Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsverse?

[Admiral_Young]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

We don't know that Kirk didn't apply to the Academy. Pike says that his aptitude tests were off the charts. He may have and simply had no interest in joining or whatever. It is obvious that Pike used his influence to get Kirk in. I also never said that Kirk violated any orders but that his characteristics and maverick attitude were something that Pike thought would make him a good officer. Pike seemed to be wanting to change Starfleet. Make it more flexible and less rigid.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

The tests may be a normal part of life in the 23rd century, possibly administered a a part of schooling. There's nothing that shows Kirk wants to join Starfleet. He only does it because Pikes dares him to. Kirk never says anything about wanting to see what's out there or about defending the Federation or any other the other reasons you could give. He's just a drunken bar brawling lout who just happens to get recognized by an officer who wrote a paper about his father.

When does Kirk show leadership skills? When does he work out a problem and not have someone simply hand him the answer? Pike doesn't want a good officer, he want's an attack dog that he'll be holding the leash on.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

I think we're getting into a different topic altogether but Kirk does take command of the Enterprise when no one else seems to be able to...and takes charge of the situation. Obviously that was crafted as part of the script and forced in order to move the plot along but it is still a demonstration of leadership. Kirk was challenged directly by Pike. He knew probably from reading a personality test that Jim would not have backed down from the dare. Kirk was looking for something or someone to bring him out of his funk...that person was Pike. I do agree with your statement about things having to be explained to him or given...one of the flaws of the film was that I thought Kirk did not earn command of the ship. He didn't even graduate, he assumed command through circumstance and then was rewarded it because he helped defeated Nero.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

Perhaps the aptitude tests were part of a pre-screening for Starfleet Academy? Kirk took them... then decided he didn't want to attend.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

Noting mentioned about the aptitude tests suggests that it had anything o do with Starfleet.

The situation with Kirk is my single biggest beef with the film. He takes command by deliberately provoking Spock. He just happens to hear about the lightning storm in space heralding Spock's arrival. He's saved by Spock on Delta Vega when he should have saved himself. He gets back on the ship because he meets Scotty and Spock just happens to know about trans-warp beaming. He doesn't really do anything. It's Spock who destroys the Narada. Kirk didn't even want Spock to beam over with him.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

Yep. The characterization and use of the Kirk character is one of my biggest problems with "Star Trek" and it's use of an alternate timeline. I don't mind that they chose that as a plot device to go back and tell an origin story...but I feel like they could have just as easily told a similar story within the prime universe. Chris Pine did a great job as Kirk but something was off to me about him, and I love the movie but there are definite flaws in it and he is one of them.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

Noting mentioned about the aptitude tests suggests that it had anything o do with Starfleet.

The situation with Kirk is my single biggest beef with the film. He takes command by deliberately provoking Spock. He just happens to hear about the lightning storm in space heralding Spock's arrival. He's saved by Spock on Delta Vega when he should have saved himself. He gets back on the ship because he meets Scotty and Spock just happens to know about trans-warp beaming. He doesn't really do anything. It's Spock who destroys the Narada. Kirk didn't even want Spock to beam over with him.

Why even mention the aptitude scores then? They would have to mean something within the context of Starfleet for them to be valid in any way.

The film is built on coincidence after coincidence, that has always been my biggest gripe with it.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

Noting mentioned about the aptitude tests suggests that it had anything o do with Starfleet.

The situation with Kirk is my single biggest beef with the film. He takes command by deliberately provoking Spock. He just happens to hear about the lightning storm in space heralding Spock's arrival. He's saved by Spock on Delta Vega when he should have saved himself. He gets back on the ship because he meets Scotty and Spock just happens to know about trans-warp beaming. He doesn't really do anything. It's Spock who destroys the Narada. Kirk didn't even want Spock to beam over with him.

Why even mention the aptitude scores then? They would have to mean something within the context of Starfleet for them to be valid in any way.

The film is built on coincidence after coincidence, that has always been my biggest gripe with it.

Because it's a lazy way of telling us that Kirk is a genius. We don't actually see him use his brains but we're told that he's really, really smart so he must be. It's like saying someone is an olympic sprinter but you never see him run.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

Yep. The characterization and use of the Kirk character is one of my biggest problems with "Star Trek" and it's use of an alternate timeline. I don't mind that they chose that as a plot device to go back and tell an origin story...but I feel like they could have just as easily told a similar story within the prime universe.

