The Writer's Guide can be a guide, but when onscreen references reinforce what's written there I'd say that tends to cement what the creator had in mind.
GR wanted Kirk to have some credible history and he gave it to him, in print and on the screen.
Kirk's First Command?
- Thread starter Albertese
- Start date
GR wanted Kirk to have some credible history and he gave it to him, in print and on the screen.
But on screen all we have are referrences to Kirk's precommand history. Things he did as an ensign and a lieutenant. Nothing as an CO or even an XO. So on screen all we know is Kirk was an exemplary junior officer. Kirk may have pulled a "Picard" and been thrust into the center chair by extraordinary circumstances.
But that sounds like what you're doing. The OP asked about opinions as to what Kirk's previous command was. The discussion logically steered toward speculation that Kirk didn't actually have a previous command before the Enterprise, because there's no cut-and-dried evidence in the show to conclusively prove it. Then you come in (between your silly Abrams ranting which has nothing to do with the topic despite your insistence that it does) and essentially go "That's what the writer's guide says!" and "That's what Gene says!" etc. ad nauseaum instead of allowing at least the possibility that there are multiple ways to interpret Dehner's line, in a show that had constantly been evolving over 40+ years from when that writer's guide was originally written. Perhaps you should uncover your own ears.
Considering TNG was just an update to his (Roddenberry's) Phase II material, I find this idea extremely likely.
TNG's writer's guide intended Riker to hate Data, yet that never made it into TNG (aside from the novel Ghost Ship, written prior to the series' premiere) and there's no reason the TOS version should be held any higher than that. The dialogue in "Where No Man..." is ambiguous, as others in this thread have shown.
It's far from "nah nah nah nah", it's just an alternate interpretation based on what we've seen.
No, he actually asked what the consensus was as to the ship's name, not if it existed or not. That speculation came later. And obviously some people are more acceptable toward other people's opinions, and some aren't.
The original poster asked for a name. Since there is no canon material on what a prior command may have been called, there cannot be a consensus.
Boy, you sure do get sore when people don't buy into your interpretation of the material.
He seems inexperienced with dealing with some unprofessional and insubordinate officers, yes. That could be attributed to the experience of someone who came to command from being a science officer, rather than, say, a navigator or engineer. It's arguable, I agree, but I don't see it as comparable in scale to the ST09 example.
The way I see it, speaking of TOS alone, the only way Kirk didn't command a ship before Enterprise would be if there were no ships to command. If one accepts that there were smaller Starfleet vessels commanded by LCDR/CDR-level officers (and of course, none were shown in TOS) someone has to command them. If Kirk was not among them, one has to posit that Starfleet selects captains of its prestigious "Starships" from among officers without previous vessel command experience. And also that the high-flying, fast-track Jim Kirk, a full captain while his classmates are still lieutenants, was passed over for smaller commands.
Last edited:
What is s in front of us,exactly? We have a writer's guide saying that Kirk might have commanded a destroyer ( a class of ship, to my recollection, never mentioned in TOS,) and the series which never mentions a prior command, just service as a junior officer.
Kirk probably went trough the usual path to command. Serving as a junior officer, second officer, XO and commander of smaller craft prior to getting command of the Enterprise. But there is nothing that shows this on screen. We do know that being in his early thirties, Kirk might be a little young to command a ship like the Enterprise. Other commanders of similar ships seem to have a decade on him and his classmates are lower in rank. So we can speculate that Kirk is atypical of starship commanders and was promoted at a rapid rate
To me, that would seem to weigh more in favor of Kirk having been given a smaller command at a similarly early point, than him being placed in the high-stakes Enterprise command without the benefit of that previous experience. And without Starfleet having had the opportunity to evaluate his performance as commanding officer at a lower level.
Did the guide say "destroyer," or was it words to the effect of "the equivalent of a destroyer?"
IIRC, TMoST said "equivalent."
I don't disagree, yet I'm not aware of any changes of the premise regarding Kirk's first command.
"Kirk rose very rapidly through the ranks and received his first command (the equivalent of a destroyer-class spaceship) while still quite young." (MoST)
Since there is no on-screen canon that disagrees and since this apparently comes straight from Gene Roddenberry (or other TOS creators) or has at least been sanctioned by him (his name is on the book cover) I couldn't possibly think of any good reason for double-guessing.
