How did you get past NuKirk's rise to command?

[Nebusj]

Any thoughts, justifications etc to help me like the new guy, even just a little? I'd really like to get over this....

We are talking about a show where spaceship go faster than light without breaking the universe, people are scrambled and reassembled at the atomic level and feel fine afterwards, and aliens from different worlds look suspiciously like guys with rubber foreheads. Let it go and enjoy the run.

``Tell me that the great Mr. Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr. Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawingroom and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible, it’s only incredible.''

-- G K Chesterton's ``Father Brown''.

 

[Christopher]

^Right. It's invalid to say that all forms of unrealistic content are equally acceptable. What makes it possible to tolerate unrealistic physics or technology or procedures or whatever is that we find the characters believable enough to buy into, that they react to the impossible situations in a way that feels real and identifiable. If the characters engage the audience's emotions, then the audience is more likely to accept a fanciful situation. (Look at a Futurama episode like "Jurassic Bark" or "The Sting." The situations are completely ridiculous and impossible, but the emotions underlying them are so real and believable that we cry our eyes out anyway.)

 

[Commishsleer]

You either get over it or don't enjoy the movies. Your call.

I use the following:

He saved Earth from destruction. He deserves to be at least President. LOL.

Theres umm not that many good Starfleet captains around. A lot were killed at the battle of Vulcan or were tooling around in the Laurentian system when needed. Kirk was in the right place at the right time (many times).

Starfleet is sort of corrupt (as we see in STID). Pike gets Kirk in because he likes him and feels some obligation to the legend of George and knows Kirk has potential). None of its fair of course. Maybe Pike said to Marcus (at the end of ST09) - "Wouldn't it be great publicity for Starfleet to have my protege, the son of George Kirk, the saviour of the Earth - get the captaincy of the Enterprise." Didn't they make Kirk an Admiral in the Prime Universe for publicity?

 

[Tom Servo]

From my perspective, I always saw it as something of a PR stunt by Starfleet. If you think about it, Earth had narrowly been saved, Starfleet had just lost an entire squadron of starships, and Vulcan had been destroyed. I can just imagine this meeting with the Admirals where they realize they have this young, smart, ruthless Lieutenant who just saved Earth, and also had the confidence of one their senior Captains. Why him not make him the face of Starfleet in this dark time? Give the people hope, etc.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Honestly, I shrug and move on.

Is it entirely believable? Probably not. But I can't blame the filmmakers for wanting to give us "Captain Kirk" by the end of the first movie.

Yeah, they could have inserted a time jump before the final scene, but there would be both pros and cons there, with the biggest drawback being that you have to assume that all the characters and their relationships somehow remained static for how many years it took for Kirk to rise through the ranks--which would defeat the point of watching this new version of the crew come together and seeing how their relationships and lives develop in this brand-new timeline. We'd have to assume, for instance, that Spock/Uhura were stuck in a holding pattern for four years or so . . . .

So, yeah, it's a cheat, but it's one I have no trouble getting past. Artistic license and all that.

What Greg said.

 

[fireproof78]

It is a cheat that I have never had a difficult time with, but I can appreciate people's difficulties.

First of all, as has been touched upon, the commanding officer of a ship is, in naval tradition, referred to as "Captain." It does not matter what their rank is, how long they have served or if there is another officer on board with the actual rank of "Captain." That officer that has been put in to the chain of command as the ship's leader is the Captain. So, Spock was the captain.

Kirk, likewise, was a Lieutenant, as indicated on the monitors during the space jump, as well as Spock's XO, inserting him in to the chain of command as second in command, regardless of his rank. He had to be in the chain of command, or he could not give lawful orders, regardless if his ideas were good or not. In essence, Pike field commissioned him, and Starfleet Command sorted it all out later. I would imagine Admiral Marcus did it as a favor to Pike, with the understanding that Pike would be answerable if Kirk messed up. Violating the PD would do it.

I would not have minded if the movie had slowed down the pacing a bit, and maybe show Kirk's schooling a little bit more, thus indicating his ascension in rank at a higher pace than most, I can live with it as it is

 

[DonIago]

"How did you get past NuKirk's rise to command?"

