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

[Nerys Myk]

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

For decades I've been trying to figure out how Geordi, a Lieutenant jg con officer became Chief Engineer of the fleet's flagship.

When TNG was conceived they didn't include a Chief Engineer as a regular character because - I guess - the computer was presumed to run the ship most of the time.

Yeah, I know that. But in-universe it seems odd. Though they did retcon an Engineering background into Geordi's "biography". Still, why did Starfleet waste this supposed brilliant Engineer as a pilot?

 

[BillJ]

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

For decades I've been trying to figure out how Geordi, a Lieutenant jg con officer became Chief Engineer of the fleet's flagship.

When TNG was conceived they didn't include a Chief Engineer as a regular character because - I guess - the computer was presumed to run the ship most of the time.

Yeah, I know that. But in-universe it seems odd. Though they did retcon an Engineering background into Geordi's "biography". Still, why did Starfleet waste this supposed brilliant Engineer as a pilot?

And what about all the chief engineers we see in season one? And those who would have likely been trained in the actual engineering of Galaxy-class starships?

Realism.

 

[Therin of Andor]

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

Still, why did Starfleet waste this supposed brilliant Engineer as a pilot?

The crew are expected to diversify. Rand, Chekov, Kyle, Chapel, O'Brien (and Keiko) and Paris have also had varied careers/duties.

 

[BillJ]

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

Still, why did Starfleet waste this supposed brilliant Engineer as a pilot?

The crew are expected to diversify. Rand, Chekov, Kyle, Chapel, O'Brien (and Keiko) and Paris have also had varied careers/duties.

But to go from a junior grade pilot to Chief Engineer of a top of the line starship is just as unrealistic as Kirk's jump. There were likely thousands of Starfleet engineers that were more qualified for the post than LaForge.

But, he's one of the main cast. So we accept it, at least I did, as a function of storytelling.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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

Still, why did Starfleet waste this supposed brilliant Engineer as a pilot?

The crew are expected to diversify. Rand, Chekov, Kyle, Chapel, O'Brien (and Keiko) and Paris have also had varied careers/duties.

But not in their second seasons. None them went from junior officer to department head overnight.

 

[UFO]

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

That first quote isn't from me.

Sorry, It was SeerSGB. Have now corrected it.SeerSGBSeerSGB

 

[Therin of Andor]

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

But not in their second seasons. None them went from junior officer to department head overnight.

We don't know how many months (in ship time) passed between the final episode of Season One and the first episode of the truncated Season Two. A lot happened, including Guinan coming on board, Crusher leaving, Pulaski's appointment.

Does being a department head mean you have to be a very high ranking officer, or just higher in rank than the other people in your area?

The original intention, while making "Encounter at Farpoint", was that the ship would be away from Earth for about ten years. Who knows, maybe Geordi had even taken a "grade reduction" for his time on the bridge, waiting till the Season One engineers to take up their next posts?

 

[Nerys Myk]

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

But not in their second seasons. None them went from junior officer to department head overnight.

We don't know how many months (in ship time) passed between the final episode of Season One and the first episode of the truncated Season Two. A lot happened, including Guinan coming on board, Crusher leaving, Pulaski's appointment.

Does being a department head mean you have to be a very high ranking officer, or just higher in rank than the other people in your area?

The original intention, while making "Encounter at Farpoint", was that the ship would be away from Earth for about ten years. Who knows, maybe Geordi had even taken a "grade reduction" for his time on the bridge, waiting till the Season One engineers to take up their next posts?

I would think that a department as big and as important as Engineering would need someone with the rank and experience of veteran officer. And there seemed to be no shortage of those in Season One.

Crusher leaving and Guinan and Pulaski joining could have all happened at one layover at a Starbase. IIRC, several crewmembers joined at the same time in "Encounter At Farpoint". If the ship was on a ten year mission it seems unlikely that the senior engineering staff would be bailing after one year.

 

[Therin of Andor]

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

If the ship was on a ten year mission it seems unlikely that the senior engineering staff would be bailing after one year.

That's my point. The original plans - to go beyond Farpoint and not return for ten years - did not happen.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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

If the ship was on a ten year mission it seems unlikely that the senior engineering staff would be bailing after one year.

That's my point. The original plans - to go beyond Farpoint and not return for ten years - did not happen.

That's more the fault of "Star Trek Command" than Starfleet Command. Even if their mission parameters had been changed they wouldn't dump their senior engineering staff in favor of a junior officer who's only experience is flying the ship.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

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

The rule is "needs of the plot" plain and simple.

Your mistake is trying to postulate "Starfleet policy" based on the limited information provided by what we see in the show. But thats just a hand full of ships and personnel. Plus its a series TV show/movies. There is no "Starfleet" or a plan in place by the show runners about promotions.

