If this is supposed to be a film about a young Kirk and Spock close to the academy days I don't see how the other crewmates can be in it because they most likely entered Starfleet after them, with one or two exceptions.
The Timeframe
- Thread starter USS Excelsior
- Start date
Damn.
There goes that script.
Orci and Kurzman better get back to work, and hurry.
There goes that script.
Orci and Kurzman better get back to work, and hurry.
Clearly we are going to see Kirk in command of the Enterprise with his traditional crew... perhaps not through the entire film, but for some portion of it.
JJ Abrams does like to jump around, temporally speaking, as a storyteller. I'm not a big fan of flashback/flash forward storytelling myself, but I expect to see some of it in the upcoming film.
JJ Abrams does like to jump around, temporally speaking, as a storyteller. I'm not a big fan of flashback/flash forward storytelling myself, but I expect to see some of it in the upcoming film.
I think it would be a nice change from the usual story structure we see in Trek films. The whole "Starfleet sends the Enterprise on a mission, they prepare for the mission, they get in a space battle with the villain, they do some investigating on an alien planet, etc", has gotten SERIOUSLY old by now.
I definitely don't want to see more time travel, but if the STORY wants to jump around or jump forward a couple years, I'm fine with that.
Far be it for me to oppose the "nice linear presentation" (it's my wife's favourite kind of film--especially if there's a happy ending) but, actually, I do oppose it (my wife and I don't share many tastes in film or TV shows).
I won't hate it if it's done that way (done well, such a formula can be quite good) but I will be pleasantly surprised if it is not so linear. I like a bit of misdirection and non-linearity in my films (TV shows, novels, comics, plays--any form of entertainment, just about) as, when done well, it gives all the satisfaction of the good linear story PLUS the added bonus of a little bit of a challenge. My favourite films are those whose endings are not expected and, where appropriate, are open to discussion and interpretation.
Clearly I don't expect an art house film, here, but Abrams propensity for "mixing it up" makes me cautiously optimistic that I will get more than I expect from the film.
As to the "time frame", without really knowing more than the barest impressions of the rumoured script, I think it is safe to say the "secondary" characters will appear in some parts but not in others and their presence in this film will likely be to establish the characters for any future sequels that might emerge rather than have them anachronistically be in situations that would be gross violations of "canon" (I don't really care about "canon" at this point, but as the screenwriters have gone out of their way to say they plan to respect it in large measure, I take them at their word and presume the non-linearity for which Abrams is known will be at the heart of those characters' appearances).
The film can't be about Kirk and Spock both being "close to the Academy days" as TOS established that Spock was an officer serving under Pike at least a full decade before joining Kirk's crew (ref. "The Menagerie"). If the film is supposed to be part of the canon, then we just can't have Spock being fresh out of the academy. And, for that matter, we can't have someone fresh out of the academy be given command of a starship, either. TOS established Kirk served aboard other vessels first.
Once again, though, if Abrams admits that this is a reimagining, than never mind to all those points.
Cheers!
Alex
Wasn't it said/implied in BoT that the UFP didn't encounter the Romulans before that ep for a long while? I think since the Neutral Zone was formed?
Unless you're still considering sometime after BoT as early in his command.
ONE MORE TIME...
Military officers (and yes, even if you don't consider Starfleet to be "the military" it still follows all the precepts and structures thereof) don't just go to school once, then go out and work in the field for the rest of their careers.
LIEUTENANT SAAVIK was not a cadet. Yet she was back at the academy, presumably quite a few years after graduation and her first assignment.
LIEUTENANT KIRK taught at the Academy, presumably at the same time that he was back there for his "command school" just as Saavik was. It's established, with a clear but not 100% certain level of confidence, that Spock was familiar with Kirk at THAT POINT. Spock knew of Carol Marcus and expressed quite a bit of familiarity with Kirk's Kobayashi Maru bit.
Kirk taught underclassmen at the Academy, AND took the Kobayashi Maru... as a LIEUTENANT. Which, assuming that there's ANY parallel between modern military promotion and rank structures and Starfleet's (and there's a LOT of reason to assume that!), would have been when Jim Kirk was about 27 years old.
Which fits PERFECTLY with what we're seeing here so far.
Get this, people... military officers return for advanced training REPEATEDLY THROUGHOUT THEIR CAREERS. It's a prerequisite for promotion and higher levels of responsibility!
