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

[drt]

Similar to the "corporate organization" comment above, I tend to view Starfleet less as a strictly by-the-book military organization, but more of a NASA/NOAA/Navy hybrid. It's principally a research organization with aspects of a military (that are only rarely called upon except in a crisis*). Since we really aren't shown much of Kirk's career at the academy, it could be that he's one of the best candiates they've seen in years when it comes to commanding a research ship, and his ability to function in a crisis was proven by the Nero incident.

* = it's probably argueable, based on Marcus requiring Khan's "savagery" in STID that he at least believes that Starfleet has gone soft. Compound that with Carol's comments in TWOK that Starfleet has kept the peace for one hundred years, which seems to imply the last hot war was against the Romulans, so I can see the "military" side of thing eroding even further in Starfleet over that time.

 

[Lowdarzz]

Bad writers writing badly was all I even chalked it up to.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

@drt: There have been dozens - hundreds, even - examples of Starfleet being the military. (Except in Enterprise, but that's a different organization. The Earth Starfleet in ENT is not the Federation Starfleet.) What it is not, OTOH, is militaristic. I think it's important to make that distinction.

 

[Timo]

I'm not sure about Starfleet being a military, but it certainly is highly militaristic. Don a uniform and you get an open mandate to kick colonists in the head, drive them from their homes and make them thank you for it. Pin some brass on your collar and you can declare wars (and then wait for this Council thing to rubber-stamp them for you) and forge alliances with or against pretty much anybody you want to. Carry a field issue phaser and you become the sole form of law enforcement out in the frontier - or on the streets of San Francisco. And don't worry about public opinion or politics: everybody is used to crazy admirals taking over the whole show every half a century already anyway.

Starship Troopers never reached such heights of militarism, and it went well past parody in attempting to do so.

Carol's comments in TWOK that Starfleet has kept the peace for one hundred years

When the Roman legions did that, it meant incessant warfare - but at or outside the borders, against external threats.

If Starfleet has managed to keep humans from fighting humans for a full century, that's already a miracle later history writing will view with cautious disbelief. Major wars with aliens during that period were probably commonplace; indeed, the century-long peace among humans may have been largely thanks to the constant fighting...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[drt]

@drt: There have been dozens - hundreds, even - examples of Starfleet being the military. (Except in Enterprise, but that's a different organization. The Earth Starfleet in ENT is not the Federation Starfleet.) What it is not, OTOH, is militaristic. I think it's important to make that distinction.

What I'm saying is it's a 23rd century "military" that seems to be a hybrid of several 21st century civilian/military organizations, so it may not need to as strictly adhere to current military practice.

Similar to the sort of incredulity one would have encountered in centuries past if you told them that officers in the future could be women or commoners and not noblemen.

 

[Belz...]

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

Easy. I just accepted it. Doesn't bother me at all.

 

[Ovation]

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

Easy. I just accepted it. Doesn't bother me at all.

+1

 

[siskokid888]

This is one of the hardest things for me to get past, and I say that as someone who likes a lot about the Abrams movies. I think it would've been very easy for them to insert a gap of about 4 years between the Academy sequence and the attack on Vulcan, giving Kirk time to gain experience and rise to lieutenant commander rank so that he'd be a plausible second-officer candidate (as well as restoring Chekov to the correct age). There was really no good reason for them not to do that, aside from their desire to keep up a fast pace.

Although I do give them credit for building the second movie's plot around a tacit admission that they'd made a mistake promoting Kirk so fast in the first movie, that he hadn't really earned that authority and needed to learn humility in order to really deserve it.

I rationalize Kirk's insta-promotion in two ways: One, that Spock Prime put in a good word for him and maybe pushed Pike and Starfleet to give him the Enterprise, and two, that Starfleet saw Kirk as just "keeping the center seat warm," serving as the temporary steward of Pike's ship while Pike recovered from his injuries. Which is consistent with the way he was so swiftly removed from command after his actions on Nibiru. It was never really more than a probationary posting.

For what it's worth, though, Picard got his first command in almost exactly the same way: He took over the Stargazer when its captain and first officer were killed. But at the time, Picard was a lieutenant commander six years out of the Academy, so it's not quite the same.

A good analysis. I had less trouble than most with nuKirk's rise to command, although I will admit his rapid rise does strain credulity a bit. We know the real reason is to get Pine/Kirk in command of the E as soon as possible. I rationalized it this way:

- Pike says Kirk's test scores are "off the charts". He's a prodigy.

