Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...
...
Just like Prime Jim Kirk got put back in the chair instead of going to prison because of reasons.
Seems like Starfleet has a lot of leeway for people who save the planet.
Seems I deliberately preempted that objection
here. Of course that was a couple of days ago ...
What good is it for a show that is meant to entertain having their main characters scattered across the galaxy aboard different ships and starbases under different commands?
It doesn't.
Same goes with Abramss and Orci's choices in nuTrek. I don't care about Prime Universe' command track for Kirk. I don't care that he served aboard Lexington as an Ensign, or shuffled papers at Starbase 12, or taught courses at Starfleet Academy as a Lt. You know what? That's BORING!
Re your first point: I am not willing to say that because some relatively minor issues are compromised to make a show work, everything is fair game. Re your second point: Then don't show the boring bits, but make sure we know it happened. You are just excusing bad story telling.
I like that this Universe took these young people and slammed them together during dire circumstances and now have to learn to work together in a baptism by fire to become the characters we know. I like it because it's interesting, it's different, and dang it - IT'S FUN!
I am not being a party pooper. It in no way reduces your FUN if the story is written in such a way that the aftermath is believable. Of course it may be a little harder to write.
Now if not following policy and procedure doesn't do it for ya', that's fine. Not every bit of Trek is my cup o' tea either. But remember, nuTrek isn't doing anything as unorthodox as any other Trek that has come before it. Different - YES. As unorthodox - NO.
"Unorthodox" sounds like another euphemism to me.
I can't remember a decision that compromises Starfleet's basic structure that much. Command of the Enterprise in not a bunch of flowers.
From "mailroom to boardroom" has been a Hollywood staple since the beginning and even though I might have handled things differently, Orci and Kurtzman picked a valid storytelling device.
I guess they just need to realise when a particular "storytelling device" is appropriate and when it isn't or figure out a way to using it more rationally.
Again, I'm not talking about realism. I'm talking about precedent. About the basic way Starfleet has been shown to operate - which is, specifically, wildly unrealistic in terms of punishment, but a great deal less so in terms of promotion.
I wouldn't give up on "realism" quite so quickly. Putting someone in jail after they saved the planet the jail is on, is politically unpalatable to say the least! In my view the bar may have been lowered a bit for fiction but not removed completely.
There were more options available than just 'Mind numbing realism' and 'wildly uncharacteristic chaos'.
Exactly.
If it were totally new trek, just cut all ties and create a new universe, I wouldn't argue this point at all.
I would.
If they are going to call it Trek, it should make some sort of sense. Doing what they did wouldn't work in any universe unless it was a childerns show (assuming the makers had no respect for children).
This is just non-sense. It's a story about a young hotshot becoming a leader. Just because Star Trek has never told that type of story before doesn't mean it is somehow forbidden from doing so now.
You mean it should be allowed to tell a story whose culmination is completely irrational? I have to disagree.
And yes, we shouldn't forget that the writers made an effort to correct it. Well done for that.
