• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

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

AFAIK, he hasn't graduated yet. And even so, who have we ever seen graduate as a Lieutenant?
I was offered to graduate as a Lieutenant if I went into the real U.S. Navy, and that was mainly for testing well on the ASVAB. So I'm thinking it isn't that far-fetched.
Entertainment Weekly Magazine wrote:
"Black is apparently the color of space cadets in Abrams' universe"
Some here seem to be hanging an awful lot off of this, but Entertainment Weekly isn't a fanzine, it's meant for general consumption. For all we know, they meant "space cadet" as in "get yet head out of the clouds, space cadet", and not as in any sort of actual rank. Seems a lot more likely to me, in fact, since Starfleet cadets are "cadets", and not "space cadets".

Could it be that the black outfit is some sort of more temperature regulated uniform for hostile environments, like the cold area he is shown in in one scene in the trailer?

Yes -- Like I said, there has been no official word from anyone associated with the film that Kirk is in black because he is a "cadet" (I mean underclassman cadet). Kurtzman only said "there is a reason" he is in black, but he didn't give the reason...and EW magazine doesn't count as "official", nor was their comment straightforward enough to be meaningful.

As others have said, Kirk could be in black for many reasons -- Command School, Academy Instructor, its an undershirt (although Kurtzman would be a bit misleading if he meant 'undershirt' was a "reason")
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

I'm fully aware that to properly judge things that we all must see the movie first and give it a chance. However, I was thinking that the 'new' Enterprise and stuff we've seen looks quite advanced to be honest and hi-tech. What I mean by that is that if the time line has been changed then surely it's been changed for the worst.

The attack on the Kelvin could severely injure or kill a member of the crew who had influence in future Enterprise and thus the design/technology used is different. So what if the Enterprise we've seen in the promos that of the proper time line, but Nero goes back and attacks the Kelvin...which then results in the changing of the future and the Enterprise and style of Enterprise (which due to the attack is now a inferior less advanced version of JJ's) we see in TOS and beyond.

Obviously, from what we know the Kelvin doesn't last long in the film so my above theory has a bit of a problem given that we have around 2 hours left and thus that would have to happen somehow at the end of the film. Unless the film is created in a way to Lost with flashbacks/flashforwards or even reversed in a sense.

I just think that going back in time and damaging anything in that period would surely lead to inferior technology not superior like we see with the 'new' Enterprise and very techy Enterprise bridge.
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

If he really is a "cadet" who takes command... they'll be slapping the audience in the face by doing so... especially those of us who've served.
Did you serve in Starfleet?
I'm not going to discount the possibility that Kirk really will be an underclassman cadet who takes command of the Enterprise...

...but if he does, I hope the writers/director give me a damn good and believable reason for his doing so. I personally can't think of a good enough reason (but then again I'm not a screenwriter)

I'm fully aware that to properly judge things that we all must see the movie first and give it a chance. However, I was thinking that the 'new' Enterprise and stuff we've seen looks quite advanced to be honest and hi-tech. What I mean by that is that if the time line has been changed then surely it's been changed for the worst.

The attack on the Kelvin could severely injure or kill a member of the crew who had influence in future Enterprise and thus the design/technology used is different...
This could be. However, I don't need (nor want) an in-universe explanation as to why the Enterprise looks different. It's enough for me that this is a film made in 2008, thus the set design and art direction would of course be different than a TV show made in 1966.

I think an in-film explanation is unnecessary and may bog the film down.
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Some have expressed concerns about the new timeline making impossible some of the experiences Kirk was said to have had when younger (and episodes that grew out of them), but I wonder how many have really been wrecked.

Some seem to be taking Kirk on Pike's Enterprise as a cadet with no real status at all with Starfleet, but something seems to be pointing in a different direction. What's that?

The fact he can apparently relieve Spock of command and take over the ship.

Would a cadet be able to do that with Uhura, Sulu, and the others present?

I suspect that Kirk is NOT a cadet at that point in the movie, and that at least some of what we know did already happen to him. (For example, him losing his captain on an earlier ship to the vampire cloud.)

Does anyone else get what I'm saying? Care to comment?
Broken record time again... I hate the fact that I keep having to repeat this point. But with so few people today having actually served, I guess few people understand this sort of thing.

Military careers aren't like civilian ones. You don't "go to college, graduate, and go get a job." Education is a continuing process, and each time you are being prepared to hold a higher level of responsibility, you're required to return for further training and education before you're permitted to do so.

In the US Army, today:

A cadet must graduate from the Academy (or, today, alternatively from ROTC) before becoming a junior officer.

A junior officer must graduate from Officer Basic (not the same thing as basic training, which is also required but while still a cadet) before being permitted to actually serve.

A serving junior officer must graduate from Officer Advanced before being promoted to a lower-level command (ie, a company commander role) and being promoted to a mid-level rank (ie, Captain).

A serving mid-level officer must attend another training program before being eligible to serve in a mid-level command (ie, Batallion command) and to be promoted to a senior-level rank (ie, Lieutenant Colonel... the equivalent in naval terms of Commander, by the way).

