Pathetic Showing for Starfleet

[Thrawn]

Plus, there are so many things in this movie that just weren't explained at all that it seems to me pretty easy to come up with your own explanations for it all anyway.

Let's say there was a planetary disaster, and the whole fleet was over there ferrying refugees, and it was such a complex operation that they called up most of the crews that were on leave on Earth while their ships had an overhaul. Skeleton crews were available for all the other ships, just supplemented by cadets (hence most cadets still being there in the amphitheater at the end), but the Enterprise was brand new, so they had no option but to give it to Pike and a crew of all cadets. Since there were no experienced officers, why not make Kirk first officer? Once that's established, the rest of the movie trots along merrily until the end, where Kirk is given command. But Starfleet just lost 6 ships with 6 experienced captains, and I can see Pike giving a speech to Starfleet that this guy needs to be a captain, that he just wouldn't fit in well if he weren't in charge. Sure, you have to posit some fairly loose promotional structure in that case, but I don't have any real trouble believing in a 23rd century aesthetic or trend that values performance above that kind of thing; the Starfleet presented in TOS wasn't exactly military-level discipline either, as I pointed out.

But now imagine a movie where they agonized over explaining all of that to the audience. Who would seriously give a fuck?

 

[Vader47000]

I'd like to ask the OP's opinion of the attack on the Kelvin as a depiction of Starfleet, if only because it was in a different era. If the OP's complaints about an incompetent Starfleet are valid, does that mean the Kelvin and her crew acted the same?

To me at least, the way Robau and George Kirk handled the situation, turning death into a fighting chance for life, was superb. Flash forward 28 years later and the promotion of Cadet to Captain Kirk was pret-ty jarring, so in my opinion, that's two ends of the spectrum.

I loved the opening scene. The movie actually had me at the beginning. I was back in that Star Trek mode. It just kind of wandered, and the haphazard treatment of Starfleet was one reason.

 

[Vader47000]

Oh, for christ's sake.

You're comparing this to the original series, right? You know, the one that couldn't decide on the name of the organization or most of the alien races for about a year? That freely changed the organizational structure and invented random crap as it went along? That had no semblance of anything remotely resembling naval discipline?

I'm sorry that this movie didn't suspend your disbelief well enough, but you can't argue it's any less coherent than the original show.

Really, I think this movie is more like TOS than anything we've gotten since; back to a Trek that wasn't concerned much with canon, or organizational structure, or plausibility (go ahead: I dare you, tell me TOS was ever plausible), but mostly just wanted to have a good time and tell good stories.

I was making no comparison to the original series. Just a sense of what should logically have happened within the context of what we were seeing.

Say what you will about the original series, but once the writers actually figured out what they were doing, it made more sense. If anything, I was drawing on the continuity of the other shows, which the film tries to draw upon as well.

Nor do I think saying one bad thing is better than another bad thing somehow makes it a good thing.

Given the complexity the writers tried to wrap in existing continuity, I'd have preferred they either told a true prequel and stick to canon (too much to expect of them, probably), or just do a true reboot. This half-breed idea we got just doesn't cut it.

 

[clint g]

Oh, for christ's sake.

You're comparing this to the original series, right? You know, the one that couldn't decide on the name of the organization or most of the alien races for about a year? That freely changed the organizational structure and invented random crap as it went along? That had no semblance of anything remotely resembling naval discipline?

I'm sorry that this movie didn't suspend your disbelief well enough, but you can't argue it's any less coherent than the original show.

Really, I think this movie is more like TOS than anything we've gotten since; back to a Trek that wasn't concerned much with canon, or organizational structure, or plausibility (go ahead: I dare you, tell me TOS was ever plausible), but mostly just wanted to have a good time and tell good stories.

I was making no comparison to the original series. Just a sense of what should logically have happened within the context of what we were seeing.

Say what you will about the original series, but once the writers actually figured out what they were doing, it made more sense. If anything, I was drawing on the continuity of the other shows, which the film tries to draw upon as well.

Nor do I think saying one bad thing is better than another bad thing somehow makes it a good thing.

Given the complexity the writers tried to wrap in existing continuity, I'd have preferred they either told a true prequel and stick to canon (too much to expect of them, probably), or just do a true reboot. This half-breed idea we got just doesn't cut it.

