My Grievances of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

You must watch very few movies, then. The vast bulk of films ever made require viewers to "turn off their brains" in some fashion, even those that sometimes require viewers to engage parts of their brains they don't use as often as they might like (stories with complicated plots, images and situations fraught with multiple layers of symbolism and so on). Movie logic trumps real life logic in the overwhelming majority (conservatively, I'd estimate 95%) of all feature films ever made, anywhere, since their inception.

You don't have to like it (I know many people who don't like movies precisely because "movie logic" doesn't match "real life logic", but they simply don't watch many movies).

My favourite film director is Alfred Hitchcock. I have seen and own about 80% of his considerable output (the rest is divided into titles I've not been able to get yet and a few that are lost). Even his least effective efforts are better, to me, than about 80% of the films I've seen. But I do not hold his films as examples that lack in implausible situations. Nevertheless, they are quite enjoyable and his best films are considered masterpieces of filmmaking.

I'm not suggesting Abrams is on par with Hitchcock (some may feel he is--that's neither here nor there). Nor am I suggesting that his Trek films are immune from criticism (no film is). However, "implausible circumstances", for any film (let alone a Trek film), is rarely an effective criticism if the baseline is "real world logic". Movies are rarely meant to be "as real as real life" and even among those that are meant to be so, the success rate is rather low.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Ovation

1 For certain movies - that don't take themselves seriously, that clearly intend to present absurd scenarios, etc -, lack of logic is not a disadvantage.
For movies that do aspire to be coherent, plot-holes, character stupidity, etc are a minus. Star trek 2009 is in this latter category.

2 I did not say I dislike star trek 2009. Overall, I liked it.
But plot-holes - especially blatant ones, such as the one commented on in this thread - decreased the quality of the movie; it would have been of a clearly superior quality were they missing.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Fair enough. While I quoted your post, I should probably have made it clearer that I was addressing a wider issue that I've noticed of late (not only here at TrekBBS)--the notion that a film that doesn't adhere to "real life logic" is somehow unworthy of a viewer's time. That's a completely unfair criticism of film. It is narrowly fair in the sense of an individual choosing to not watch films because the lack of real life logic is too bothersome. But it is not a fair standard to which films should be held.

 

As far as we know based on 24 seasons of television and 10 films following four different crews.

If ST09 was a hard reboot, you might have a point, but the ptb at Paramount specifically didn't want that. They chose to make it a part of the exact same world, just with a slightly different past. So therefore, Starfleet should still be pretty much the same as it always has been. And, despite a whole lot of thrilling heroics - we haven't seen that many promotions at all, let alone promotions of such ridiculous proportions.

His heroic act showed him capable of the kind of leadership needed for the missions he was running, which was a very specific type of mission. And his physical abilities were both unique and key to the success of those missions, which is why he was legitimately irreplacable within the logic of that story.

Honestly, I don't see too much in the way of real thinking going on in Kirk's character in ST09. They seem, to me, to have taken him to the rather extreme end of Kirk's penchant for solving problems by hitting things and being generally abrasive. The only moment that stands out to me at all, is when he stopped the ship because he realized the Vulcan distress signal was a trap. But the fact that he realized that and not someone else merely proves he's not a complete moron, not that he's in any way brilliant or insightful. Every other character would have come to the same conclusion, except that the plot conveniently prevented anyone else from having all the necessary information.

So tell me, then, what specific actions did Kirk take while in command that proved in any way he was fully ready for command leadership of a starship?

Because we all know he saved earth, but we also know that he couldn't have *not* saved earth. That's just what the movie is about. And I don't see that many other reasons for starfleet to suddenly decide he's a wunderkind.

The problem is you're looking at them purely in terms of plot generalities while I'm talking about the internal logic of the story. Captain American more or less stays within the bounds of its own internal logic. ST09, when understood as a continuation of the same Starfleet/Federation we've always known, doesn't even try to.

As stated, I'm not comparing it to real life. I'm comparing to the known internal logic of the Federation and Starfleet.

I'm not using "real world logic" as the baseline for my criticism. If I were, I'd be asking why the hell every single fully manned ship is conveniently off somewhere leaving nothing but cadets to save the world. But that situation is very well established as a time honored tradition within the internal logic of any Star Trek story. Promoting a lt. with a patchy record straight to captain of the flagship because he saved one planet isn't. Despite the fact the ST characters have saved planets quite often.

