The Brigade I was in was convoying North, but was short E8's to lead certain sections of the Convoy. We had 4 E-7's in the section I took charge of but the Brigade CSM didn't trust them (2 were under investigation for misconduct , the other 2 were total clusters); I gave a really good briefing in my role of collecting intel on the planned route and he approached me afterwards about taking the lead NCO (command equivalent) with a Captain for this particular. So my very first look at the E-7 board exactly two years later there is a notation that as an E-6 performed an E8 role safely leading a convoy into Baghdad without casualty. Combine that with being the Honor Graduate at BNCOC which is the school that all E-6's have to attend and its an easy decision for the promotion board. Other E-6's may have years of competent experience but they didn't get the opportunity to fill in like I did. Didn't mean I didn't earn it but I wouldn't have been able to had the unit not been critically short.

Kind of Conclusion: I could see 30-32 if they had a backstory that involved two situations of remarkable opportunity. For example a Junior Grade Lieutenant taking command of a situation similar to the Siege of AR-558 in the Dominion War, hastily being promoted to Lieutenant , getting early look and making Lt. Commander. Then again, like Kirk getting command of a Starship through the death of its Captain and 1st Officer (and presumably the other Lt. Commander who outranks him). Consider how long it takes Worf to go from Lieutenant to Lt. Commander and how great he was as an Officer. The "Cadet to Captain" though is just total hokum unless your talking about a 3rd world dictatorship, volunteer fleet service (Starfleet's Civilian Readiness Corps maybe) , or a devastated people who just "have to put someone in charge".
 
How about Eisenhower? He must have had some friends...jeeesh. He went from Lt. Colonel with little command experience, to General of the Army, a rank held by less than 10 people in history, in like 3 years. And then he became President
 
NuKirk would probably be given the Medal of Honor or something, then been given an instant commission to Ensign, or Lieutenant Jr. Grade, and then go on a publicity tour on Earth.
 
Hopefully the next reboot would have Uhura already Captain in her 30's with Spock as XO. Now that is what you call a REBOOT :)
 
How about Eisenhower? He must have had some friends...jeeesh. He went from Lt. Colonel with little command experience, to General of the Army, a rank held by less than 10 people in history, in like 3 years. And then he became President

Eisenhower was also a new Lt. In WWI. He was a Lt. Colonel before the US engagement in WWII began (December 8th 1941) He ended up in Command of one of the first ever tank companies. "Little Command Experience" doesn't really apply since he was promoted all the way to Lt. Col in WWI. Was demoted back to Captain after the war, promoted to Major between WWI and WWII. He returned and studied at the US Army War College. He was a Lt. Col in 1939. He was the Commanding officer of the 15th Infantry Regiment for 2 years (pretty standard command time and his 3rd "unit command"). His "opportunity" for meteoric rise came at the beginning of WWII in 1941 even before it involved the US, he'd been one of the few people to actively command tank units in combat which was a rarity in WWI because they were new technology. All the Generals he studied under at the War College wanted him because he had on ground experience. He accepts a position as a Regimental XO and is promoted to General. It is a trip to England in 1942 with General Chaney that really changes his career path because he goes back to Washington. He expresses reserverations about Chaney's battle plans, in response Chaney is moved aside they promote Eisenhower (who had made huge friends at the Command and Staff College -all these friends were now high ranking Generals).

Eisenhower returns and is placed in charge of the European Theater. At the time though this "isn't where the fighting is" first we have the actions in the Pacific and the allied plans for attacking Germany involve Africa. The plush combat commands at this point are Africa and the Pacific. [Of course this changes later]. However in order to replace Chaney he needs to be a Major General, so they promote him once again and then a few days later again. A few months later when its clear Europe will be a major issue they decide to change and upgrade the number of 3 Star General slots across several commands (moving them from 2 stars to 3). The result is Eisenhower gets promoted twice in 1942, from 1 star to 2 star and 2 star to 3 star, once because Chaney has a really bad defense plan for England and a second time because Congress is getting more invested in the war.

Doesn't make him not a great hero, but your assessment that he had limited command experience is flawed because it discounts his command time in WWI , his early work prior to the outbreak of WWII 1939-1941; and his time at the War College making friends with the whose who of the US Army in between.
 
Put another way totally away from military offices, how plausible would it be:

For you to start at Facebook tomorrow fresh out of college and become CEO in 3 years or even a division VP?