-nuKirk enters the academy at a later age than origKirk. So when he graduates he is older - maybe 25-28 years old.

- His rank when he graduates the academy is unclear - remember, Saavik was a Lieutenant and still in the academy. How she achieved that rank is unknown. Maybe Kirk engaged in some heroics in the academy that got him promoted to Lieutenant. Maybe he graduated as a Lieutenant or even Lieutenant Commander.

- His rank when he is relieved from command is also unclear. When Spock calls him "Captain", Kirk says "no, its commander". So maybe he still was a commander, or even a lieutenant commander, at that time.

- Pike's opinion obviously carries alot of weight in Starfleet. When they asked him who he wanted to take command of the E, he said Kirk, and that was enough for Starfleet PTB to put him in command. He told Kirk "I see greatness in you", and he must have told Starfleet command that as well, and he has enough respect to be taken at his word.

-Let's not forget - nuKirk took command of the E in a severe crisis situation. He attcked the threat when everyone else retreated, neutralized it, AND SAVED THE FEDERATION AND EARTH. Kinda hard to send him back to mopping floors after that.

These are the rationalizations we fans make throughout the "Trek Universe" to bring the stories in line with "reality" and with each other. I never saw them as a big deal, personally. In fact, I think they are part of the fun of being a Trek fan.

 

[Christopher]

-nuKirk enters the academy at a later age than origKirk. So when he graduates he is older - maybe 25-28 years old.

It's explicitly 25 years after his birth, according to dialogue in the film.

- His rank when he graduates the academy is unclear - remember, Saavik was a Lieutenant and still in the academy. How she achieved that rank is unknown. Maybe Kirk engaged in some heroics in the academy that got him promoted to Lieutenant. Maybe he graduated as a Lieutenant or even Lieutenant Commander.

According to the script and the novelization, he's a lieutenant. I don't think "heroics" are necessary; there's evidence (e.g. Saavik) that cadets can earn officer's rank through their achievements.

 

[Timo]

There's also evidence (say, from this very movie) that education at Starfleet Academy is not of any set length, even if four years from entry to graduation is something of a norm. It can easily be assumed that Kirk would have graduated in less than the three years separating his entry and his Kobayashi Maru tests, and earned his rank in some fairly conventional way thereafter. Pike ushered him in, and wanted him to usher in a new era of excellence in Starfleet; it would make sense for Pike to also provide him with opportunities to put his skills to practice and earn promotions, thus inspiring cadets and their trainers and high-ranking deciders alike.

We know nothing about Saavik's date of entry to the Academy. OTOH, Saavik is never referred to as "Cadet", only as "Lieutenant", while Kirk gets "Cadet" exclusively despite e.g. Uhura getting the Saavik treatment. This somewhat blurs the definition of "Cadet" in Starfleet.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Belz...]

Didn't they make Kirk an Admiral in the Prime Universe for publicity?

And there you go. Short, elegant and realistic way around the problem in the new universe.

I'll never understand people who say "Don't worry about it, it's fiction."

Simply because it is fiction: it's inconsequential, so as long as you can enjoy the show, nitpicking will do nothing but hamper that enjoyment. Personally, the speed at which Kirk becomes captain is a very, very trivial issue.

Kirk is as good a command officer as Troi. Yikes.

A thing that does bug me slightly about the 2009 movie, despite the changes to the character due to timeline mess-ups, is the assumption of a lot of people more familiar with 90s Trek that Kirk was somehow a hothead. Really ? A charmer, maybe, but watch TOS. Kirk is nothing but a level-headed, capable commander. Maybe not quite the diplomat as Picard, but still.

 

[austen_pierce]

... realize that in ST09 it was a ploy to get the players on the board. In STID we see real consequences of the too-fast rise to command in Kirk getting played by Marcus.

Not perfect, but good enough to enjoy.

 

[Christopher]

I'll never understand people who say "Don't worry about it, it's fiction."

Simply because it is fiction: it's inconsequential, so as long as you can enjoy the show, nitpicking will do nothing but hamper that enjoyment.