So, to your point... Spock would have served under Pike BEFORE Kirk and he seem to have met at the Academy. Kirk would have served under Garrovick (and others) before he and Spock met at the Academy.
Kirk and Spock would both have been Lieutenants at that point. And both would have been Lieutenant Commanders shortly afterwards.
Kirk then found himself on the "fast track" ... probably due to things that happened after that point, and would have gotten promoted faster-than-usual to Commander and then, upon being granted command of Enterprise, to Captain.
My point: There is NO ISSUE WITH THE POINT YOU WERE ARGUING AGAINST. It's entirely correct. "Academy" does not equal "high school" or even "college."
In the modern military, men in their 40s go back to the academy for "war college," just for example. That, also, is "at the academy."
There's little doubt that when Kirk was promoted to Admiral, he had to go to some similar sort of "flag officer course."
Education for members of the services is a LIFELONG THING.
There's jumping around in time, and then there's jumping around in time. I mean, are characters moving from time to time? Or, are they merely flashbacks and flashforwards?
I could see the story being structured a lot like "All Good Things", where like Picard, Nimoy's Spock is the connection between times and moves the story.
I could see the story being structured a lot like "All Good Things", where like Picard, Nimoy's Spock is the connection between times and moves the story.
You missed my point completely. But I'm tired of arguing with people here and elsewhere who seem to know everything while I apparently know shit. So never mind. Fandom is gonna implode when the actual plot details are revealed and the Enterprise is redesigned and we see Kirk meeting Romulans face-to-face. I'll just be sitting on the sidelines and laughing.
I'm going back to Doctor Who.
Alex
Frankly, I can't see what point you were trying to make. (OTOH, I can see how Gary might think your supposed point would be countermanded by clarifying a few things about how "being at the Academy" really works.)
I mean, surely the film can be about Kirk and Spock close to their academy days - although it probably isn't, at least not exclusively so. But what relevance do your comments have on that?
"Spock can't be fresh off the Academy"? Why not? As long as the timeframe of the movie remains open, we can be treated to at least some scenes where Spock is exactly that. Moreover, Spock's birthdate is utterly unestablished in canon, so his Academy years can be adjusted for desired effect. All we need to acknowledge is that Pike was Spock's commanding officer (possibly through various assignments) for 11 years (not even necessarily consecutive years) before "The Menagerie", or more exactly before "Where No Man". That, and the fact that Kirk was eighteen roughly sixteen years before "The Menagerie" and probably spent the next four years at the Academy as an undergraduate. Plenty of opportunities there to pair a pre-Pike Spock with Cadet Kirk, or a Pike-era Spock with Lieutenant Kirk, or whatever combo is found desirable.
"A cadet can't get a starship"? Well, duh. But even the wildest rumors so far haven't featured such a plot development where Cadet Kirk or Lieutenant Spock would become starship commanders, right? Temporary heroic commandeering above and beyond duty is always a possibility even for the lowliest Bosun's Mate, of course.
The histories of Kirk and Spock are quite loosely defined in canon. The histories of McCoy, Sulu, Chekov or Uhura do not exist - we don't even know when Sulu or Uhura were born. A movie playing with these themes would not risk contradicting anything significant unless it really went out of its way to do so. At most, the movie would establish a few things that previously went unestablished.
The tricky timeline questions concern minor side characters who probably won't appear in the movie. Where does Gary Mitchell fit (studying under Lieutenant Kirk, friends for fifteen years before "Where No Man", served with Spock before serving under Kirk)? Or Carol Marcus? Who cares, as long as the movie isn't about them?
Timo Saloniemi
I mean, surely the film can be about Kirk and Spock close to their academy days - although it probably isn't, at least not exclusively so. But what relevance do your comments have on that?
"Spock can't be fresh off the Academy"? Why not? As long as the timeframe of the movie remains open, we can be treated to at least some scenes where Spock is exactly that. Moreover, Spock's birthdate is utterly unestablished in canon, so his Academy years can be adjusted for desired effect. All we need to acknowledge is that Pike was Spock's commanding officer (possibly through various assignments) for 11 years (not even necessarily consecutive years) before "The Menagerie", or more exactly before "Where No Man". That, and the fact that Kirk was eighteen roughly sixteen years before "The Menagerie" and probably spent the next four years at the Academy as an undergraduate. Plenty of opportunities there to pair a pre-Pike Spock with Cadet Kirk, or a Pike-era Spock with Lieutenant Kirk, or whatever combo is found desirable.
