The characters' ages in TOS (a discussion, not a question)

[TLOZ Lover]

Early versions of the premise held that Rand was supposed to be old enough to have known Spock for years. I don't know that that carried over to production, but it seems plausible. Especially since she didn't slap his face for that crack at the end of The Enemy Within.

Our TOSSatNight Twitter group watched that episode a few weeks ago, and I tweeted "Since when is attempted rape an interesting quality?". Several people responded in agreement. A weird, out-of-character and inappropriate comment for the second in command to make in light of what happened to her IMO.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

The only instance I recall of an age being stated in the episodes was Chekov saying he was 22 in WMFA.

Kirk stated that he was 34 years old in "The Deadly Years," which would put him at about 4 years younger than Shatner at the time.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sarek gives his age as 102.437 in Journey to Babel.

 

[Timo]

Kirk stated that he was 34 years old in "The Deadly Years," which would put him at about 4 years younger than Shatner at the time.

OTOH, he was senile at the time and might have misremembered even his own age. Now there is a mistake your friends will be way too embarrassed to point out...

Spock in TAS "Yesteryear" said he was seven during events that preceded the episode by 30 years sharp, so that's a fix, too. Beyond the three, the heroes are free-floaters, more or less, even when counting the animation.

Regardless of the impact or significance of Shatner's relative youth during the series, it's interesting to note that Kirk's apparent youth never really warrants a comment in-universe. When he meets fellow starship commanders, those are generally given extra age and extra rank for dramatic reasons, making Kirk the underdog in a conflict. Only the evil Tracey gets to wear the same braid as Kirk yet play out a dramatic and prolonged conflict with him, and Woodward is fully allowed to let his greater age show in the character - it doesn't make him Kirk's inferior in any respect. But despite Kirk ending up as the junior of the lot, he never gets credited with things like "skyrocketing career", "boy genius" or "that inexperienced upstart".

Even the spinoff shows refrain from commenting on Kirk's age, which is remarkable against the pressure of fandom misconceptions of him as "the yongest ever".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JonnyQuest037]

OTOH, he was senile at the time and might have misremembered even his own age. Now there is a mistake your friends will be way too embarrassed to point out...

Except that Kirk said it during a competency hearing that was determining his fitness for command. Since Spock and the others didn't shy away from pointing out all of Kirk's other mistakes, I find it extremely unlikely that they would choose to let that one go. In the absence of any other compelling evidence, we have to conclude that Kirk was 34 during the events of "The Deadly Years."

 

[Timo]

At the point of the hearing where Kirk insists he's 34, it's already a foregone conclusion that he's embarrassingly unfit. The others could cringe, but they wouldn't need to say anything. After all, beyond the "34 incident", Spock has only one question to ask before he concludes the hearing: "Do you agree, Dr McCoy?". And of course he does.

Not that there should be anything wrong with Kirk being 34 at the time. It's just that if a writer chooses to differ (not as regards Kirk's birth year, which is already nicely fixed, but as regards when the episode takes place), he or she can.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

Even the spinoff shows refrain from commenting on Kirk's age, which is remarkable against the pressure of fandom misconceptions of him as "the yongest ever".

Timo Saloniemi

Didn't Riker once comment that he wanted to beat Kirk's "youngest captain" record?

 

[Nyotarules]

Didn't Riker once comment that he wanted to beat Kirk's "youngest captain" record?

Someone already did in 'Conspiracy'

 

[kkt]

34 was also in the Star Trek writer's guide. Less canonical, but it does support what was on the screen.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Not that there should be anything wrong with Kirk being 34 at the time. It's just that if a writer chooses to differ (not as regards Kirk's birth year, which is already nicely fixed, but as regards when the episode takes place), he or she can.

I am absolutely mystified as to how you regard Kirk's birth year as "nicely fixed" while dialogue in an actual episode can be disregarded just because you feel like it. So the Okuda Chronology takes precedent over TOS scripts and the writer's guide now?

What the heck is so wrong with Kirk being 34, anyway? It's not far off from Shatner's age IRL, and it fits with all of the available facts of Kirk's biography. I don't see any problem with it.

