Problem with Kirk's immediate promotion to Captain

You could stop the sentence right there and be perfectly accurate.

This film does not reward thinking. The more you think about it, the more you realize just how much it's a construct of coincidence piled on contrivance piled on impossibility, all in service of no serious theme whatsoever. It's a movie for the hindbrain, not the forebrain.

Myself, I have "fun at a movie" when the film engages me both emotionally and intellectually; when I don't have to turn off all my critical faculties and disregard all my prior knowledge of not only the fictional universe it's set in, but of things like grade-school science, military command structure, and basic human psychology.

I like roller-coaster rides (real ones), but there's a reason they last two minutes. An equivalent experience that's two hours long is no substitute for an actual intelligent story.

 

some fans just think that Star Trek XI it is just over the top popcorn movie and not Star Trek honestly in it's own way it pays love and respect to it's mother universe like a child don't you agree

 

Maybe, but I probably have read more about black holes and quantum mechanics than I would have because of this film. So it sparked some questions in at least one viewer. I cant say any of the previous films did that for me. Though past films haven't exactly been real science heavy. The previous films seemed more concerned with Trek Science than Real Science. The series spent too much time on faux science like ESP, telepathy and telekinesis.

One could say the films theme was about embracing your destiny and legacy. Kirk and Spock both are on journeys that leads to them facing both.

 

A spot-on analysis of First Contact. However, this forum is devoted to the Abrams film.



.

 

Kirk's rapid promotion is explained to a degree in the movie, but to be frank, it was a necessary evil.

The film would not be satisfying if Kirk was not the Captain at the end of the movie.

It also had the unenviable task of telling a story in such a way that it felt immediate for the most part, which if it played with gaps for Kirk on the Farragut, Kirk facing the cloud creature, his tenure at the Academy, would be very disjointed.

So introducing a bad guy, aka Nero, provided a way to have Kirk and crew up against something, and providing the adventure and energy needed, as well as a way to get him to the Captain's Chair before the end of a 2 hour movie.

Contrived? Yes. But necessarily so, otherwise, the film would have ended up a plodding, fragmented biopic that would not have worked for a summer movie.

 

Glad you found the film thought-provoking. Perhaps my problem is that I'd read a lot about those subjects long before I saw this film, and kept wishing the writers had done the same.

As to the "destiny" thing, you may have a point there -- if there's any consistent theme there, that seems to be it -- but I don't really see that as a defense of the film's merits. Philosophically speaking, after all, Trek has always been about free will and self-determination and their importance in shaping a better universe, and the very concept of destiny flies right in the face of that.

Not satisfying to whom?

The oft-invoked "casual viewers" who allegedly have no familiarity with or interest in the details and backstory of Trek, yet who allegedly have particular expectations that must be met?

Or the long-time fans who do know those details, yet who allegedly prefer to set all concern with plausibility aside for a shot of nostalgia at seeing the "old crew" slotted into their familiar places?

Besides, as has already been noted, the filmmakers could have retained that particular sense of closure without sacrificing credibility through the use of nothing more than a title card reading "X Years Later" before the promotion.

I realize the goals the writers set out to achieve, but that's kind of the problem: those goals were blatantly obvious in the film from start to finish, so it always felt like the characters weren't so much having organic experiences as being pulled around on strings.

I think the current expectations of what a "summer movie" needs to be (notwithstanding that this one was originally scheduled for a December release) are a big part of the problem here.

 

Why do you assume they didn't? They are on record as being inspired by the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics. And their use of a black hole as a time travel and universe hopping device had been discussed by physicists speculating about black holes and wormholes. Sure they might have expanded on these theories for their story and fudged it a bit, but thats the fiction part science fiction. And if the Prime Enterprise can break free of a Black Star in TOS using it warp engines, then the NuEnterprise can break free of a Black Hole with an exploding warp core in ST09.

I don't mean destiny in any sort of metaphysical sense. But rather people influencing other people to move in a direction that will benefit them and others. Their "Best Destiny". (As both Spock and Diane Carey said.)

 

In that case, lawman, assuming you are correct, the task is literally impossible.

 

But as I keep pointing out, Kirk did not have to be promoted to the RANK of Captain in order to have the POSITION of Captain. It would have been far less of a stretch for the admirals to say "James T. Kirk, you are hereby promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Commander*, and ordered to report to USS Enterprise as her acting commanding officer". Everyone would still call him Captain Kirk, because the CO of any ship is always called Captain regardless of actual rank.

* As I also said, that makes sense because Kirk was already a Lieutenant for most of the time he was on the ship. (It says so on the transporter readout screen when Chekov is trying to beam Kirk and Sulu aboard.)

 

Perhaps, but too much of the niggly detail like this would confuse matters for the uninitiated.

 

^ I don't think so. Trek fans have already SEEN examples of what I am talking about. And in any case, it would only take one or two lines of dialogue to set people straight.