What that ship might have looked like I have no idea (but I'd prefer a vessel with a pair of warp nacelles). I still think Rick Sternbach's Baton Rouge Class depicted as the Starship Republic in the Comics was rather popular and should be considered quasi-canon because it came first.
Bob
Says the guy who is arguing in another thread about what the Enterprise-C really looked like!
I'm not saying there is, just that a "writer's guide" isn't as authoritative as what's on screen.
Gene contributions to the book are clearly noted, IIRC. I'd have to check to be sure if that was him. Though I'm pretty sure that GR would have envisioned a typical rank and position advancement for Kirk, though a rapid one so I've no problem with what TMoST say. It's neither supported nor contradicted by what's on screen, though.
Says the guy who is arguing in another thread about what the Enterprise-C really looked like!
I have no intention to derail this thread, so I'll try to make this short:
I have no problem whatsoever with a changed premise within the same series, and most definitely not if screenplay writer and director of the original premise decide together to change it.
Both Moore and Carson still stated in 2002 and 2008 that they had given Tasha Yar a meaningful death in "Yesterday's Enterprise" (YE), yet they had also given her a meaningless death in "Redemption II", so they obviously relocated YE into a "parallel time line" (Carson) or universe to solve their own contradiction. The moment that happened, the Enterprise-C from YE no longer returned to our universe but the past of another one - and the real look of the one in our universe became conjectural, but the conference lounge wall contained the clue.
Bob
Says the guy who is arguing in another thread about what the Enterprise-C really looked like!
Actually, I found Robert to be quite consistent on this issue.
Probert's Enterprise-C came first and should be considered (quasi) canon. Likewise, the Baton-Rouge Class Republic came first and should be considered quasi-canon.
Says the guy who is arguing in another thread about what the Enterprise-C really looked like!
Actually, I found Robert to be quite consistent on this issue.
Probert's Enterprise-C came first and should be considered (quasi) canon. Likewise, the Baton-Rouge Class Republic came first and should be considered quasi-canon.
There's no such thing as "quasi-canon." It's either canon or it isn't. For your example, there is zero evidence at all that the Republic was a Baton-Rouge class vessel other than in a non-canon book written by someone who wasn't even involved in the show at the time (there isn't even a canon class called the Baton-Rouge). We simply do not know what class it is. The ST: Encyclopedia's entry for it being a Constitution class is likewise just conjectural, and that book was written by someone involved in the show. Now if you want to personally think that it is a Baton-Rouge, that's fine. But remember that that's just your personal opinion and will not be treated as fact by anyone other than yourself.
+1
Making Kirk a "conventional" officer would seem to be counterproductive, as it throws 1960s verisimilitude right down the drain - barely-thirty-somethings don't command the cream of the cream of the cream in any real navy if they ascend a "conventional" career ladder.
Many of Kirk's colleagues of theoretically indeterminate age were nevertheless given at least some grey in the 'do. While the "youngest skipper in Starfleet" thing is a myth, Kirk did appear to be younger than anybody else in a command position; the writers just shied away from ever making this explicit, or deriving dramatic potential from it. We never learned exactly why Kirk should have climbed the rank ladder faster than others, either. The Abrams timeline gives us a Starfleet in chaos as an excuse, but TOS never establishes anything comparable. At most there are hints of military conflict in the recent past, but that should lead to multiple skyrocketing careers rather than just Kirk's.
Timo Saloniemi
Many of Kirk's colleagues of theoretically indeterminate age were nevertheless given at least some grey in the 'do. While the "youngest skipper in Starfleet" thing is a myth, Kirk did appear to be younger than anybody else in a command position; the writers just shied away from ever making this explicit, or deriving dramatic potential from it. We never learned exactly why Kirk should have climbed the rank ladder faster than others, either. The Abrams timeline gives us a Starfleet in chaos as an excuse, but TOS never establishes anything comparable. At most there are hints of military conflict in the recent past, but that should lead to multiple skyrocketing careers rather than just Kirk's.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