Everything that happens in any story is dictated by the needs of the plot. That doesn't automatically excuse writers from trying to make their stories seem at least somewhat consistant with each other - unless they're writing stories in which consistancy simply doesn't factor in. (Star Trek is not that kind of story)

And again - this doesn't mean they can't ever do anything new. It means, if they decide to do something that contradicts what they've done before, they need to acknowledge that and at least try to give us an explanation of some kind (preferably one that makes sense within the world of the story).

In the case of Kirk's promotion, this could've been accomplished in a whole lot of different ways ranging from altering the story, to at least inserting a few extra lines about why Starfleet chose to grant him permanent command. Taking the time to work this out didn't have to harm the story at all, and personally, I think could actually have led to a better story. But they simply didn't bother trying.

 

[BillJ]

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

In the case of Kirk's promotion, this could've been accomplished in a whole lot of different ways ranging from altering the story, to at least inserting a few extra lines about why Starfleet chose to grant him permanent command. Taking the time to work this out didn't have to harm the story at all, and personally, I think could actually have led to a better story. But they simply didn't bother trying.

But why do they need to explain it to us again?

We (the audience) know who Jim Kirk will become. We were given lines by Pike that Starfleet needed a kick in its complacency. We're given lines of dialogue from Spock Prime about everything that Kirk and Spock will achieve together.

Even more dialogue seems incredibly redundant. Some people seem to cling to this need to have everything explicitly spelled out even though it has already been implicitly explained.

Did we need lines of dialogue explaining why LaForge jumped from junior grade pilot to Chief Engineer of the Flagship of the Federation?

 

[Noname Given]

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

Point is: Spock has never been played 100% emotionless.

No one said he should be.

Quinto's Spock is pretty on course for what we've seen in the past from Nimoy.

Quinto plays Spock as a super passive-aggressive human being. Okay, the script is responsible for a lot of that, but I'm sure Quinto could underplay it a bit so that it's not so over the top.

And I won't even bring up "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!" (Mostly, though, because I don't want you to counter with "THE WOMEN!!!")

How about countering with: "DEFLECTORS! FULL INTENSITY!"

 

[Nerys Myk]

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

The rule is "needs of the plot" plain and simple.

Your mistake is trying to postulate "Starfleet policy" based on the limited information provided by what we see in the show. But thats just a hand full of ships and personnel. Plus its a series TV show/movies. There is no "Starfleet" or a plan in place by the show runners about promotions.

Everything that happens in any story is dictated by the needs of the plot. That doesn't automatically excuse writers from trying to make their stories seem at least somewhat consistant with each other - unless they're writing stories in which consistancy simply doesn't factor in. (Star Trek is not that kind of story)

And again - this doesn't mean they can't ever do anything new. It means, if they decide to do something that contradicts what they've done before, they need to acknowledge that and at least try to give us an explanation of some kind (preferably one that makes sense within the world of the story).

In the case of Kirk's promotion, this could've been accomplished in a whole lot of different ways ranging from altering the story, to at least inserting a few extra lines about why Starfleet chose to grant him permanent command. Taking the time to work this out didn't have to harm the story at all, and personally, I think could actually have led to a better story. But they simply didn't bother trying.

There is no consistency in Star Trek's approach to promotion and advancement. This has been pointed out using examples from the series and films. Changes in rank, position and training are based on what the film/series needs or the plot demands. Arguing against the promotion based on precedence, contradiction or inconsistency just isn't a valid.

The entire film is about why Kirk should be in command of the Enterprise. Everything in it is leading to that outcome. Kirk is a young dashing hero who just saved the Earth and Federation from a madman with a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Heroes get rewards: the hand of the princess, the keys to the kingdom, riches, his own starship command. There's not much more that needs to be said in the film about why.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

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

In the case of Kirk's promotion, this could've been accomplished in a whole lot of different ways ranging from altering the story, to at least inserting a few extra lines about why Starfleet chose to grant him permanent command. Taking the time to work this out didn't have to harm the story at all, and personally, I think could actually have led to a better story. But they simply didn't bother trying.

But why do they need to explain it to us again?

We (the audience) know who Jim Kirk will become. We were given lines by Pike that Starfleet needed a kick in its complacency. We're given lines of dialogue from Spock Prime about everything that Kirk and Spock will achieve together.

Even more dialogue seems incredibly redundant. Some people seem to cling to this need to have everything explicitly spelled out even though it has already been implicitly explained.