And that is completely untrue, as I tried to explain. Asking questions about a work of fiction is not "nitpicking" and it's not pointless worrying. It's engaging with the work, letting it stimulate one's curiosity. That's how many of us enjoy a work of fiction. The idea that analysis is in conflict with enjoyment is absolutely wrong. Asking questions about a work of fiction is enjoyable, because it's fun to use our imagination to concoct possible answers. And the works we ask questions about, the ones we criticize and examine, are the ones we find enjoyable and satisfying enough to be worth the effort.

So you have it completely backwards. You don't need to rescue us from our own curiosity. We're not hurting our enjoyment by exercising our brains. We just enjoy fiction in our own way, and it works for us.

Good grief, if you find it so pointless to analyze fiction, what the heck are you even doing on a forum whose very purpose is to discuss and analyze fiction in exhaustive detail? Isn't that rather contradictory?

A thing that does bug me slightly about the 2009 movie, despite the changes to the character due to timeline mess-ups, is the assumption of a lot of people more familiar with 90s Trek that Kirk was somehow a hothead. Really ? A charmer, maybe, but watch TOS. Kirk is nothing but a level-headed, capable commander. Maybe not quite the diplomat as Picard, but still.

Actually I did always find Kirk rather impulsive even in TOS. After all, as a '60s action hero, he was obligated to get into gratuitous fights on a regular basis. And he did have a tendency to default to aggressive options first, often needing Spock's advice to convince him to take a more measured approach -- see "Arena" and "The Devil in the Dark" in particular. (Into Darkness recaptured this dynamic very well, in fact: Kirk initially wanted to attack and destroy Khan, but eventually heeded Spock's counsel and tried to bring him in alive instead.) Pop culture has certainly exaggerated that side of Kirk, particularly with the movies establishing him as something of a rogue captain, but it's not entirely without basis in TOS.

 

[fireproof78]

I'll never understand people who say "Don't worry about it, it's fiction."

Simply because it is fiction: it's inconsequential, so as long as you can enjoy the show, nitpicking will do nothing but hamper that enjoyment.

And that is completely untrue, as I tried to explain. Asking questions about a work of fiction is not "nitpicking" and it's not pointless worrying. It's engaging with the work, letting it stimulate one's curiosity. That's how many of us enjoy a work of fiction. The idea that analysis is in conflict with enjoyment is absolutely wrong. Asking questions about a work of fiction is enjoyable, because it's fun to use our imagination to concoct possible answers. And the works we ask questions about, the ones we criticize and examine, are the ones we find enjoyable and satisfying enough to be worth the effort.

So you have it completely backwards. You don't need to rescue us from our own curiosity. We're not hurting our enjoyment by exercising our brains. We just enjoy fiction in our own way, and it works for us.

Good grief, if you find it so pointless to analyze fiction, what the heck are you even doing on a forum whose very purpose is to discuss and analyze fiction in exhaustive detail? Isn't that rather contradictory?

A thing that does bug me slightly about the 2009 movie, despite the changes to the character due to timeline mess-ups, is the assumption of a lot of people more familiar with 90s Trek that Kirk was somehow a hothead. Really ? A charmer, maybe, but watch TOS. Kirk is nothing but a level-headed, capable commander. Maybe not quite the diplomat as Picard, but still.

Actually I did always find Kirk rather impulsive even in TOS. After all, as a '60s action hero, he was obligated to get into gratuitous fights on a regular basis. And he did have a tendency to default to aggressive options first, often needing Spock's advice to convince him to take a more measured approach -- see "Arena" and "The Devil in the Dark" in particular. (Into Darkness recaptured this dynamic very well, in fact: Kirk initially wanted to attack and destroy Khan, but eventually heeded Spock's counsel and tried to bring him in alive instead.) Pop culture has certainly exaggerated that side of Kirk, particularly with the movies establishing him as something of a rogue captain, but it's not entirely without basis in TOS.

I like what you are saying here, and it often amuses me when people say that Abrams Trek is mindless action, when I engage it in thoughtful consideration rather regularly, and find that enjoyable. Kirk's rise to command was, to me, a continuation of the idea that TOS was founded on, and was carry through very well as part of the character's development in the next film.

I heard one review say that Trek 09 was TOS just hypercharged, and I think that carries through. Kirk was an action hero, just in a 60's sense. He didn't always swing first, but if the situation called for it, well Kirk would jump in and try to save whomever was in danger-Friday's Child springs immediately to mind, for me, when Kirk leaps to Eleen's rescue, before she is taken away. I love Kirk's willingness to defend people, no matter the odds.