I dunno, I would say that what they did worked out surprisingly well. They respected the old fans by tying in the new franchise to the old while at the same time they made it so newbies could jump right in. As you stated up thread though, there was some pretty poor writing in the movie. Nothing that broke the film in my mind but at the same time there are things that just don't make sense. The Cadet to Captain thing for example is just stretching credibility. You can justify it all you like by saying he was a genius and that he saved the planet. When you get down to it though, the rank structure exists partly because some people have more experience than others and experience counts for a lot. Captains are people with something around 20 years experience. You cant honestly tell me that someone with just 3 years experience is equal to someone with 20 years experience. It just does not happen. But whatever, the movie was entertaining and that's what really counts. I would like them to at least try and tighten things up in the future though

 

[Thrawn]

Oh, for christ's sake.

You're comparing this to the original series, right? You know, the one that couldn't decide on the name of the organization or most of the alien races for about a year? That freely changed the organizational structure and invented random crap as it went along? That had no semblance of anything remotely resembling naval discipline?

I'm sorry that this movie didn't suspend your disbelief well enough, but you can't argue it's any less coherent than the original show.

Really, I think this movie is more like TOS than anything we've gotten since; back to a Trek that wasn't concerned much with canon, or organizational structure, or plausibility (go ahead: I dare you, tell me TOS was ever plausible), but mostly just wanted to have a good time and tell good stories.

I was making no comparison to the original series. Just a sense of what should logically have happened within the context of what we were seeing.

Say what you will about the original series, but once the writers actually figured out what they were doing, it made more sense. If anything, I was drawing on the continuity of the other shows, which the film tries to draw upon as well.

Nor do I think saying one bad thing is better than another bad thing somehow makes it a good thing.

Given the complexity the writers tried to wrap in existing continuity, I'd have preferred they either told a true prequel and stick to canon (too much to expect of them, probably), or just do a true reboot. This half-breed idea we got just doesn't cut it.

You're missing my point.

This movie is not a hard sci-fi film, it is a retelling of a common cultural myth. Which is mostly what big-budget movies have been doing for some years now; The Dark Knight is great not only because it's awesome, but also because it's a retelling of a mythos that's intimately familiar to so many. It's essentially the same as Beowulf or Odysseus; larger-than-life stories with huge cultural salience.

We're used to treating Trek as a universe that's consistent and rational, because we've gotten 4 television series like that. But that wasn't what TOS was, and it's not what this movie is. TOS was pitched as "Wagon Train to the stars"; it was fundamentally a retelling of a cultural myth of the time in a new context. Actually, lots of cultural myths of the time, just look at all the Earth-like planets they encountered with pretty explicit depictions of famous, exaggerated stories from the past.

Abrams & co treated Trek exactly the way the original creators treated Trek - as a myth to be retold. Sure, then it was a bit more broad, and here they're actually borrowing the exact characters and context, but it's the same basic idea. You're expecting this universe to be set up as a complex sci-fi construct when that's never what you should've been expecting. This is a movie about the cultural force that is this set of particularly salient, fantastic heroes and what they mean to the world.

Who gives a shit if Odysseus fights anatomically impossible creatures? Who gives a shit if Batman couldn't possibly physically handle such constant damage to his person? Who gives a shit if transporters could never exist?

Who gives a shit if Starfleet behaves irrationally?

It's a myth.

 

[Thrawn]

And, yeah, you can make the argument that it could've been all that stuff PLUS had fewer plot holes, and sure, that's true.

But the movie could also have been all the stuff that it was PLUS some more women empowerment. Or PLUS some more space dogfighting. Or PLUS some more development for Sulu. Or whatever.

When you make a movie, you have to pick and choose what's important to you. They chose the mythical elements, and paid less attention to the rest.

It is, at worst, a completely understandable creative decision. They weren't being lazy.

 

[donners22]

Really, I think this movie is more like TOS than anything we've gotten since; back to a Trek that wasn't concerned much with canon, or organizational structure, or plausibility (go ahead: I dare you, tell me TOS was ever plausible), but mostly just wanted to have a good time and tell good stories.

Actually, it strikes me as more of a Voyager two-parter, with fast pace and kewl 'splosions with questionable science and logic. Hell, Spock/Uhura may even be the film's answer to Endgame's Chakotay/Seven. As long as you don't try to analyse it, it's good fun.