Or someone to be a brand new pilot at Delta airlines and then Head of all Flight Training in 3 years?

Or someone to be a brand new professor at a college, obtain tenure , and be Dean of a Department in 3 years?

Even with great achievement those things just don't happen.
 
Right. And if by some miracle (read "media stunt" or "political appointment") it did happen: That crew's morale would be in the toilet. Every other officer onboard would have better qualifications for command than this jumped-up cadet. There would be a LOT of resentment. Orders would be given and they'd be followed, of course — but behind the scenes everyone with any connections elsewhere in Starfleet would either be shaking the tree trying to get this guy removed, or arranging to get themselves transferred out.

If Captain Cadet was able to hang onto his post long enough, he might eventually be able to prove himself and earn the respect of everyone under him. Then morale might settle down. But it would take years. And he'd have to demonstrate exemplary wisdom and maturity the entire time, a lot more than anything we ever saw from NuKirk.

He might as well spend his time working up the ranks after all.
 
On TATV - positions on this episode seem to harden over time for reasons that go beyond me. It was simply a concept whose execution didn't work. It wasn't meant to show disdain for actors, characters or fans. As much as I like Riker, Troi, and TNG - that time was long over, and the holodeck felt like a writing cheat.

I think I know the answer but would the military EVER promote a cadet to Captain as a publicity stunt or is the whole idea utterly and extremely ridiculous?

I know I'm going way off topic, but ...

See, this is precisely one of the things I find so irksome about NuTrek.

Why did Kirk have to be a Cadet? Did we need to see Cadet Kirk at all? What would have been wrong with him simply being a Lt. Cmdr or Cmdr. who left the service and was brought back? People do leave the military and later come back. (Fun fact: Prior to the Civil War, Captain Ulysses S. Grant had resigned the military and was working at a tannery when war broke out.) It just seems so unnecessary to create a situation so ludicrous. It doesn't wreck the movie, but it does pull me out of it and make me chuckle at something that's not even meant to be funny.
 
Why did Kirk have to be a Cadet? Did we need to see Cadet Kirk at all? What would have been wrong with him simply being a Lt. Cmdr or Cmdr. who left the service and was brought back? People do leave the military and later come back. (Fun fact: Prior to the Civil War, Captain Ulysses S. Grant had resigned the military and was working at a tannery when war broke out.) It just seems so unnecessary to create a situation so ludicrous. It doesn't wreck the movie, but it does pull me out of it and make me chuckle at something that's not even meant to be funny.

Exactly, it did totally ruin the re-shoot for me. My suspension of disbelief was totally whacked with that Cadet Captain. Also when you get some weird promotion or position for whatever reason you get pocket veto's all the time. Orders Followed? Yeah not really if there is real resentment.

Hated that for NuTrek to such a degree I've not gone to the movies for them. I just wait till they are on free TV. Catch them once and ho-hum.
 
The basic idea would not have been bad, but I don't like the forced perspective. I mean we had a good story with Pegasus on TNG and Riker visiting the NX-01 does not give anything to that story, it does not make it any better. Also, Frakes and Sirtis are much older and are not believable as part of the Pegasus timeline at all.

If they really did want to give us a story from the future PoV looking back at NX-01 I think it would have been better some story aboard the USS Titan, a few years after Nemesis, Riker facing some command dilemma there, and so goes to the holo-deck to consult a historical archive. The point was acknowledging NX-01 from a known future crew perspective, it was not necessary at all to take place in a known episode. So I would have enjoyed more a USS Titan adventure mixed with the NX-01 decommission voyage than this what we got ...
 
In my head canon, all the experienced officers on the USS Enterprise who survived the Battle of Vulcan resigned when Spock resigned and never came back. When Pike was reinstated some returned but requested a transfer after San Francisco was almost destroyed, deciding that Kirks' fatality quota was way too high and that Starfleet had lost their friggin minds.
 
I'd prefer not to see a Captain under 30. The whole thing is too much for me to overcome as a suspension of disbelief issue and why I don't appreciate the new Star Trek movies with how they kicked off. It feels hoaky to me, granted I have a military background but you'd have to come up with one heck of a reason why someone so young would be made captain.
Even I manage to surprise myself with what I'll accept or not accept in STAR TREK. You are definitely not alone in that, or in your POV on youthful Captains. But in TNG, for example, there've been Captains younger than TOS Kirk was. "Conspiracy" has one, in point of fact. But even if this were not the case, Gene Roddenberry's always insisted that STARFLEET was a different kind of military, comparable to the Navy of Earth, today ... but then, again, quite different from it, as well. 2009's Jim Kirk having been given his first command for $aving the Universe, rather than moving up the ladder proper is problematic, when logic enters into it. I mean, it's like making me president of the company for closing the biggest deal in its history.

