Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers!)

[Darkwing]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

And again as well...Starfleet is much closer to the current US Navy than to those old systems.

This is true. The folks who created and wrote "Star Trek" drew pretty exclusively on their experience with the modern American military (not talking about the movies, which are much later addendums).

I disagree. I mean, clearly Gene in the original premise drew from his WWII service, but to say Trek models ANY real world military, past or present, especially a modern military, is just laughable.

Not at all. He based the idea of Starfleet's situation on Hornblower's navy, but modeled the actual service on the US Navy of the 60's, going so far as to consult research organisations for information, which is why Kirk was an admiral in TMP - the US Navy had discontinued commodore as a rank, the research company reported that detail, and the script was revised to make him an admiral, rather than a commodore.

Kirk and co. in TOS are shown to be on their own. That right there makes it nothing like our modern military.

Look at Where No Man, or Balance of Terror, where Kirk is dealing with potentially explosive, war-causing, universe-altering situations, on his own, with the nearest voice message weeks away.

A modern military commander would be on the radio to a senior officer or political leader in those situations.

That's the Hornblower influence. Roddenberry wanted to make Trek's universe like Hornblower's in those respects, but used the modern organisation as a way of making it more familiar to viewers.

And of course, Star Fleet as an organization seems to flat-out reward and encourage insubordination, if the fact that Kirk continues to be promoted is any indication.

The description of him in ST VI, as someone who violated the chain of command whenever it suited him, is one of the most accurate things about James T Kirk ever uttered.

creative license.

So to the extent that it models any military organization we've ever seen, I'd go with 19th century Horatio Hornblower/Master and Commander style naval fiction.

Roddenberry explicitly cites Hornblower in The Making of ST. No mention of O'Brian.

But in reality, it's a utopian future, where the way they run things would make any real military man want to tear his hair out.

Only because they don't have a military consultant, and they no longer follow the once-standard practice of vetting scripts through researchers, so the writers make up what they think sounds good, not caring that the viewers are smart enough to notice their stupidity.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Alternatively, we might not get "restored TOS." In which case, Pine had better not be captain by the end of the flick (hard to justify a time-leap of a number of years ahead AFTER the action is over, so he'd have to be made captain due to him being so kewl and neat... )

Why is this hard to justify? And how do you know there isn't sufficient screen time to establish that "last scene" (if that is indeed what it is)? While we some of what is going on, we don't know very much and what little we do know is likely out of sequence.

Well, think back to the one MAJOR complaint that "Return of the King" got from audiences... that the movie really "ought to have ended" shortly after the rescue from Mt. Doom, perhaps with the coronation of Aragorn... and that the movie really did seem to "drag on" from that point forward. As someone who's read, and loves, the books, I appreciated those scenes, but from a filmmaking standpoint, they really did seem a bit extraneous... I remember seeing it at the theater and having audience members get up at each "ending," only to sit back down to watch another 20 minutes of film or so. Anyone else notice this?

So... from a "best practices filmmaking" standpoint, I'd think that you wouldn't want to drag things out beyond the "final action" of the film... give us a resolution, but don't have the film continue for 20 minutes beyond its climax.

That's the point I was making. How do you justify, from the standpoint of a "stand alone movie" (aka, a movie intended to appeal to non-Trek fans, not just us hardcore geeks who post on TrekBBS), having the action resolve, then "jumping forward" to some point many years after the conclusion of the films actual PLOT, just to show Kirk with Captain's stripes?

No, that just wouldn't work, would it? So either (1) the timeline is "reset" (and we get Kirk, with his original history restored, in command, as he was "supposed to have been") or (2) Kirk gets promoted, permanently, from his "black shirt" punish-ee status to command of one of the twelve most powerful ships in the Federation pretty much immediately.

And, as I said, only the first option would be plausible from any standpoint... the second would be the sort of thing that grade-school kids fantasize about. "Hey, wanna read my Star Trek story? I save the Enterprise and they make me CAPTAIN! COOL!!!"

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

^
^^ That doesn't mean that the creative team behind 'Star Trek' can't create an interesting and worthwhile "Falling Action" (the part of a story between the Climax and the Dénouement) where Peter Jackson could not.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

^
^^ That doesn't mean that the creative team behind 'Star Trek' can't create an interesting and worthwhile "Falling Action" (the part of a story between the Climax and the Dénouement) where Peter Jackson could not.

But... can you imagine a "falling action" that wouldn't involve Kirk going almost immediately from "disgraced blackshirt" to "commander of the Enterprise?" I'd love to hear anyone's take on how to accomplish this in a way that won't turn off everyone but the most "hardcore" fans.

The ONLY way I can see it working is by the infamous "reset" button... where we see that everything is "back to how it's supposed to be" by Kirk being captain INSTEAD of how he was in the alternate timeline.

But instead of being negative, or saying "somebody can think of SOMETHING," let's hear other ideas for how it COULD be done... give positives, in other words!

 

[Ovation]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

^
^^ That doesn't mean that the creative team behind 'Star Trek' can't create an interesting and worthwhile "Falling Action" (the part of a story between the Climax and the Dénouement) where Peter Jackson could not.

Exactly.