Not of that dialogue does anything to explain why it (Kirk's promotion) should be considered at all possible - and that's the point that clearly seems to contradict what's been done before. It's all focused on telling us how Kirk is such a great guy. The problem is, the dialogue should've focused more on telling us how it's possible for Kirk to become captain so quickly and let the story *show* us why Kirk is such a great guy. But neither of those things happened, leaving the whole storyline basically hollow.

Did we need lines of dialogue explaining why LaForge jumped from junior grade pilot to Chief Engineer of the Flagship of the Federation?

Outside of encounter at farpoint, I remember almost nothing about early TNG, so I can't make a full direct comparison, but if that was done as suddenly and inexplicably as this, then, yes.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

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

There is no consistency in Star Trek's approach to promotion and advancement. This has been pointed out using examples from the series and films. Changes in rank, position and training are based on what the film/series needs or the plot demands. Arguing against the promotion based on precedence, contradiction or inconsistency just isn't a valid.

And these plot-holes decrease the quality of the series they appear in.
You see, star trek, as a series, belongs to the genre that clearly aspires to be as logically plausible as possible (the episodes that most break this aspiration are deservedly subjected to ridicule by fans).

Some plot-holes - like the promotion of LaForge - are not visible due to not being the spotlight; as such, they're decreasing the quality only slightly, relating to normally hidden minutiae.
Star trek XI's promotion is as visible as it gets - and blatant as a plot-hole, as well. It significantly decreases the quality of the movie.

The entire film is about why Kirk should be in command of the Enterprise. Everything in it is leading to that outcome. Kirk is a young dashing hero who just saved the Earth and Federation from a madman with a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Heroes get rewards: the hand of the princess, the keys to the kingdom, riches, his own starship command. There's not much more that needs to be said in the film about why.

Blatant plot-hole is still blatant, no matter how much rhetoric you use to try and obfuscate this fact. Or how much you try to convince yourself star trek does not aspire to be logically plausible.

 

[Commishsleer]

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

Some plot-holes - like the promotion of LaForge - are not visible due to not being the spotlight; as such, they're decreasing the quality only slightly, relating to normally hidden minutiae.

See I disagree.
I find LaForge's sudden promotion to Chief Engineer quite jarring, quite in the spotlight. Suddenly he seemed to know so much about engineering. Yet in Season 1 when they were having all those problems in Engineering, Geordi offered no suggestions.
Suddenly in Season 2 hes become the king of technobabble.

You've had 25 years to get over it. It still annoys me. nuKirks sudden promotion annoys me. But Geordis annoys me more. Still after 25 years.

You know at least they acknowledged in STID that Kirk may have been promoted too rapidly. But in TNG Geordi knew nothing about engineering in Season 1 but was suddenly the best engineer in the fleet in Season 2.

 

[BillJ]

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

You know at least they acknowledged in STID that Kirk may have been promoted too rapidly. But in TNG Geordi knew nothing about engineering in Season 1 but was suddenly the best engineer in the fleet in Season 2.

I do remember him making it to Engineering once in the season one episode "The Last Outpost".

 

[Ryan8bit]

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

At what point does what's happened in past productions cease to matter? What does it take to make it not matter? Like would the cop who pulls over young Kirk in the first movie have to promote him to president of the universe? Would we still be saying, "Well, Star Trek has always had strange promotions"?

Forget about Geordi or whatever oddball background minutiae happened. None of that even really matters or is even really that comparable. The fact is that the Kirk promotion was a symptom of an underlying problem in the first movie, which was trying to make Star Trek into something that it's not. They're trying to make the Star Trek characters into comic book superheros with epic origin stories. They want Kirk to just become Captain Kirk, just like how Bruce Wayne can become Batman. But Star Trek isn't set up that way.

Everything we'd ever been shown about Star Trek in the past showed us that there was no destined uniting of the crews. Kirk worked his way up the ranks, Spock served on the Enterprise before him, and other members of the crew came along at various times. There was nothing fantastic or mystical about how they came together, they just did and it worked out. We just happened to be viewing their great adventures in the present. Their past might have been interesting, but it was not a superhero epic origin.

I feel like that's the underlying problem with the rank thing for me more so than the other issues with it. And I appreciate that they tried to address it in STID, but I understand the criticism that it really doesn't change much by addressing it. They already peed in the swimming pool, emptying the pool and then peeing in it again isn't really a fix. The fundamental problem is still there in that everything was based on that strange premise. It's probably best to ignore it and move on.

 

[BillJ]

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

At what point does what's happened in past productions cease to matter? What does it take to make it not matter? Like would the cop who pulls over young Kirk in the first movie have to promote him to president of the universe? Would we still be saying, "Well, Star Trek has always had strange promotions"?

When someone trots out the "its not Star Trek because "x" or "Star Trek doesn't work that way" card, they are deliberately comparing the two products.

How else are we suppose to respond?