 

[Timo]

I don't see the cause for agitation. Some narrators are obviously unreliable, and Kirk in "The Deadly Years" is definitely that. If he said the sky was blue, there would be good reason to distrust him (and the sky in fact was orange, potentially a crucial fact in diagnosing and curing the afflicted heroes ).

Nothing wrong with Kirk being 34 - I never indicated there'd be a problem there, other than the utter unreliability of the source. But narrators in the 2009 movie would appear unafflicted, so their 2233 for the year of birth should be trusted. If "The Deadly Years" needs to take place in some year other than 2267, then Kirk's age there needs modifying, and the opening for that exists.

Didn't Riker once comment that he wanted to beat Kirk's "youngest captain" record?

No.

We know Tryla Scott is the 24th century gold standard there, but her age in the episode is unknown and so is the age at which she achieved the rank/position. Or perhaps she graduated older than Kirk but also joined Starfleet at a later age and therefore wins the race?

Nor do we know whose record she broke there, although the other three in that cave were apparently contestants (Picard probably excluded), or by how much. Perhaps Kirk had never been a serious opponent?

The age at which Kirk achieved Captain is equally unknown (unless we decide it was between his pilot episode and "Corbomite Maneuver", as his sleeve braid changes there, but some don't want to interpret the pilot braid that way). And perhaps Tracey or Decker got the promotion even earlier on?

Apart from these musings, the concept of "youngest at X" is never mentioned in Trek! Except in "Rascals" where Troi jokes that the rejuvenated Picard could now become the youngest Admiral ever.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I don't see the cause for agitation.

I'm not agitated, just confused by your reasoning. Now that you've explained it, I understand it a bit more. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

Some narrators are obviously unreliable, and Kirk in "The Deadly Years" is definitely that.

I personally think there's a big difference between forgetting some temporary, short-term information like the current Starfleet codes or the planet you're orbiting and such basic, intrinsic information like what age you are.

But narrators in the 2009 movie would appear unafflicted, so their 2233 for the year of birth should be trusted.

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here, you could also make a case that the ST09 movie is an unreliable narrator, since it's an alternate universe that apparently uses a different system of stardates.

The age at which Kirk achieved Captain is equally unknown (unless we decide it was between his pilot episode and "Corbomite Maneuver", as his sleeve braid changes there, but some don't want to interpret the pilot braid that way).

That seems like a reach to me, and needlessly complicating what was previously pretty simple: Kirk was the Captain because he's called the Captain.

 

[Pauln6]

Our TOSSatNight Twitter group watched that episode a few weeks ago, and I tweeted "Since when is attempted rape an interesting quality?"

Since Trump became President?

 

[TLOZ Lover]

Since Trump became President?

One thing about the TOSSatNight group is that we do not, repeat not, bring politics into our discussion of the episodes, as tempting as it may be at times. Sound rule.

 

[Timo]

I personally think there's a big difference between forgetting some temporary, short-term information like the current Starfleet codes or the planet you're orbiting and such basic, intrinsic information like what age you are.

Granted, even though senility IRL sometimes does involve having a really poor grasp of the passage of time. But Trek heroes have had difficulty remembering who they were, of what species even, when afflicted by strange space ailments. So the opening still remains in that sense at least.

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here, you could also make a case that the ST09 movie is an unreliable narrator, since it's an alternate universe that apparently uses a different system of stardates.

True. Then again, the first movie already provides enough material for us to divine the system, at least to the degree of establishing that the digits before the full stop mark units the length of Earth years (even if "2233" there might not correspond to "AD 2233" exactly).

That seems like a reach to me, and needlessly complicating what was previously pretty simple: Kirk was the the Captain because he's called the Captain.

Here I beg to differ: if Kirk in his pilot wears braid assocaited with Commander rank in eras preceding and following the episode, the simple choice is to accept that as Commander rank braid, still allowing Kirk to be the Captain but as a bonus giving us a handle on his promotion history.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Here I beg to differ: if Kirk in his pilot wears braid assocaited with Commander rank in eras preceding and following the episode, the simple choice is to accept that as Commander rank braid, still allowing Kirk to be the Captain but as a bonus giving us a handle on his promotion history.

