So, when he joins Starfleet, Kirk is TWENTY TWO???

[Cryogenic]

When he goes aboard the Narada, Robau gives the stardate as 223304 -- i.e. the year is 2233.

When the film cuts from Kirk boarding the shuttle for new recruits to the Narada in space, a caption flashes up: "Three Years Later". Later on, when marooned on Delta Vega, Kirk gives the stardate as 2258.42 (another inconsistency: Robau says, "twenty two thirty three zero four", while Kirk says, "twenty two fifty eight point four two") -- i.e. the year is 2258.

This means that Kirk is twenty-two when he joins Starfleet. Seems a stretch. Chris Pine looks more like thirty-two than twenty-two, in my eyes. What does everyone else think? Can he pass as a young man barely out of his teens? Or is this another contrivance we're meant to accept?

 

[Cyke101]

When he goes aboard the Narada, Robau gives the stardate as 223304 -- i.e. the year is 2233.

When the film cuts from Kirk boarding the shuttle for new recruits to the Narada in space, a caption flashes up: "Three Years Later". Later on, when marooned on Delta Vega, Kirk gives the stardate as 2258.42 (another inconsistency: Robau says, "twenty two thirty three zero four", while Kirk says, "twenty two fifty eight point four two") -- i.e. the year is 2258.

This means that Kirk is twenty-two when he joins Starfleet. Seems a stretch. Chris Pine looks more like thirty-two than twenty-two, in my eyes. What does everyone else think? Can he pass as a young man barely out of his teens? Or is this another contrivance we're meant to accept?

I'm in my late twenties and I think he looks passable for mid-twenties. Besides, ain't much of a visual difference between early and mid-twenties, the latter of which is when the bulk of the movie happens.

But what's the big deal? Let's look at Kira Nerys and B'elanna Torres. They're both in their early twenties when we meet them, but both Nana Visitor and Roxann Dawson were in their mid thirties when they were cast. And on the other side of the spectrum, Patrick Stewart was cast to play a man 12 years his senior.

Are we at the height of what we consider to be contrivances?

 

[Jeri]

Chris was 28 during filming and looks fine for the age range. In the months since May here, I don't think I've seen any posts complaining that he looked too old.

 

[M'Sharak]

This means that Kirk is twenty-two when he joins Starfleet. Seems a stretch. Chris Pine looks more like thirty-two than twenty-two, in my eyes. What does everyone else think? Can he pass as a young man barely out of his teens? Or is this another contrivance we're meant to accept?

Considering that, for decades, most high school-age characters on TV and many in movies have been played by actors in their twenties, I'm not seeing twenty-eight-year-old Pine playing a twenty-five-year-old Kirk as any kind of a sudden departure in casting practices. As far as that goes, do you remember 30-year-old Walter Koenig (31, by the time the episodes first aired) playing 22-year-old Chekov? I don't recall ever seeing anyone making a big deal of that, then or now.

And was Pine believable as a twenty-two-year-old high-IQ punk in the bar scene (both pre- and post-brawl) or in the "boarding the shuttle the next morning" scene? Sure. Why not? It wasn't setting off any "he looks too old" bells for me. (Of course, all of you under-35s look like kids to me, any more, so YMMV. )

(another inconsistency: Robau says, "twenty two thirty three zero four", while Kirk says, "twenty two fifty eight point four two")

Does everyone you know read out the date in exactly the same way, or do you not know some who would say "Sunday, the twenty-fifth of October, two thousand and nine" and others who'd say instead "October twenty-fifth, two thousand nine" and others who'd put it yet another way. Is reading off the date done with such rigid precision even in the military that everyone does it in exactly the same way, with no deviation? Based on the two examples you've given, it seems clear that the convention would dictate that the first four digits precede and last two digits follow the point, whether the "point" is verbalized or not. I'm honestly having trouble seeing this as an inconsistency worth quibbling.

 

[Clancy_s]

What does everyone else think? Can he pass as a young man barely out of his teens? Or is this another contrivance we're meant to accept?