Pretty darn easily.

Though I appreciated that the beginning of ID calls out this very "issue", if one wants to think of it as such.

 

[Dukhat]

I think there was an implied time jump from the escape from the Narada-crushing singularity to Kirk's promotion ceremony. That's what I inferred.

As I recall, Kirk's face was still bruised from that final battle on Nero's ship, so I don't think we're talking years here.

That's not proof of anything. Kirk gets into fights all the time. Those bruises could have been from a completely unrelated fight years after the fact!

Seriously though, the one thing that the film itself even set up that didn't pay off (or only payed off halfway) was Pike's line, "You could graduate in three years, have your own command in eight." We do in fact see Kirk graduate in three years, but how hard would it have been to have yet another span of time pass at the end of the film with the caption "Five Years Later?" Would have made a hell of a lot more sense.

 

[Malaika]

"How did you get past NuKirk's rise to command?"

Pretty darn easily.

Though I appreciated that the beginning of ID calls out this very "issue", if one wants to think of it as such.

I love how the writers themselves said that ID called Kirk out on that and his immaturity and he earns the ship..
Well, no.
It went more like this:
He went against the rules and lied in a report so he loses the ship NO WAIT never mind! Pike makes him his first officer on the enterprise (thus making Spock, the one who did his duty in the report, lose HIS role and ship as he is the one transfered to another) NO WAIT never mind! Before he even does that, pike dies and Kirk gets the ship and captain chair back.

I'd love for the writers to be honest at least and admit he gotta be the captain because he's called Kirk, for the same reason the rest of the characters have those roles. I can't blame them for that.

 

[Mage]

Honestly, I shrug and move on.

Is it entirely believable? Probably not. But I can't blame the filmmakers for wanting to give us "Captain Kirk" by the end of the first movie.

Yeah, they could have inserted a time jump before the final scene, but there would be both pros and cons there, with the biggest drawback being that you have to assume that all the characters and their relationships somehow remained static for how many years it took for Kirk to rise through the ranks--which would defeat the point of watching this new version of the crew come together and seeing how their relationships and lives develop in this brand-new timeline. We'd have to assume, for instance, that Spock/Uhura were stuck in a holding pattern for four years or so . . . .

So, yeah, it's a cheat, but it's one I have no trouble getting past. Artistic license and all that.

End of discussion if you ask me.

 

[Commishsleer]

"How did you get past NuKirk's rise to command?"

Pretty darn easily.

Though I appreciated that the beginning of ID calls out this very "issue", if one wants to think of it as such.

I love how the writers themselves said that ID called Kirk out on that and his immaturity and he earns the ship..
Well, no.
It went more like this:
He went against the rules and lied in a report so he loses the ship NO WAIT never mind! Pike makes him his first officer on the enterprise (thus making Spock, the one who did his duty in the report, lose HIS role and ship as he is the one transfered to another) NO WAIT never mind! Before he even does that, pike dies and Kirk gets the ship and captain chair back.

I'd love for the writers to be honest at least and admit he gotta be the captain because he's called Kirk, for the same reason the rest of the characters have those roles. I can't blame them for that.

Another example of Pike's favouritism towards Kirk.
It happens all the time in business that 'friends' children get into university, jobs etc.
Yes Spock has to leave his ship/girlfriend etc. So Pike can keep an eye on Kirk.

Not to say that I agree that Kirk should have lost his job in STID.

 

[RandyS]

Honestly, I shrug and move on.

Is it entirely believable? Probably not. But I can't blame the filmmakers for wanting to give us "Captain Kirk" by the end of the first movie.

Yeah, they could have inserted a time jump before the final scene, but there would be both pros and cons there, with the biggest drawback being that you have to assume that all the characters and their relationships somehow remained static for how many years it took for Kirk to rise through the ranks--which would defeat the point of watching this new version of the crew come together and seeing how their relationships and lives develop in this brand-new timeline. We'd have to assume, for instance, that Spock/Uhura were stuck in a holding pattern for four years or so . . . .