I'm not sure I'm quite following you here. Pike and the other officers in "The Cage" wore a single stripe on the sleeve. Kirk had two stripes on his sleeve in "Where No Man." And IIRC, I don't think we saw anyone with the rank of Commander in "The Cage." Number One was the first officer at the rank of Lieutenant Commander.

 

[FormerLurker]

At the same time, in the pilots they hadn't established either the exact command structure for a Starfleet vessel like Enterprise, or what the symbology of the ranking system actually was.

 

[Timo]

I'm not sure I'm quite following you here. Pike and the other officers in "The Cage" wore a single stripe on the sleeve. Kirk had two stripes on his sleeve in "Where No Man." And IIRC, I don't think we saw anyone with the rank of Commander in "The Cage." Number One was the first officer at the rank of Lieutenant Commander.

In the 2230s and 2250s of the Kelvin universe, Starfleet uses the same braid system as in regular TOS episodes: two stripes is Commander, and one is Lieutenant. Even ENT apparently uses this system for uniforms that feature braid instead of pips. This is why I find it hard to believe that some other system would briefly have been in place during the two TOS pilots, in-universe.

Therefore it should be natural to think that Captain Kirk's rank in "Where No Man" is Commander. And that Captain Kirk's rank when we next meet him (be it "Man Trap" or "Corbomite Maneuver", no matter) is Captain, nicely bracketing his promotion date and helping us forward in our quest to determine if he made Captain (rank or position) abnormally young.

Pike and Number One both wore a single braid. But the rank of Number One was specified to be Lieutenant. It would be unusual to refer to a Lieutenant Commander by that term, except as an insult of sorts, or in truly informal discussions where the word was synonymous with "aide" or "henchman". And it would seem to follow that Pike's rank was that of Lieutenant as well, because "The Cage" did feature variety in sleeve braid, suggesting that different braid = different rank and same braid = same rank.

The two hiccups here? In "Where No Man", Gary Mitchell is considered Lieutenant Commander (and called Commander once, as is fitting), but only wears a single braid, not 1.5 of them. And some might balk at a mere Lieutenant commanding a starship - even though Pike is in charge of a much smaller crew than Kirk, and his mission doesn't appear as ambitious.

Personally I prefer to "believe in the braid" - Starleet always had odd ideas about Lieutenant Commanders in the TOS era, and perhaps Mitchell's promotion came through in authority before it came through in braid. Or then he was just a sloppy dresser. But your lightyearage may certainly vary.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[J.T.B.]

I'm not sure I'm quite following you here. Pike and the other officers in "The Cage" wore a single stripe on the sleeve. Kirk had two stripes on his sleeve in "Where No Man." And IIRC, I don't think we saw anyone with the rank of Commander in "The Cage." Number One was the first officer at the rank of Lieutenant Commander.

One thing that we can be pretty sure about is that the insignia systems in the pilots were different from the later OS. In "The Cage" Number One (called lieutenant) and Pike wear the same insignia, whic doesn't make sense unless you think they hold the same rank. Garrison, named a chief petty officer in the scripts, wears a voided, ladder-like stripe, never seen again. In WNMHGB, lieutenants and lieutenant commanders are shown to wear the same single stripe. Not to mention the fact that the shirt colors and badges were completely different than those later seen.

 

[Timo]

That's strictly from the production viewpoint, though. And from that viewpoint, the heroes did not even work for Starfleet. In-universe, they of course "always" did.

The "never seen again" thing isn't particularly relevant: the braid itself always looked different anyway, in "The Cage", in TOS, in TMP, in nuTrek. The two variants seen in "The Cage" just denote the Solid and the Not Solid, which in the TOS system in turn denote Lieutenant and Junior Lieutenant. And the latter is fine and well for that male character who was called by neither name nor rank in "The Cage".

The same goes for shirt colors, of course. The red was never the same red, the blue could be three different shades at the same time, and sometimes we got greens or browns. Since we have no bloody idea what the colors mean in any single appearance, that's even less of a counterindication to assinging them whatever meaning we wish, especially a meaning resulting in maximal continuity.

Timo Saloniemi