He looked fine for a 22 year old to me, particularly since it looked like he was supposed to be living pretty hard at the time.

 

[Cyke101]

(another inconsistency: Robau says, "twenty two thirty three zero four", while Kirk says, "twenty two fifty eight point four two")

Does everyone you know read out the date in exactly the same way, or do you not know some who would say "Sunday, the twenty-fifth of October, two thousand and nine" and others who'd say instead "October twenty-fifth, two thousand nine" and others who'd put it yet another way. Is reading off the date done with such rigid precision even in the military that everyone does it in exactly the same way, with no deviation? Based on the two examples you've given, it seem clear that the convention would dictate that the first four digits precede and last two digits follow the point, whether the "point" is verbalized or not. I'm honestly having trouble seeing this as an inconsistency worth quibbling.

To go a bit further, my boss dates every document as, say, 25 - Oct - 09, not using pure numbers. He's an American who doesn't use the American dating system and just prefers to date things this way.

 

[Kelso]

Cryogenic, I have enjoyed reading your intelligent criticisms of the film. I wish you'd stick to that.

 

[Kev]

I believe it's less an inconsistency and merely the passage of time the story covers. Actors real ages and the ages of the characters they play don't always reflect each other.

Age-wise he comes across as fine.

 

[Sector 7]

Cryogenic, I have enjoyed reading your intelligent criticisms of the film. I wish you'd stick to that.

[Pirate Voice]Ye be graspin' at straws today, me Cryogenic matey.[/Pirate Voice]

 

[The Wormhole]

And here I thought this thread was complaining that at 022, Kirk would be to old to join Starfleet.

No, I'm not letting go of it, not even after 01 year.

 

[Therin of Andor]

No, I'm not letting go of it, not even after 01 year.

"01 of these days... pow! Right in the kisser..."

 

[SalvorHardin]

So, Pine is too old now ?
I thought this was 90210 and teens in Star Trek

Anyway, people before me have pretty much covered it (except the zero guy). No need to repeat the same things.

 

[Pauln6]

Pine is fine. However, Uhura is about 7 years younger than Kirk, so Saldana was playing 18...

Plus Spock, who is a year older than Kirk, was a full commander at aged 26 instead of a lieutenant at aged 23 (the Cage) and a lieutenant-commander at age 34 (TOS season one).

I'm generally fine with most of the monkeying with the timeline but Spock should have been a lower-ranked third officer after Number One and Kirk should have been promoted to first officer after Number One either got nobbled or promoted ready for his promotion to captain in the opening scenes of Star Trek 12.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I had absolutely no trouble buying Pine as a snotty twenty-two-year-old version of Kirk.

 

[Borgminister]

What does everyone else think? Can he pass as a young man barely out of his teens? Or is this another contrivance we're meant to accept?

He looked fine for a 22 year old to me, particularly since it looked like he was supposed to be living pretty hard at the time.

Sounds right.

 

[Cyke101]

Pine is fine. However, Uhura is about 7 years younger than Kirk, so Saldana was playing 18...

Do we have a canon date for Uhura's birth? Memory Alpha simply states that she was born in the 2230s (just like Kirk), but assuming that she wasn't a wunderkind like Chekov, started at the average age (say 18) and graduated in four years, she could be 22 and thus younger than Kirk all along.

The thing about Kirk in any timeline is that he seems to be a young achiever anyway. Just not as young as Uhura.

Plus Spock, who is a year older than Kirk, was a full commander at aged 26 instead of a lieutenant at aged 23 (the Cage) and a lieutenant-commander at age 34 (TOS season one).

I'm generally fine with most of the monkeying with the timeline but Spock should have been a lower-ranked third officer after Number One and Kirk should have been promoted to first officer after Number One either got nobbled or promoted ready for his promotion to captain in the opening scenes of Star Trek 12.

Hm, good point. I never really put much thought into Spock's age in here, maybe because unlike several others, we see him with his career fully underway like Sulu and Scott.

Then again, first season TOS tended to be spotty with ranks, like future spinoffs sometimes.