ETA: Sorry for having too many posts - I didn't see that last message until after responding to these and I can't seem to find the delete button. I'll use the multi-quote button in the future.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

The "known internal logic" of the Federation and Starfleet no longer applied after the Narada arrived in 2233. There are broad similarities, of course, but after a quarter century deviation from that point, all sorts of differences were bound to emerge. There are other reasons to criticize the swift promotion of Kirk, but "known internal logic", based on what went on in the "prime timeline", is not especially compelling as an argument.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Nonsense. The known internal logic of the shows stayed mostly the same all the way in to the late 24th century and beyond, and there's no reason to think the arrival of 1 insane romulan and the passage of a measley 25 years would suddenly change the way everyone has run things for almost a century already.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Well, then by that logic Riker and Data didn't defeat the Borg, the plot did.

Probably not "non-sense". Starfleet was confronted with something they had never seen before and it crushed one of their ships. Over the next few years, all it would take would be for a few promotions to go differently than they did in the Prime timeline and you would have an organization that would have far different priorities.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Exactly.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Sulu was a qualified pilot, nothing says he wasn't trained. McCoy was a doctor before he even joined Starfleet. Scotty was dabbling in super-advanced transwarp technology six months before coming aboard. Spock graduated from the academy four years prior to the attack on Vulcan and was "one of [Starfleet's] most distinguished graduates". How they reached their posts were abnormal, but all were qualified.

Kirk may have lucked his way to the top (although he was supposedly a genius and was acing the academy in 3 years), but I'd say he proved himself.

Take a look at airport security post-9/11. Take a look at the Enterprise-D and Starfleet 22 years after Narendra III (where one ship made the difference) in "Yesterday's Enterprise"

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Yep.

The actions of a single starship changed the destinies of millions of people and the objectives of Starfleet.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Were they? What did Cap do that showed "him capable of the kind of leadership needed for the mission he was running?" How were his physical abilities "both unique and key to the success of those missions"? Every member of the Howling Commandos had more combat experience and at least two were in leader ship roles already. The Howlers were also going on the exact same missions as Cap following their rescue ( which they aided in). The only story logic that demands Rogers be given a leadership role and the rank of Captain is the fact "Captain America" is in the film's title.

1) The film tells us via Pike, that Kirk has a genius level intellect.

2) Kirk, presumably aided by Galia, rewrote the Kobyashi Maru Test. (The same action that in the Prime Universe gets him a commendation for original thinking)

3) Kirk puts the pieces together that saves the Enterprise from the fate of the rest of the fleet at Vulcan. The only other person who could have but it together was Pike. But he seemed to lack the data Uhura provided.

4) Kirk decides not to go to the Laurentian system and to Pike.

5) He's also smart enough to listen to others when formulating a plan. (Chekov's suggestion) That what leaders do.

6) He tells Sulu to fire on the Narada, if he gets a chance, even if Kirk and Spock are on board. Sacrifice, also part of leading.

7) He comes up with the plan for Spock to take the Jellyfish to use against Nero.

8) He rescues Pike. (with a little help from Scotty)

9) He offers Nero a chance to surrender, Nero refuses.

10) he takes a chance and listens to Scotty and saves the ship from the Narada black hole. (see number 5)

So Kirk does think, plan and lead in the film. He does engage in fisticuffs though, with mixed results. Though on two occasions he works that to his advantage: compromising Spock and getting Ayel's gun. Thinking again.

Is that enough to give him command of the Enterprise? Probably not in the real world. In an action adventure film that requires a Captain Kirk by the end credits, it does. Would I have things differently? Probably.

.

You'll have to explain what internal logic was violated and how it was violated.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

What we've learned: You can take Kirk away from the Enterprise, but you can't take the Enterprise away from Kirk.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

I think the militarization of Section 31 and it exploring near space which had them come in contact with Khan and his people is one such example of how this universe's priorities are quite different than those of the Prime Timeline.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Exactly. The same luck that took Kirk to the top held sway thoughout his stint(s) on the Enterprise. In particular he was prevented by Spock from getting everyone killed and later came back when he had "found" a means of getting on to the Narada "safely".

Movie logic is fine up to a point, so long as it doesn't make you go:

Great euphemistic use of "colourful".

Problem is, making Kirk captain, is akin to reducing security after 9/11. It is effectively a vast reduction in the standards by which Captains are selected and trained. Worse, it makes Starfleet look incompetent and panicked.