A serving senior-level officer must attend another training program before being eligible to be promoted to a the ranks of the Generals, and to hold the senior level roles reserved for those personnel.

The point? WHY, OH WHY does everyone keep assuming that Kirk would have taken the Kobayashi Maru test as a "cadet?" Saavik wasn't a "cadet" in ST-II... she was Lieutenant. She was in command of a crew of cadets, but she, herself, was a commissioned officer. Naval Lieutenants are the same as Army Captains... meaning she had at least four and as many as ten years of active duty service under her belt already.

Same as would be the case with Kirk at the same point in his career.

The only way that this works is if they show Kirk arriving at SFA, then cut forward a number of years (eight, minimum!) to when he's back at the academy for his "Officer Advanced" course.

If they don't do it that way (and I'm giving it a 50/50 chance), then they'll be "off," badly. If he really is a "cadet" who takes command... they'll be slapping the audience in the face by doing so... especially those of us who've served.
I suspect it will be less than eight (time compression is often employed in historical feature films that deal with real subjects--sci fi has less of an investment in "realism") but I sincerely and seriously doubt it will be "cadet to captain". IF it is (and I consider it unlikely), then my estimation of the filmmakers will be severely diminished. I'm not especially worried, though.
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Somehow, I don't think he's still a cadet by the time McCoy gets him on the Enterprise. He's in black because he was brought aboard as McCoy's patient

But that's because McCoy had to *fake* Kirk's medical status in order to get him on the ship. If Kirk was already an officer of any kind, then by definition McCoy wouldn't have needed to do that.

he would if Kirk was supposed to be elsewhere. Kirk could be a Lt or even a Lt. Commander posted on another ship who sneaks on the big E for some reason
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

And the better parallel for Kirk is King Arthur anyway. That ship is his destiny, his Excalibur. Whether or not it could REALLY happen is irrelevant. Whether or not it makes a good story? More important, and we'll see.

Yes, but I think it would be perfectly possible to tell a good story within a more realistic framework that didn't rely on some kind of "exceptionalist," King Arthur type of scenario. Not that I am assuming the movie would be like that.

clint g said:
Im seeing alot of stuff about that black uniform, so let me toss in my 2 cents. it has already been stated that the uniforms being worn in the movie are a 2 piece set. Its a Blue/red/gold over coat being worn over a BLACK shirt, in a way similar to how there was an over jacket being worn with the First Contact uniforms. It is very possible that Kirk (in a manner that is very fitting with his character) is simply just not wearing the gold overcoat, and just has the black shirt on display. I doubt it is a cadet uniform since it has already been displayed that the cadet uniform is a red jumpsuit style clothing.

That's what I'm betting as well. The black shirt is just the undershirt to the regular uniform.

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

The film will only show one universe -- albeit we may be told that Nero somehow "changed the future" of this universe.

'Assuming you are correct and only one universe is shown, how can this be an origins story, if we only see the altered universe? If Kirk's future is the only thing altered, I suppose you can say it is, but if the whole TREK universe is altered, then Abrams and company have made an origins movie that doesn't even tell the story of the origins of the characters we love and the movie is a failure from step one.'


I love this post. We are dealing with clever but not thoughtful writers and directors who are trying to 'steal' Star Trek so they can get a bigger cut and more credit.
Um, Polaris, did you read this post ? So this is an alternate origins story of a universe that both does and doesn't take place. That to me is already a disadvantage that wasn't necessary and then to make a whole movie explaining it seem meaningless. By distancing itself from the original it has lost it's power. Let me be clear I never said this movie is gonna suck. From what I've seen I think it is awesome film making thus far. As for the story, It'll probably only be good by sheer chance. Instead of steak and potatoes, we'll get a tuna or peanut butter and jelly sandwich with cinnimon! and the sound of a thousand nerds crying out in unison.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

The film will only show one universe -- albeit we may be told that Nero somehow "changed the future" of this universe.
'Assuming you are correct and only one universe is shown, how can this be an origins story, if we only see the altered universe? If Kirk's future is the only thing altered, I suppose you can say it is, but if the whole TREK universe is altered, then Abrams and company have made an origins movie that doesn't even tell the story of the origins of the characters we love and the movie is a failure from step one.'


I love this post. We are dealing with clever but not thoughtful writers and directors who are trying to 'steal' Star Trek so they can get a bigger cut and more credit.
Um, Polaris, did you read this post ?
<snip>
And what, may I ask, has Polaris got to do with that post?
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

'Assuming you are correct and only one universe is shown, how can this be an origins story, if we only see the altered universe? If Kirk's future is the only thing altered, I suppose you can say it is, but if the whole TREK universe is altered, then Abrams and company have made an origins movie that doesn't even tell the story of the origins of the characters we love and the movie is a failure from step one.'


I love this post. We are dealing with clever but not thoughtful writers and directors who are trying to 'steal' Star Trek so they can get a bigger cut and more credit.
Um, Polaris, did you read this post ?
<snip>
And what, may I ask, has Polaris got to do with that post?
Well he tried to convince me that not tying it into TOS was not a bad idea.
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

I don't follow.
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

That does kind of sum up my problem with this whole project.