On the other hand, on an entertainment level, having Kirk be "rewarded" by a grateful Federation works on an emotional level. It's Kirk's destiny to command Enterprise, so ... does it really matter how he gets there? I must admit that I kind of fall into this camp. STAR TREK's deviated from it's own internal logic since TOS and it's never stopped .... all in the name of putting a smile on people's faces. Some things are subtle, but I'm really OK with the idea of a Captain of 28, or so, let's say. And I suspect that the audience would be, too ...
 
On the other hand, on an entertainment level, having Kirk be "rewarded" by a grateful Federation works on an emotional level. It's Kirk's destiny to command Enterprise, so ... does it really matter how he gets there? I must admit that I kind of fall into this camp. STAR TREK's deviated from it's own internal logic since TOS and it's never stopped .... all in the name of putting a smile on people's faces. Some things are subtle, but I'm really OK with the idea of a Captain of 28, or so, let's say. And I suspect that the audience would be, too ...

I'm not criticizing the story telling ability. Just saying for me it totally ruined it. I'm sure for most people it wouldn't be for me too much of a deal killer and too big of a stretch. Like the US Navy or not I just found it too absurd to think a cadet would know the inner workings of the starship well enough to command, to be supported by all the people he would need and to have the emotional intelligence to deal with supervising that many people from different walks of life.

Like I said I don't think most people minded its just way to implausible for me. I have a feeling if the story wasn't already Captain Kirk and we all accept Captain Kirk is the Enterprise Captain that it wouldn't have been believed by the audience. I tried I really really did I just couldn't get into the movies after that and I really wanted to enjoy them. It was like going to see Star Wars II for me where you have your hopes built up and early on you get thrown B real material.
 
^I try not to let it ruin the joy of seeing Star Trek back on the screen (Cadet Kirk as Captain - then First officer Spock should be an Admiral, reboot Khan, Kirk applying to be an Admiral with all that experience.... yeah right, they must be giving out promotions like sweeties in Starfleet) but everyone has their own 'suspension of belief' levels. I make it work by treating the new reboot films as a comedy.
 
... does it really matter how he gets there?
Yes.

One of the things about the cadet to captain thing for me is, how would Kirk even be expected to know all the things require to even be a captain?

There's more to it than just sewing on extra braid and getting to sit in the nicest chair.
 
True. It takes more than a scepter to rule ... so much more. I don't contest any of that. In fact ... I find myself in complete agreement. But even when they're biographies, movies have an obligation to entertain and present someone's Real Life as a work of fiction.

For example, one of my favourite shows is "Warm Springs" which cares not a whit about demonstrating FDR's relationship with Eleanor as it really was. All it wants to be is a feel-good, inspirational story ... and it does that extremely well. How things really are is not so important to me as how the story plays out. What objectives are set, here. Does STAR TREK 2009 want to treat itself as a documentary on TOS, presenting the crew as Reality-based, or ... does it want to be a feel-good, entertaining picture? And that's kind of how I feel about "These Are The Voyages," as well.

The goal was to make a fun episode and I feel it succeeded. Like "Warm Springs," it distorted established "facts" to achieve that objective, but to good result. I KNOW it wouldn't be this way, but I accept the changes, because the show's successful in achieving its aims. If we're serious about wanting STAR TREK to be untied and unbound from the shackles of canon, in the name of spinning yarns for our entertainment, then things like Kirk's quick promotion, or TATV are valid, just for that.
 
You know they should have had a behind the scenes or stage moment where they got all the surviving crew from all five series giving a final bow with the theme of TOS in the background. Get Mulgrew, Shatner, Stewart, Brooks, and Bakula to give a speech and it all emotional and fan servicey, that would have been awesome.
 
You know they should have had a behind the scenes or stage moment where they got all the surviving crew from all five series giving a final bow with the theme of TOS in the background. Get Mulgrew, Shatner, Stewart, Brooks, and Bakula to give a speech and it all emotional and fan servicey, that would have been awesome.
In uniform or civies?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top