 

[Belz...]

And that is completely untrue, as I tried to explain. Asking questions about a work of fiction is not "nitpicking" and it's not pointless worrying.

Well, given that it's not going to change anything and that it's mostly details, yet it's nitpicking and pointless. It can still be fun.

The idea that analysis is in conflict with enjoyment is absolutely wrong.

No it's not. Think about it. How many works of fiction did you lose appreciation for because by thinking about it you discovered flaws in ? I can think of quite a few for me.

So you have it completely backwards. You don't need to rescue us from our own curiosity.

Rescue ? No one said anything about that.

Good grief

Perhaps you should look at this more dispassionately.

if you find it so pointless to analyze fiction, what the heck are you even doing on a forum whose very purpose is to discuss and analyze fiction in exhaustive detail? Isn't that rather contradictory?

Nope.

 

[Pauln6]

Beaming a single crewman onto the enemy ship. Terrible idea. Beaming two crewmen onto the enemy ship. Less terrible but still terrible.

If Kirk and Spock hadn't beamed aboard the enemy ship then there wouldn't have been anyone around to give out bravery awards or captaincies. Everyone on Earth would have been dead.

But I agree Kirk's captaincy has a lot to do with nepotism and luck:

Everything he did after getting on Nero's ship though has to do with Kirk's skills as a Starfleet Officer and future Captain.

What I mean was that, for no good reason, Kirk was intending to beam to the ship on its own. They will have a brief window when Nero's ship lowers its shields before it starts its drill. They should have beamed over as many people as they could with as much hardware as they could to as many key locations as they could (albeit it looked like they had no clue as to the internal lay-out).

The, 'but two people are more sneaky' argument is total bull. The Enterprise's sensors pick up incoming transport signals - we even saw that in a previous scene. They have absolutely no reason to suppose that a ship from the future is going to have inferior sensors. Further, Spocks, 'I think I can probably read Romulan,' is no substitute for the woman who CAN ACTUALLY READ ROMULAN. The fate of the planet was at stake and only beaming two people reduced their chance of success. It was a hammy decision to give the leads some action but I was never a fan of that trope in the sixties and it works even less well now. As it stands, luck played a part here too. It was very lucky that Pike was conscious and capable of firing a gun, although Spock would still have saved the day.

 

[Nebusj]

The idea that analysis is in conflict with enjoyment is absolutely wrong.

No it's not. Think about it. How many works of fiction did you lose appreciation for because by thinking about it you discovered flaws in ? I can think of quite a few for me.

I have lost appreciation for works of art when I analyzed them and found shoddy construction behind them.

I've also gained new appreciation for works when I realized they were more soundly built than I realized. Sometimes something I thought mediocre I came to view more warmly because I realized there was more to the construction than I would have appreciated if I hadn't thought about it more.

Criticism is a set of sharp tools. Lousy work crumbles when touched by them. Good work --- including the bits of good work buried in junk --- resists this crumbling, and stands the stronger when you can see the crumbling done.

 

[Christopher]

Criticism is a set of sharp tools. Lousy work crumbles when touched by them. Good work --- including the bits of good work buried in junk --- resists this crumbling, and stands the stronger when you can see the crumbling done.

Indeed. The idea that it's somehow intrinsically wrong to respond to art with criticism is ridiculous. Criticism is the audience's side of the dialogue with the artist. There's no value in just talking at an audience that never talks back.

 

[Cyke101]

I liked the first movie quite a bit, but his insta-rise to captaincy was the only *real* thing that bothered me altogether -- even having him be commended for stopping Nero and then flashing forward for some time to become captain would've been fine by me.

I realize there are certain politics in play (what's a Trek origin story without Kirk becoming captain?), but in hindsight, I would've loved it if the movie ended with Kirk becoming XO or behind Spock, keeping Greenwood/Pike as captain. But Trek was a risky proposition back then, and planning for a sequel is thinking too far ahead. I quite liked it in XII when Kirk was knocked down to XO, and I was hoping that I'd get my wish of seeing Pike back in the big chair once again. Alas...

 

[Timo]

I guess the biggest problem with accepting Kirk's rise in rank as "politics" is that by the time of the third movie, he should be both Grand Admiral and President of the UFP...

Timo Saloniemi