Beyond that, it's not totally inconceivable that we see the "buckle up" scene (or its setting, if not that particular exchange) quite early in the film (it gives us "Captain Kirk and crew") and then the rest of the movie is how things led to it being possible for there to be a "Captain Kirk and crew", which we see again at the end as the final "resolution". Thus AN "origins" story (if not THE "origins" story some expected) is in place.

Note: I have no idea if that is how it will play out, nor is it how I would necessarily do it (even if I had the necessary skills and inclination to make a film) but it is possible and it does fit with Abrams' demonstrated pattern of flash-backs and flash-forwards.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

But... can you imagine a "falling action" that wouldn't involve Kirk going almost immediately from "disgraced blackshirt" to "commander of the Enterprise?" I'd love to hear anyone's take on how to accomplish this in a way that won't turn off everyone but the most "hardcore" fans.

Assuming for a moment that Kirk is ever a "disgraced blackshirt" in this film, I would thing that he shook that ignominious stigma by the end of the cliamx and would easily be seen as someone worthy of (someday?)becoming captain. But, as you said, the trick would be to make the transition on film from cadet to Captain three years (?) later an interesting part of the film -- but, again, this is assuming that Kirk is a lowly cadet in most of this film.

HOWEVER, I'm not convinced that Kirk IS only a cadet during the climax of this film. There has been no official confirmation that this will be true. Perhaps Kirk is a Lieutenant Commander during the climax, then is immediately promoted to full Captain during the falling action with very little time passing in between. This would fall in nicely with the natural progression of a typical film's dramatic structure.

Or, as Ovation pointed out above, it may be done with flashbacks and flash forwards.

 

[Ovation]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

I don't think Kirk will be a "cadet" for very long either. Some establishing scenes of him as a cadet after "the bar fight" to get him into Starfleet, the grad ceremony/assignments (in red)--then a flash-forward 3-5 years where Kirk is now a Lt. or Lt.-Com. Chekov could be an ensign in that scenario (thus preserving his "jr." status vis a vis Kirk) and simply be on the Enterprise before Kirk without being "older/as old" (clearly NOT the case anyway, just by virtue of the casting) or senior/equal in rank to Kirk.

It seems that so many are willing to assume that the least likely presentations will be the ones we're given in the film ("cadet to captain in six minutes", "Chekov outranks Kirk", and so on). Why assume the least likely to be true in this case when such a position, in general, is absurd?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

It seems that so many are willing to assume that the least likely presentations will be the ones we're given in the film ("cadet to captain in six minutes", "Chekov outranks Kirk", and so on). Why assume the least likely to be true in this case when such a position, in general, is absurd?

Absurd things have happened onscreen before.

 

[Ovation]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

It seems that so many are willing to assume that the least likely presentations will be the ones we're given in the film ("cadet to captain in six minutes", "Chekov outranks Kirk", and so on). Why assume the least likely to be true in this case when such a position, in general, is absurd?

Absurd things have happened onscreen before.

And the Carolina Hurricanes have won a Stanley Cup. What's your point? Do you spend your days expecting the least likely outcomes to occur? I don't look at my swimming pool in January at -17C and expect the water to be balmy. I don't look at the same pool in July at 30C and expect slabs of ice in it. (I can imagine scenarios where each of the above happens, but I do not consider them likely). There is NOTHING that has been released that makes it "likely" for "cadet to captain in six minutes" or anything equally unlikely to be the case in the film. NOTHING at all. To believe otherwise is to willfully assume the worst without evidence. If that is to be one's approach to the film, one may as well not see it and not hang around in here. Why waste the energy and time?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

That's the Hornblower influence. Roddenberry wanted to make Trek's universe like Hornblower's in those respects, but used the modern organisation as a way of making it more familiar to viewers.

creative license.

In fact, if you look at the first pilot, "The Cage," it seems that Roddenberry was using the old Royal Navy ranking system -- Captain and a variety of lieutenants. I've always theorized that when GR wrote that Pike refers to Number One as Lieutenant that it wasn't an error on his part. That maybe he was really sticking to the Hornblower model and that Number One was the First Lieutenant with Spock as the Second.

When the second pilot came about, perhaps that's when the more familiar modern system was adopted. A more structured rank system developed to reflect that in the series proper.

So to the extent that it models any military organization we've ever seen, I'd go with 19th century Horatio Hornblower/Master and Commander style naval fiction.

Roddenberry explicitly cites Hornblower in The Making of ST. No mention of O'Brian.

Certainly, the C.S. Forrester books had already been published but the Aubrey-Maturin series hadn't been published yet when TOS went into production. The first book Master and Commander didn't appear until 1970, by which time TOS was off the air.

Nick Meyer, who was more influenced by Horatio Hornblower than GR was, only mentions old Horey in interviews and not the O'Brian series.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Am I the only one who thinks there is WAY too much serious and heated debate going on over footage from a 90-second trailer and some interviews of questionable relevance to a movie that none of us has seen?

 

[Ovation]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Am I the only one who thinks there is WAY too much serious and heated debate going on over footage from a 90-second trailer and some interviews of questionable relevance to a movie that none of us has seen?

No, you're not.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Am I the only one who thinks there is WAY too much serious and heated debate going on over footage from a 90-second trailer and some interviews of questionable relevance to a movie that none of us has seen?

No, you're not.

Diddo.