Sort of a big fat "So what?"
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

If Gastrof can learn to like this movie, so can I. It must be the spores.
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

If Gastrof can learn to like this movie, so can I. It must be the spores.

So Xortex --

What you are saying is that this may not be exactly what you were expecting (or wanted) and that this film may not tie directly in with the rest of the Star Trek universe (even though you may have preferred that it did)...

HOWEVER, you will still try to enjoy the film for what it is -- and that is a stand-alone film based on the TOS characters and settings -- and you may even end up enjoying it for what it is, as long as Abrams made a film that you can enjoy.

If I didn't misrepresent your position, then :techman:.
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

They're are saying it ties in in an oblique way. I'm saying it was probably a mistake not to tie directly into TOS.
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

I'm not sure what source was meant above in regards to jumping between timelines, but this source does suggest that the film actively pursues different realities; I'm not sure how accurate that is, but perhaps we can expect different Kirks, different Enterprises, or a world that echoes the orginal more closely in the end.

http://screenrant.com/new-star-trek-movie-plot-details-vic-1290/

For all we know at this point, the characters we have seen so far might not even be the same versions of themselves, athough this seems rather overly complicated. Just a thought.
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

^
^^ I remember reading that. I'm not sure if screenrant.com really knew that much about the film almost a year ago (the article was dated February 2, 2008), but it is something to consider.

Let's stipulate for one minute that this film will in fact switch back and forth between realities (and I realize I may be talking out my ass here), but maybe (just maybe) that's why the writers found a valid reason to have Kirk wearing black in one of those alternate realities (and gold in the other?)

Perhaps this plot device is similar to Gwenyth Paltrow's character in the film 'Sliding Doors'. That film explored a "what if" scenerio in the life of Paltrow's character, switching back and forth between the two scenarios -- or "realities". The two different scenarios were caused by exploring "what if" she gets on a certain London Underground train in time to catch her boyfriend at home cheating on her, and "what if" she misses that train (the "sliding door" closes before she can get on). After the train scene, the film continued on, showing both scenarios moving forward, switching back and forth between them.

To help the audience from getting confused as to which "what if scenario" we are watching, Paltrow's character decided to have her hair cut short in one of the scenarios -- i.e. she looked very different in each, just like PERHAPS black shirt/gold shirt Kirk looks different.

I dunno...just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

I'm not sure what source was meant above in regards to jumping between timelines, but this source does suggest that the film actively pursues different realities; I'm not sure how accurate that is, but perhaps we can expect different Kirks, different Enterprises, or a world that echoes the orginal more closely in the end.

http://screenrant.com/new-star-trek-movie-plot-details-vic-1290/

For all we know at this point, the characters we have seen so far might not even be the same versions of themselves, athough this seems rather overly complicated. Just a thought.
I suspect that the one shot, from the trailer, where we see Pine wearing what we THINK are "Captain's stripes" (can't be 100% sure, since they're not exactly what we've known for 40+ years)... is the closing sequence of the film, after things are set "mostly right." Yes, it's still the same lame Bridge set... but if there's a sequel (not sure if I want that or not... though I'm leaning towards "no") perhaps they can show us a different (TOS-ish) bridge next time and we can just "mentally retcon" that bridge into the last scene of this flick.

Timelines I suspect we'll see...

1) Post-TNG
2) Pre-TOS (Kelvin)
3) Altered-TOS (everyone else moved ahead, Pike is still in command during TOS, the ship is different due to recovered technology from the Kelvin attack, Kirk didn't go to the Academy at 17 and finally goes at 28 or so)
4) Restored-TOS (basically what we know from TOS).

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

I'm not sure what source was meant above in regards to jumping between timelines, but this source does suggest that the film actively pursues different realities; I'm not sure how accurate that is, but perhaps we can expect different Kirks, different Enterprises, or a world that echoes the orginal more closely in the end.

http://screenrant.com/new-star-trek-movie-plot-details-vic-1290/

For all we know at this point, the characters we have seen so far might not even be the same versions of themselves, athough this seems rather overly complicated. Just a thought.
I suspect that the one shot, from the trailer, where we see Pine wearing what we THINK are "Captain's stripes" (can't be 100% sure, since they're not exactly what we've known for 40+ years)... is the closing sequence of the film, after things are set "mostly right." Yes, it's still the same lame Bridge set... but if there's a sequel (not sure if I want that or not... though I'm leaning towards "no") perhaps they can show us a different (TOS-ish) bridge next time and we can just "mentally retcon" that bridge into the last scene of this flick.

Timelines I suspect we'll see...

1) Post-TNG
2) Pre-TOS (Kelvin)
3) Altered-TOS (everyone else moved ahead, Pike is still in command during TOS, the ship is different due to recovered technology from the Kelvin attack, Kirk didn't go to the Academy at 17 and finally goes at 28 or so)
4) Restored-TOS (basically what we know from TOS).

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... :rolleyes:)
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.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top