Yes, destines may change, but those changes should still make sense within the story, not just be a means to excuse any desirable plot point.

Being a extreme academic is not a requirement for Captaincy and is no substitute for proper training and experience in a much more varied and demanding job.

Already "accepted" I believe.

When he made the second "attempt" to do go after Nero, he had a chance of success. The first time he would have been killed (almost certainly we are lead to believe). Emotional stubbornness isn’t always a virtue. The plot, of course, was set up to make it look like his stubbornness was vindicated

So would anyone who didn’t have a plan themselves. It would be standard procedure at SF I'm thinking.

True. He doesn’t have a problem sacrificing his or others lives. His problem is being able to tell when it makes sense and when it doesn’t

No. Actually it was Spock’s plan to "steal back the black hole device". Kirk did very little here but agree with everyone. A lot of people could do that.

So … he didn’t personally save the Earth then? Yes, I know, he agreed a lot. But seriously, while I accept his coordinating role, it wasn't spectacular or unique.

The fact he thought Nero might accept proves his lack of intelligence or at least maturity (assuming he wasn’t just going through the motions). His petulant reaction to Nero proves his lack of suitability, at this time.

Risky move given how many other more reliable options he had available right then.

No Kirk’s main claim to fame was his double edged sword of determination. A sword that still needed a lot of tempering, to reinforce nuSpock’s horsey metaphor. At least Starfleet should have thought so if the plot hadn’t interfered.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

No.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Well argued sir! I doff my cap to you.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

I really hate it when the BBS quote function eliminates part of what I said

The point of the list was to show Kirk thinks with more than his fists.

Not by everybody.

Of course it is, he's the hero. Their hunches, gut feelings and wild plans are usually vindicated.

Never said it wasn't. Again the list is a response to the idea Kirk isn't a thinker.

The theme of the next film.

I was going by a quick review of the script. My read seemed to indicate it was Kirk.

Not saying any of this places Kirk at the top of the list.

Yes it was a team effort lead by Kirk. Leadership. Again not trying to prove Kirk unique or spectacular, just that he's a leader and can think. Being leader usually means you get the credit and accolades.

Reread what I wrote after I presented the list (which you did not quote):

Hey, it actually include something I wrote! Yay!

What a difference four years makes. Back then Kirk was a bloodthirty goon for killing poor defenseless Nero. Now he's dumb and immature for going all Picard and being a gracious winner. And petulant because Nero said "No" and decided to go all out.

If you say so. What were those options? None were presented in the film.

Sounds more like a metallurgy metaphor.

Starfleet thinks what ever the plot tells it to think. Starfleet is actually unaware there is a plot or writers for that matter.

 

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

I'm not sure it does that overall but that is not the same as justifying Kirks pormotion

Those who matter. But its still more luck that skill.

I said it made it look like he was vindicated, not that he was.

OK, so he fits the requirement for being a Starfleet cadet. One hopes SF would have weeded him out if he didn't (not so sure actually now) or sent him to work in security, but cadets aren't immeditately promoted to captain.

Still doesn't argue for making him a captain in ST09.

Technically I don't think it is mentioned who had the idea to fly the Jellyfish away but Spock was already aware he would need to fly it when Kirk asked him if he could. And stealing the black hole device (which Spock mentioned after Chekov's suggestions) was more a no-brainer than a plan. Spock seemed to decided on his next actions, but who knows.

Credit and accolades I have no problem with.

I would strongly disagree that what he did was enough to give him command of the Enterprise in any movie, book, comic, children's show etc etc at any time in any form. I believe it makes a mockery of Starfleet. Claiming that it is OK in modern action adventure, is no endorsement or consolation to me. I hope that makes my position clear.

I never said he was "dumb and immature for going all Picard". I doubt many people did. Personally I consider that to be a vast improvement. Part of the better, but not perfect, future. My only issue is that the "better future" only rest on individual commanders rather than being a social norm. My views on how Kirk "should" behave haven't changed and I commend the writers for the above mentioned improvement.

My point exactly. You made it sound as though he was doing something especially captainy and risky ("he takes a chance and listens to Scotty") and yes, even inspired, by "listening" to his chief engineer about how to get out of a jam they were in that involved moving the ship. What indeed were his other options?

You don't remember Spock and Bones' horse analogy about Kirk after he is thrown off the ship?

A truism that doesn't address let alone resolve the issue I'm afraid, because Starfleet is still left looking bad and the decision is still ridiculous IMO, however it came about.