I take it you missed the shitstorm caused by Harve Benett's proposed Star Trek: The Academy Years in the early 90's? People still bitch about the "canon violations" in that film - and the fucking thing was never even made!

A prime universe Trek origin story wouldn't have been a reboot. It would have been "scenes set before TOS", more contrained by canon than even Star Trek: Enterprise was - and look how that turned out. Some fans obsessively insist Enterprise isn't the prime universe, either!

 

[ALF]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

Yes, everything happens as it does in the prime u.
Except with moar lens flares.

*Shrug*. Am I the only one who gets a headache wondering what did and didn't happen in all of Star Trek?

 

[Galileo7]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

...Am I the only one who gets a headache wondering what did and didn't happen in all of Star Trek?

no, you are among friends

 

[kkozoriz1]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

A clean reboot would have solved so many problems.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

As a lifelong Trek fan, I'm thrilled that nuTrek spins off of and acknowledges the old rather than totally rejecting it.

These so-called "problems" exist only in the minds of a nitpicky minority.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

<deleted>

 

[Admiral_Young]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

I'm aware of the Starfleet Academy pitch and the continuity violations (EJA would have had a field day with that film had it ever been made). What I'm proposing isn't a reboot but a flash back from Spock. I would frame the film with Spock on Romulus witnessing a historic treaty being signed between the Federation and the Romulan Star Empire, then Spock feeling uncharacteristically nostalgic decides to recall the Enterprise's first mission under Captain Kirk's command. This would obviously take place before "Where No Man Has Gone Before". No McCoy, Sulu, or Chekov. Unless one wanted to take significant canon liberties with canon to include them. That's what I would have done though.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

Except that would have been a cheesy nostalgia show and not a modernization/reboot of Star Trek. It wouldn't have appealed to more than the dwindling die-hard fanbase. Like a big-budget version of the forthcoming Phase II episode "Origins"

Even the old 80's TOS get-together novel Enterprise: The First Adventure took huge liberties to tell the first mission of the TOS crew. Mitchell was injured and out of the picture, everyone was at their regular posts despite it being years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before", Kirk was 28, Chekov was 16 (still wrong!), Sulu was helmsman, McCoy was CMO, Uhura was comm officer etc. And despite a positive quote from Gene Rodenberry on the back, some fans hated it for featuring the famous Trek crew instead of the characters from the second pilot.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

Again I get why they chose the alternate time line route...I'm just saying that is a possible alternative for a purist who obviously hated the reboot, and as we know there a ton of them on the BBS lol.

 

[Pauln6]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

This thread is less an issue of being nitpicky and more a case of asking a legitimate scientific question about the Butterfly Effect using the Trek plot as an example. The fact that Trek writers have used inconsistent time travel plots in the past just gives us more to talk about.

I hate the many worlds theory precisely because its mechanics are so messy. Once the 'event' takes place you can NEVER get those characters back to their original timeline. The best you can do is shunt them to another alternate timeline that is similar to the first. If the viewer went back to the original timeline the event would not have happened in the first place.

The closed loop theory is much more sensible. The past is the past. It can't be changed because it has already happened. If somebody travelled back then they would always have travelled back. Events with which they interact have always occurred that way. It isn't a question of pre-destination or lack of free will because they always have a choice at the time the decision is made, it's just that the viewers know at least in part what that choice is going to be. The fun is seeing how the loop closes itself (e.g. Times Arrow). That is unpopular with writers because a) they have to remember the past and the future accurately (e.g. Enterprise) and b) it restricts their freedom to tell dramatic stories.

From that persepctive, a straight reboot would have been better. However, the decision they took is a nice twist on the normal reboot. They just need to up their game to make the moral code of the characters a bit more of it Star Trekky i.e. make it seem like less of a chore (and less of a character flaw) for the characters to be nice to each other, and make it a lot less sexist.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

^ Well said. Good post.

 

[Set Harth]

Re: Do FIRST CONTACT & "Little Green Men" still happen in the Abramsve

I hate the many worlds theory precisely because its mechanics are so messy. Once the 'event' takes place you can NEVER get those characters back to their original timeline.

Unless you encounter some typically convenient sci-fi plot device such as alien technology or a phenomenon which allows travel between the different universes/timelines. Something similar to the Nexus or the Guardian.

If the viewer went back to the original timeline the event would not have happened in the first place.

That sounds like you're trying to argue against MWI by using the traditional paradox-laden baggage of single timeline ( which would not be applicable ).