Is it really that super unrealistic Kirks rank jump...

[Amaris]

I'm fine with it, though a simple "two years later" as he stepped onto the bridge would have solved the whole issue, I think. Either way, we got the end result that we wanted (well... what I wanted), Kirk commanding the Enterprise. Now we get to see where it goes from there.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm fine with it, though a simple "two years later" as he stepped onto the bridge would have solved the whole issue, I think.

Indeed.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I didn't get the sense he was promoted the day after rescuing Pike, but it seems like small beer to me given the resolution of Star Trek IV and many many other incidents in Trek over the years.

Seriously, this didn't even register for me: Kirk is the captain of the Enterprise and that's good enough.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I didn't get the sense he was promoted the day after rescuing Pike, but it seems like small beer to me given the resolution of Star Trek IV and many many other incidents in Trek over the years.

Seriously, this didn't even register for me: Kirk is the captain of the Enterprise and that's good enough.

Agreed.

Also, I always figured that a lot of Starfleet people died during that Vulcan thing, leaving them in dire need of officers.

 

[Sean Aaron]

From the beginning I got the impression Starfleet and the Federation were still pretty new and in need of quality officers. It's Star Trek, you really need to suspend disbelief to watch more than five minutes of it given the fact it's built upon a primary colours TV show from the 1960s.

 

[Pauln6]

I agree that we need to suspend disbelief and view the episodes and movies in the context of the time that they were written. However, the degree to which we have to suspend disbelief does say a lot about the franchise and whether it has stepped down from intelligent adult sci fi to children's entertainment. It's not 'super' unrealistic for Kirk to be promoted or even fast-tracked for command. In a year, he might be in command of a small ship. It is very unrealistic to place an arrogant 25-year old with only one mission under his belt in command of one of the most powerful ships in the fleet staffed by the best officers, most of whom will have more command experience than him.

What does NuTrek's change of direction and dumbing down say about the current status of society and the viewers? I'm not sure that it says that much. It speaks to the more prevalent modern desire for instant gratification partly blamed for the riots we just had here in the UK. Why should Kirk have to work to qualify for his captaincy when, largely by luck, he has saved the day? They dumbed it down, introduced pretty, young actors and actresses, and increased the level of action in order to widen the net and attract non-Trek and non-sci-fi fans. And it worked - the movie was very popular.

If anything, it says more about the corporate desire for instant gratification in the form of a quick buck. Non-Trek fans wont have that much loyalty to the franchise once the novelty wears off and neither will young actors whose careers are peaking. That's why I think that this will be a trilogy before they move on and reboot something else. It does mean that there is at least an investment in telling a half-decent story in the meantime to try and keep the ball bouncing. They are going to try and milk it as much as they can by whatever means necessary!

 

[G2309]

Not realistic but I'll live with it. I like the comparison to Napoleon

 

[Sean Aaron]

That's why I think that this will be a trilogy before they move on and reboot something else. It does mean that there is at least an investment in telling a half-decent story in the meantime to try and keep the ball bouncing. They are going to try and milk it as much as they can by whatever means necessary!

I absolutely agree with you there, I don't see this current iteration lasting beyond a couple of films and if a TV show spin-off did result I think we'd see a marked change in tone.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yes, it's terribly unrealistic. That said, it's of a piece with Trek's history and previous treatment of military rank, protocol and jurisprudence, which is to say implausibly flexible to the demands of plot.

 

[G2309]

Maybe it would have worked in older times where people of noble births could buy there way into high positions but I don't htink it works that way in Star Trek.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Dont people in special forces get trained to take over if their officer is killed?

Everyone in the military is trained to take over if their officer is killed. That's sort of the whole point of a chain of command.

 

[BillJ]

I think it bothers me because in Star Trek, command seems to have three components: tactics, diplomacy and administration.

Kirk has the tactics (though even that's debatable) yet lacks any type of experience in the other two components. This iteration of Kirk would've made more sense of he'd simply been an officer banished from the fleet for some reason. Then at 25, he would've been to the academy and had 2, 3, 4 years of experience under his belt.