So, yeah, it's a cheat, but it's one I have no trouble getting past. Artistic license and all that.

Bingo. It's a movie. Realism is irrelevant.

 

[Christopher]

Bingo. It's a movie. Realism is irrelevant.

That's a meaningless statement. "Realism" is the term for a particular genre of fiction, the style of fiction that aspires to a realistic appearance and approach, so it's contradictory to claim that realism is irrelevant to any and every work of fiction. Some movies are realistic and others are not.

And Gene Roddenberry's primary goal behind Star Trek was to approach science fiction in a more realistic way than television had before. He wanted to offer a contrast to the campy fantasies of Irwin Allen and do SF as a naturalistic adult drama, something that had never before been done in a non-anthology format. So realism should be relevant to Star Trek. It's one of the foundational principles of the franchise. Roddenberry didn't always succeed in living up to that principle, and most of his successors have been less concerned with it. but that doesn't mean the concept of realism is irrelevant to a critical discussion of a Star Trek production. Anything that's part of the series' evolution and history is relevant to such a discussion. If a particular ST production is made without regard for realism, then we are absolutely entitled to think and talk about how that relates to earlier creators' treatment of realism in the franchise.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Starfleet is a fantastical, futuristic institution which uses teaching techniques unimaginable today to allow people to reach their full potential in just four years.

Plus good words from Pike and Old Spock. That's all I need.

 

[-Brett-]

This iteration of Star Trek isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's just a series of mindless action flicks. You don't have to like it, but there's no sense getting your blood pressure up waiting for it to become something it was never intended to be.

 

[F. King Daniel]

This iteration of Star Trek isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's just a series of mindless action flicks. You don't have to like it, but there's no sense getting your blood pressure up waiting for it to become something it was never intended to be.

Which are meant to be taken "seriously"? Or is it an episode-by-episode/film-by-film thing, where "Rascals" and the like are excluded?

EDIT: I genuinely am curious, since we've had Acting Ensign Wesley save the ship a dozen times (and nearly doom it once), former enemy spy Garak as part of the bridge crew of the flagship during space battles of cruicial importance, Kirk and crew steal the Enterprise, travel to a forbidden planet, engage Klingons, get the ship destroyed and get away with it... which are "serious" and which aren't? The tapestry of Trek is so ingrained with stuff that would never be allowed in any kind of real military that drawing a line between the good and bad bits is impossible, IMO.

 

[Christopher]

I'll never understand people who say "Don't worry about it, it's fiction." We're allowed to analyze fiction if we want. We're not wrong to do so. It's our free choice if we want to think and talk about a work of fiction rather than just being passive sponges. It doesn't mean we're unhealthily preoccupied or distressed, it doesn't mean we need to be rescued or lectured, it just means we want to exercise our minds, and that's what this forum is for. A discussion board is for people who want to have discussions. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[RAMA]

I agree with Christopher.. Dealing with kirk's quick promotion in STID made a good character arc for Kirk. Let's not forget this isn't the current military either, it only parallels it.

 

[BillJ]

And Gene Roddenberry's primary goal behind Star Trek was to approach science fiction in a more realistic way than television had before. He wanted to offer a contrast to the campy fantasies of Irwin Allen and do SF as a naturalistic adult drama, something that had never before been done in a non-anthology format. So realism should be relevant to Star Trek. It's one of the foundational principles of the franchise. Roddenberry didn't always succeed in living up to that principle, and most of his successors have been less concerned with it. but that doesn't mean the concept of realism is irrelevant to a critical discussion of a Star Trek production. Anything that's part of the series' evolution and history is relevant to such a discussion. If a particular ST production is made without regard for realism, then we are absolutely entitled to think and talk about how that relates to earlier creators' treatment of realism in the franchise.

Even Roddenberry realized you had to make trade-offs from time to time.

 

[xavier]

easy. he save the whole darm universe. he gets the captainance. also we all know Kirk is special. so that works as well for me.