"A cadet can't get a starship"? Well, duh. But even the wildest rumors so far haven't featured such a plot development where Cadet Kirk or Lieutenant Spock would become starship commanders, right? Temporary heroic commandeering above and beyond duty is always a possibility even for the lowliest Bosun's Mate, of course.
The histories of Kirk and Spock are quite loosely defined in canon. The histories of McCoy, Sulu, Chekov or Uhura do not exist - we don't even know when Sulu or Uhura were born. A movie playing with these themes would not risk contradicting anything significant unless it really went out of its way to do so. At most, the movie would establish a few things that previously went unestablished.
The tricky timeline questions concern minor side characters who probably won't appear in the movie. Where does Gary Mitchell fit (studying under Lieutenant Kirk, friends for fifteen years before "Where No Man", served with Spock before serving under Kirk)? Or Carol Marcus? Who cares, as long as the movie isn't about them?
Timo Saloniemi
To the OP --
No worries about your (probably) mistaken ideas regarding the plot. There are still media stories out there saying this will be about the Academy -- and those stories are most likely wrong.
For instance, many people go to IMDB.com for information regarding this film. IMDB.com still has this listed in the film's plot synopsis:
"A chronicle of the early days of James T. Kirk and his fellow USS Enterprise crew members during their time at Starfleet Academy."
That likely erroneous plot outline didn't look like an editable field, even for a registered IMDB user. So, I started a thread yesterday on IMDB, asking the board administrators to revise or at least delete that plot outline because it is most likely inaccurate. IMBD then deleted my post instead (probably because I said they we're publishing 'misinformation' -- in hindsight that may have been a bad choice of words on my part
). The bottom line is I said that I would rather see no outline than a likely inaccurate one.
However, maybe those harsh words got the attention of someone on IMDB.com who will be able to fix that outline as to not confuse so many fans who go to IMDB expecting accurate information.
UPDATE: I re-posted my question on IMDB, this time with language that would not be construed as "critical" to IMDB. Maybe this one won't get deleted.
No worries about your (probably) mistaken ideas regarding the plot. There are still media stories out there saying this will be about the Academy -- and those stories are most likely wrong.
For instance, many people go to IMDB.com for information regarding this film. IMDB.com still has this listed in the film's plot synopsis:
"A chronicle of the early days of James T. Kirk and his fellow USS Enterprise crew members during their time at Starfleet Academy."
That likely erroneous plot outline didn't look like an editable field, even for a registered IMDB user. So, I started a thread yesterday on IMDB, asking the board administrators to revise or at least delete that plot outline because it is most likely inaccurate. IMBD then deleted my post instead (probably because I said they we're publishing 'misinformation' -- in hindsight that may have been a bad choice of words on my part
). The bottom line is I said that I would rather see no outline than a likely inaccurate one.However, maybe those harsh words got the attention of someone on IMDB.com who will be able to fix that outline as to not confuse so many fans who go to IMDB expecting accurate information.
UPDATE: I re-posted my question on IMDB, this time with language that would not be construed as "critical" to IMDB. Maybe this one won't get deleted.
^
^^I don't want to come off sounding snippy here, but the timeframes on 'Lost' are not difficult to follow.
Many 'Lost' episodes take place in two timeframes -- one is "in the present" on the island, and the other shows some past event (usually past) that gives more insight into what is happening "In the present".
The timeframes don't "go all over the place" on a particular episode 'Lost' any more than than they do in many other TV shows that include a flashback. It's usually very easy to tell which timeframe they are in, because the backstories don't take place on the island.
Having said that, I do expect this film to be more linear in its story-telling method, however I'm not ruling out a few backstory sequences.
^^I don't want to come off sounding snippy here, but the timeframes on 'Lost' are not difficult to follow.
Many 'Lost' episodes take place in two timeframes -- one is "in the present" on the island, and the other shows some past event (usually past) that gives more insight into what is happening "In the present".
The timeframes don't "go all over the place" on a particular episode 'Lost' any more than than they do in many other TV shows that include a flashback. It's usually very easy to tell which timeframe they are in, because the backstories don't take place on the island.
Having said that, I do expect this film to be more linear in its story-telling method, however I'm not ruling out a few backstory sequences.
Similar threads