 

[Yevetha]

Patton handeld his paperwork somehow even if never looked like the type.

As far as diplomacy he has to grow into it or better outsource it to Spock.

 

[Pauln6]

I think it bothers me because in Star Trek, command seems to have three components: tactics, diplomacy and administration.

Kirk has the tactics (though even that's debatable) yet lacks any type of experience in the other two components.

Yes this is an issue for me too. He hasn't demonstrated any aptitude for these discliplines simply because he hasn't had the chance. This is why most captains are promoted from experienced department heads.

Of course a good leader knows when to delegate and a dislike of paperwork might help build a comical relationship with a Rand character but even so, diplomacy is needed far more often than battle tactics and young Spock isn't that great at it either if we're honest.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I don't think we've seen any captain outside of Robau (and that's stretching it a bit since he had no choice, but to "negotiate") using diplomacy in the first film.

I guess my question for the folk who think Kirk getting the rank stripes and the chair at the end was "super unrealistic" is: did this ruin the film for you or is it a minor quibble?

 

[BillJ]

Of course a good leader knows when to delegate and a dislike of paperwork...

Reminds me of the last page of DC's first run issue #29.

 

[BillJ]

I guess my question for the folk who think Kirk getting the rank stripes and the chair at the end was "super unrealistic" is: did this ruin the film for you or is it a minor quibble?

To a degree, yes.

Because we didn't see Kirk learn anything along the way other than to buck the system when it doesn't agree with you. Which makes this Kirk a reflection of the pop-culture caricature instead of the character I've watched on screen for 35 years.

 

[Sean Aaron]

To be fair he's not the same Kirk. I don't think it's true that he didn't learn anything; clearly he learned to be a good leader.

It will be interesting to see if the character is developed further in the next film.

 

[Trekkie2]

I'm sure in the next movie, we'll get an explanation of why Kirk was given command of the Enterprise, and this didn't occur right after the destruction of the Narada, because the ship suffered major damage and warp engines don't grow on trees. So, several months later, the Enterprise, under Kirk's command, starts it's first mission.

There are factors that might have contributed to Kirk getting command of the Enterprise. First off, Pike promoted Kirk to First Officer, and Spock to Captain, in his absence. The crew were mostly cadets. What else was he supposed to do? After the destruction of Vulcan, Spock's first move was to reunite with the rest of the fleet to come up with a plan. If the Enterprise had done that, most assuredly Earth would have met the same fate that Vulcan met. Consequently, Kirk's decision to go after Nero was timely and effective. After saving Pike and securing the Jellyfish, Kirk and Spock were able to defeat Nero.

Now, we have to think back to events that took place in the movie. When Nero escaped from the Klingon prison planet, he easily destroyed most (47 ships) of the Klingon Armada. They could do nothing to stop him. If you know anythings about Klingons, this would be quite a humiliating event for them. Up next, Nero goes against the Federation and he's only able to destroy seven ships. And one ship, led by a human crew was able to take Nero out. It's still humiliating for the Klingons, but it's also something they would revere. Hammering out some type of alliance between the Klingon Empire and the Federation is a much easier undertaking with the heroes who defeated Nero. Not to say that all the Klingons are going to be nice, because if the Duras were not eliminated when the armada was destroyed, there are still going to be some quite nasty Klingons around.

 

[BillJ]

To be fair he's not the same Kirk. I don't think it's true that he didn't learn anything; clearly he learned to be a good leader.

What did he actually learn? People keep saying he's learned to be a good leader, but the only thing he did was use Spock's weakness against him... but not through any brilliant deduction of his own.

He doesn't even have the ability to gain command except for Pike's inexplicable action making a cadet 'second-in-command'.

Nothing about the plan was his, except to go in guns blazing. Without Spock Prime, Kirk has nothing.

Once again, the only thing he truly learned was to buck the system if it doesn't agree with you. And it'll be tiresome if they trot that element out again in the sequel.