 

[Thrawn]

Really, I think this movie is more like TOS than anything we've gotten since; back to a Trek that wasn't concerned much with canon, or organizational structure, or plausibility (go ahead: I dare you, tell me TOS was ever plausible), but mostly just wanted to have a good time and tell good stories.

Actually, it strikes me as more of a Voyager two-parter, with fast pace and kewl 'splosions with questionable science and logic. Hell, Spock/Uhura may even be the film's answer to Endgame's Chakotay/Seven. As long as you don't try to analyse it, it's good fun.

TOS never had fast pace, cool effects (for the time), or questionable science and logic?

Please.

And if you compare Spock and Uhura to Chakotay and Seven again, I may have to kill you. Words cannot express the difference in quality of characterization or execution of those romances.

 

[clint g]

And, yeah, you can make the argument that it could've been all that stuff PLUS had fewer plot holes, and sure, that's true.

But the movie could also have been all the stuff that it was PLUS some more women empowerment. Or PLUS some more space dogfighting. Or PLUS some more development for Sulu. Or whatever.

When you make a movie, you have to pick and choose what's important to you. They chose the mythical elements, and paid less attention to the rest.

It is, at worst, a completely understandable creative decision. They weren't being lazy.

I hate to say it, but plot is usually a pretty important aspect of a movie

 

[Devon]

or questionable science and logic?

You may want to rethink this... hardcore.

 

[T'Paul]

And, yeah, you can make the argument that it could've been all that stuff PLUS had fewer plot holes, and sure, that's true.

But the movie could also have been all the stuff that it was PLUS some more women empowerment. Or PLUS some more space dogfighting. Or PLUS some more development for Sulu. Or whatever.

When you make a movie, you have to pick and choose what's important to you. They chose the mythical elements, and paid less attention to the rest.

It is, at worst, a completely understandable creative decision. They weren't being lazy.

I hate to say it, but plot is usually a pretty important aspect of a movie

Only with non-porn movies.

 

[Thrawn]

And, yeah, you can make the argument that it could've been all that stuff PLUS had fewer plot holes, and sure, that's true.

But the movie could also have been all the stuff that it was PLUS some more women empowerment. Or PLUS some more space dogfighting. Or PLUS some more development for Sulu. Or whatever.

When you make a movie, you have to pick and choose what's important to you. They chose the mythical elements, and paid less attention to the rest.

It is, at worst, a completely understandable creative decision. They weren't being lazy.

I hate to say it, but plot is usually a pretty important aspect of a movie

I would simply point out that the previous most successful Trek film, Voyage Home, was also a completely ridiculous mishmash of time travel contrivances, helpful coincidence, and implausibility.

 

[Thrawn]

or questionable science and logic?

You may want to rethink this... hardcore.

I think you misunderstood me; I was saying TOS was absolutely full of questionable science and logic. I can't imagine anyone could disagree with that.

 

[T'Paul]

or questionable science and logic?

You may want to rethink this... hardcore.

I think you misunderstood me; I was saying TOS was absolutely full of questionable science and logic. I can't imagine anyone could disagree with that.

I disagree. There is a perfectly sound scientific explanation for Apollo's presence on Pollux IV.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Yeah, because Starfleet was always shown as well-organized and competent in previous iterations... does anyone remember how many times the big E was "the only ship in the system/quadrant/sector"? And how many incopetent admirals/bureaucrats in Starfleet we had in various episodes?

 

[FPAlpha]

Plus, there are so many things in this movie that just weren't explained at all that it seems to me pretty easy to come up with your own explanations for it all anyway.

Let's say there was a planetary disaster, and the whole fleet was over there ferrying refugees, and it was such a complex operation that they called up most of the crews that were on leave on Earth while their ships had an overhaul. Skeleton crews were available for all the other ships, just supplemented by cadets (hence most cadets still being there in the amphitheater at the end), but the Enterprise was brand new, so they had no option but to give it to Pike and a crew of all cadets. Since there were no experienced officers, why not make Kirk first officer? Once that's established, the rest of the movie trots along merrily until the end, where Kirk is given command. But Starfleet just lost 6 ships with 6 experienced captains, and I can see Pike giving a speech to Starfleet that this guy needs to be a captain, that he just wouldn't fit in well if he weren't in charge. Sure, you have to posit some fairly loose promotional structure in that case, but I don't have any real trouble believing in a 23rd century aesthetic or trend that values performance above that kind of thing; the Starfleet presented in TOS wasn't exactly military-level discipline either, as I pointed out.