 

On this topic, I personally assume that it's been a couple years since the Narada incident. I know it wasn't expressly stated in the movie, but it makes since. Sure, Kirk probably deserved command after saving earth, but I still don't think they would have given it to him directly after those events. For one thing, Pike in the wheel chair. Pretty sure I saw him walk after coming back (or just before beam out) from the Narada, so I think that was likely a different injury.

 

^ No, Pike didn't walk after they beamed him back. They had to carry him off the bed (on the Narada), again they carried him off the transporter pad, and the next time we saw him was the wheelchair scene. We never saw him walk again.

 

Coulda sworn I saw him atleast stand on his own, but I only saw it once the day it opened so I could be wrong.

 

There's simply no way to tell that in the last minutes of the movie without an exposition scene, and it would have lessened the moment.

More detail than is necessary to tell the story, and any way to add it in would be clunky.

Simply having Kirk step onto the Bridge as Captain may not be TECHNICALLY correct, but it is DRAMATICALLY correct.

After all, that is where he is in TOS, and where he needs to be for the next movie.

The movie is complete when Kirk is CAPTAIN of the Enterprise. That's the end of the story, and sets the stage for the next voyage.

This is one of the central points of the movie, how he got to be CAPTAIN.

 

Actually, there is. They could have simply given Kirk the rank insignia for a LCDR on his sleeves (as opposed to the Captain's stripes he did wear), but otherwise left the scene exactly as it was. Regular Trek viewers would know what happened, and casual fans wouldn't recognize it and thus wouldn't care.

 

All we needed to see was Kirk set on his path to the captaincy. Many of the actors are 5-10 years older than their characters so allowing the passage of some time before the next film would make sense. They could have opened the sequel showing him being given command of the Enterprise.

I just find it mildly irritating that they opted for a rather childish, simplistic, instant gratification approach that seems so prevalent with today's youth.

 

Because nothing in the film gives the slightest indication that they understand any basic science, much less quantum mechanics. Even the writers' interviews don't suggest that they grasp the "many worlds interpretation" at any level that exceeds scanning a Wikipedia article to put a gloss on their view of an old TNG episode.

Frankly, the film's treatment of black holes and supernovae isn't just mistaken in some minor way, it's cringe-inducingly bad. It's literally embarrassing to watch. Supernovae simply do not "threaten the galaxy," and black holes are not the same as wormholes and do not look or behave remotely as depicted. And never mind scientific consistency; it's not even internally consistent within the story, since any explosion that could "threaten the galaxy" and wipe out Romulus as shown would have to be propagating at superluminal velocity, and any force propagating at superluminal velocity wouldn't be defeated by a black hole, since the event horizon would present no barrier.

I don't mind artistic license, but the point is that any reasonably scientifically literate writer could have written around these things and achieved the same effect without the whoppers. Diane Duane invented a threat that could propagate between star systems at subspace velocity in one of her Trek novels, for instance, and I didn't bat an eye, because it made sense in context. These writers either didn't realize the problems, or just didn't bother to fix them. I recognize that Trek science has always been fairly rubbery., but they stretched it past the breaking point.

Sorry, please clarify. What's impossible if I'm right about what?

Right. Because the "uninitiated" are complete idiots, and can't understand a little basic exposition? (Perhaps the same assumption that went into the treatment of the supernova: "People understand a big explosion. Let's not confuse them with details!")

A lot of things in this film (though not all!) make more sense if you assume details not actually depicted or described on screen. At some point you hit a point of diminishing returns, though, and have to start asking yourself why the highly paid Hollywood writers couldn't make sense of their own story, rather than leaving that task to the viewers who paid for the privilege.

Then, since the writers actually had the entire movie to work with and weren't restricted to the final minutes, perhaps it would have behooved them to come up with a less gratingly stupid story to explain how he got to that point?

This. Exactly.

This too. (Except for the gratuitous shot at "today's youth"; how about just "today's Hollywood"?)

 

If I wasn't convinced before, I am now. Actually, I'm a lawyer with no background in science at all and even I cringed the moment I heard Spock speak of a supernova that threatened the Galaxy. Now I'm pretty dumb at science and if I could spot this howler a mile off I shudder to think how ignorant one would have to be to let it slide.

Heh - modern tv tries to follow the tastes of the audience. I expect even in yesteryear the young have always fantasised about instant gratification. However, I do think that our modern credit-driven society has made people more inclined to spend now and pay later. To me, the instant promotion with no concept of how it can all go wrong (such as a world recession) is reflective of today's society. I agree though - it was a bit harsh to blame 'the young'. That was just sour grapes because I'm 40 this year.

 

About the same age as me, actually. We seem to have some things in common; I'm a lawyer too (by training if not current profession). I just tend to be especially wary of our tendency as a society to blame things reflexively on "the young," even though they're seldom the ones with any decision-making power or influence. The entertainment industry in this country has long been inclined to take that old P.T. Barnum aphorism too much to heart and underestimate the intelligence of its audience (and then express surprise when the occasional intelligent project actually picks up a fan following)... so I'm inclined to look there first when placing blame.