Saw it again. Some new thoughts.
- Thread starter AJBryant
- Start date
To allow debate? ...I kind of want to hurt him for doing that, considering the tone of the debates it spawned...
I only came to ths forum after seeing the movie but I predicted on another board that would be the reaction after seeing the movie. People have made careers out of making up the perfect, in a modern USN/RN sense, careers for our heroes. The movie timeline stuck a major monkey wrench into that Federation as a grand insitution with its 17 year old Ensigns and Captains who promote stow-aways into second in command of the so-called federation flagship, one of thirteen, as he prepares to fly off to his death.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Well, Kirk still has a few bruises on his chin during the commendation-/promotion-scene...
No, he wasn't. He was commanding a brig -- a pretty small ship. His rank was either first lieutenant or commander (not sure of what it was at the time). He was the captain of a ship, but he was not *A* captain.
In every navy, most of the ships are commanded (i.e., "captained") by officers who are lieutenants and lt. cdrs. and commanders. Only the *big* ships are commanded by people who hold the rank of captain. Commanding those smaller ships is PART of the training and gaining of experience necessary for promotion and later and bigger commands.
Nelson wasn't promoted to post-captain until he was 22. (Two years of experience *during wartime* count for quite a bit.)
That's how *every* midshipman got his start. For the record, Annapolis midshipmen today are little different: appointments to the academy come via congressional appointments, so it helps to know your congresscritters.
You are mistaken Sir.
He was promoted Post Captain in 1778 at the age of 20. He entered the Navy in 1771, that's 7 years.
His first command, Little Lucy, came earlier, in 1777 when he was a Lieutenant.
To sum up: Nelson passes his Lieutenant's exam and is given his first command in 1777, and is promoted to Master and Commander later that same year (I guess you'd call this the modern equivalent of the rank of Commander), by June of 1778 he is a Post Captain (so 13 months from Lieutenant to Captain).
That is rapid promotion.
Not quite as rapid as Kirk but Nelson wasn't the big damn hero of a fictional universe.
Yep. That is how it normally worked.
Nelson however, was promoted Lieutenant in May of 1777 and given his first command, the small ship Little Lucy.
He was then promoted Master and Commander and given command of the Brig HMS Badger in December if 1777. Bigger ships followed quickly.
You seem intent on arguing that Nelson had more experience than Kirk.
I grant that.
The only reason I brought him up was to point out that our way of doing things, where someone under 40 would NEVER be given command of a vessel, is not the only way.
Kirk received battlefield promotions that his actions shown should be confirmed, and they were.
It doesn't seem that unrealistic to me.
It's SOMEWHAT unrealistic.
That doesn't bother me. Hercules is pretty unrealistic too. I roll with it because he's, you know, fictional.
In the realm of suspension of disbelief, Kirk's rapid promotion is pretty far down the list in Star Trek.
I guess it is hard to make that suspension of belief because human socities are not moving closer to the time of Nelson, they are moving away from it. States are increasing the minum age to driving a car past the age where Nelson commanded warship. The age of majority is moving from 18 to 21. In my wife's homeland people can't even marry until they are 25 unless offical notice is given to their parents.
In a post Fraud world we don't believe that a child can manage hundreds. Much less greater problem then the technology.
In a post Fraud world we don't believe that a child can manage hundreds. Much less greater problem then the technology.
We've been having these same Starfleet Academy debates since 1982.
I wonder if there's a "Hogan's Heroes" or "Gilligan's Island" message board out there somewhere where people have debates with this much passion. ...
I wonder if there's a "Hogan's Heroes" or "Gilligan's Island" message board out there somewhere where people have debates with this much passion. ...
I have to say that the new film was amazing, I loved it and I loved the pace. The constraint on the egomaniac JJ Abrams due to the existing continuity and expectations of the Trek cosmos was an excellent tool to force fewer LOST / ALIAS bullshit moments and keep the film zipping along.
This is the first Trek film to genuinely elicit real emotion when I watched it- I teared up over the divergence from the old universe and the new, when Spock lost his mother and also of all things when Kirk and Spock argue and then team up later on. It worked for me.
This is a little like the Ultimate versions of Marvel characters- the story is going to go to some of the same places and events but it's free to spin it and change it. Captain Pike for example, I was waiting for some crippling injury so nice touch putting him in a wheelchair. It's like the black Nick Fury factor in Ultimates. No biggie.
And compared to how awful and stale Trek had become this is a great reboot for me. I've followed Trek from the beginning and this is a fine addition.
The major thought I can't escape is how old "Admiral Archer" must be- I am guessing McCoy out of TNG ep 1 or something. God how I hate Enterprise.
This is the first Trek film to genuinely elicit real emotion when I watched it- I teared up over the divergence from the old universe and the new, when Spock lost his mother and also of all things when Kirk and Spock argue and then team up later on. It worked for me.
This is a little like the Ultimate versions of Marvel characters- the story is going to go to some of the same places and events but it's free to spin it and change it. Captain Pike for example, I was waiting for some crippling injury so nice touch putting him in a wheelchair. It's like the black Nick Fury factor in Ultimates. No biggie.
And compared to how awful and stale Trek had become this is a great reboot for me. I've followed Trek from the beginning and this is a fine addition.
The major thought I can't escape is how old "Admiral Archer" must be- I am guessing McCoy out of TNG ep 1 or something. God how I hate Enterprise.
the shuttles issue.
the kelvin must have been larger than the enterprise-e to fit over 30 suttles, the enterprise-e only has 5 plus the captains yaught.
the constitution class is about 4 times smaller than the galaxy class, makes no sense
the kelvin must have been larger than the enterprise-e to fit over 30 suttles, the enterprise-e only has 5 plus the captains yaught.
the constitution class is about 4 times smaller than the galaxy class, makes no sense
Capabilities and trust in transporters grew with time. Shuttles increasingly became a luxury item used to have awe shots as people gawked at the great ship. Like the US Air Force trust in air to air missles grew. Grew too fast as aerial combat over Vietnam ultimately proved.
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6449/hoganbbs.jpg
[Nice, but too large (1110px × 639px.) Converting image to link, so as to avoid horizontal page-stretching. - M']
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, I thought it was in 79 or early 80. I couldn't recall exactly. (Nelson's always been a bit of a hero of mine, and I'm addicted to nifty "Nelson's navy" novels like those of Dudley Pope and Alexander Kent. If you like that kind of stuff, you'll love the tales of Ramage and Bolitho.)
Crap, I should have remembered that.
Thanks, you just gave me my first chuckle of the day. I don't know why, but "big damn hero" always makes me smile.
No, as I said, junior officers in their twenties and thirties frequently command ships. But small ones. You don't get to sit in the big chair on an aircraft carrier until you have lots of years experience driving smaller ships.
See, for me it's the opposite. All the other stuff I accept as a matter of course, as it's Trek. But *this* I can't buy.
You have no idea of the blood that's been spilled over the Mary Ann vs Ginger debate.
I have read a lot of the American and Swedish reviews and the answer is no.
For instance, I have read almost twenty Swedish reviews, and not a single one mentions the lens flares.
^Yes, they do, but not as much as the British and American reviewers.
I guess it is because TOS never was that popular here. Yet, the median score is 4/5 and most of the major newspapers and well-known movie critics like the movie. I have only seen one review that gave it less than 3/5.
I guess it is because TOS never was that popular here. Yet, the median score is 4/5 and most of the major newspapers and well-known movie critics like the movie. I have only seen one review that gave it less than 3/5.
Exactly...I thought it was pretty much a no brainer that there were more shuttles off screen.
Similar threads