But now imagine a movie where they agonized over explaining all of that to the audience. Who would seriously give a fuck?

Well.. i disagree

Currently we don't know the scope of the Federation in new Trek but i'll assume it's got quite a few worlds.. main worlds like Earth, Vulcan, Andoria etc.

Let's take an arbitrary number and say the Federation has 50 planets and about twice that in colonies (moons, big Space Stations etc.). Each planet has between some millions up to 4-5 billion inhabitants for main worlds and that should mean 100+ ships easy (not all capital ships like the Enterprise but still enough ships for border security and research/exploration).

Starfleet losing 6 ships in an engagement should not be a debilitating strike.. it"s a tragedy, yes but nowhere should that have a huge impact on the security and operation status of the Fleet in general thus no dire shortage of experienced officers.
So there goes that argument of fast track promotion of Cadets to fill up command positions.

The only time where there are faster than usual promotions is during wartime with huge losses like in the DS9 Dominion war (which finally tried to give realistic ship numbers for such a large organization like the Federation btw) where Starfleet could build ships faster than it could train up crews but even then there's no way in any halfway professional organization that a cadet will be permanent Captain straight out of academy even if he's saved the entire universe.

It was clearly Kirk-praising at an absurd level and the easiest way to have him permanently in the chair for the sequel but i believe there could have been an other way that could have satisified the internal logic and have Kirk still in a prominent position.

Kirk cleary has what it takes to lead so why not have Pike assume command of the Enterprise again after he recovered and request Kirk be made his XO? He could have made a passionate speech, maybe an eye to eye with Kirk again and due to his exceptional handling of the crisis Starfleet command could give a special promotion so Kirk could gain more field experience while still overseen by an experienced commander.

If you must kill Pike off in the sequel, let Kirk assume command (he must being the XO) and go on from there because that would have been a much more logical and realistic approach (certainly more realistic than what we've got).

 

[clint g]

And, yeah, you can make the argument that it could've been all that stuff PLUS had fewer plot holes, and sure, that's true.

But the movie could also have been all the stuff that it was PLUS some more women empowerment. Or PLUS some more space dogfighting. Or PLUS some more development for Sulu. Or whatever.

When you make a movie, you have to pick and choose what's important to you. They chose the mythical elements, and paid less attention to the rest.

It is, at worst, a completely understandable creative decision. They weren't being lazy.

I hate to say it, but plot is usually a pretty important aspect of a movie

I would simply point out that the previous most successful Trek film, Voyage Home, was also a completely ridiculous mishmash of time travel contrivances, helpful coincidence, and implausibility.

I would then point out that the Voyage Home was essentially a comedy. Trek XI, though it had its comedic moments, was not. This is certainly a case where you can both have your cake and eat it too. It is entirely possible to make a movie that makes sense AND is entertaining. I like the movie as much as the next guy but there's nothing wrong with with having a tight plot and pointing out flaws when you see them.

 

[Thrawn]

I really just don't think it's at all important. The sacrifice you'd make to the known and beloved structure of the story (Kirk not being captain) wouldn't be worth the minute difference in plausibility between him being instantly a first officer and instantly a captain. You're just splitting hairs here.

 

[clint g]

I really just don't think it's at all important. The sacrifice you'd make to the known and beloved structure of the story (Kirk not being captain) wouldn't be worth the minute difference in plausibility between him being instantly a first officer and instantly a captain. You're just splitting hairs here.

Sacrifice?

 

[Thrawn]

I hate to say it, but plot is usually a pretty important aspect of a movie

I would simply point out that the previous most successful Trek film, Voyage Home, was also a completely ridiculous mishmash of time travel contrivances, helpful coincidence, and implausibility.

I would then point out that the Voyage Home was essentially a comedy. Trek XI, though it had its comedic moments, was not. This is certainly a case where you can both have your cake and eat it too. It is entirely possible to make a movie that makes sense AND is entertaining. I like the movie as much as the next guy but there's nothing wrong with with having a tight plot and pointing out flaws when you see them.

Well, fine, there's nothing wrong with it, I just think it's missing the point. Would plot holes ruin your enjoyment of The Odyssey? Or Dracula? Or Star Wars? Or the parts of The Voyage Home that took place in the 2200s and weren't comedic?