Star Trek inconsistencies
The Doctor
The new movie, does it bridge The Cage and Where no MAn has gone Before?
Chekov was a later addition.
McCoy must have been the number 2 mdic.
Scotty a junior engineer.
Is this making sense?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Never Satan President Republic!
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1
Joseph Nebus
>Is this making sense?
No, but if you would actually watch the new movie you would find
your objections answered. It's a bit of a radical approach, but some have
found success with it.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
> >Is this making sense?
>
> No, but if you would actually watch the new movie you would find
> your objections answered. It's a bit of a radical approach, but some have
> found success with it.
>
Or heck, read some of the threads that discuss it, in depth.
<grin>
jojo
wrote:
Or simplier: who gives a shit about these stupid details ?
Greg Goss
>Star Trek the Cage confirms Spock as 3rd in Command on the Enterprise.
>
>The new movie, does it bridge The Cage and Where no MAn has gone Before?
>
>Chekov was a later addition.
>
>
>McCoy must have been the number 2 mdic.
>
>Scotty a junior engineer.
>
>Is this making sense?
The new movie is off to the side. There is no "Cage". The Enterprise
is new, on its first voyage. Most of its crew are fresh out of the
Academy, including Chekov. Spock is second in command. Kirk was made
third in command, before a lot of confusing shuffling about.
McCoy is older, but still joining the ship fresh from the Academy and
an ugly divorce. In the old show, I think Scotty was #3. In the new
show, he shows up later.
In The Cage, there was a woman at #2, who's no longer in the show by
the time of the second pilot. In the first pilot, they split the
alien (Spock) from the emotionless logician (the woman).
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greg Goss
>Or simplier: who gives a shit about these stupid details ?
Arguing about the stupid details is half the joy of Trek. Why are you
in a Star Trek newsgroup if that offends you?
David Johnston
Doctor) wrote:
>Star Trek the Cage confirms Spock as 3rd in Command on the Enterprise.
>
>The new movie, does it bridge The Cage and Where no MAn has gone Before?
No. It's a new continuity.
A Watcher
> Star Trek the Cage confirms Spock as 3rd in Command on the Enterprise.
>
> The new movie, does it bridge The Cage and Where no MAn has gone Before?
>
> Chekov was a later addition.
>
>
> McCoy must have been the number 2 mdic.
>
> Scotty a junior engineer.
>
> Is this making sense?
You evidently haven't seen the movie or missed a main point. The
villain traveled back in time to before Kirk was born and his actions
changed everything from that point on. The TV series and all prior
movies are in a different timeline.
Ravenlynne
> jojo <joj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Or simplier: who gives a shit about these stupid details ?
>
> Arguing about the stupid details is half the joy of Trek. Why are you
> in a Star Trek newsgroup if that offends you?
This was crossposted to rec.arts.sf.tv.
--
Now with 100% more monsters than before!
Ravenlynne
>
> In The Cage, there was a woman at #2, who's no longer in the show by
> the time of the second pilot. In the first pilot, they split the
> alien (Spock) from the emotionless logician (the woman).
Well the character wasn't, the actress was there twice more, as Nurse
Chapel and as the voice of the computer. Majel Barret.
Dimensional Traveler
The movie's producers obviously didn't.
--
Things I learned from Usenet #29: Do not chew the peach.
Veni, Vidi, Snarki.
The Doctor
Joe Pfeiffer
> jojo wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 5:20 pm, "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnabus1...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sep 9, 8:13 am, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>>>
>>>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
>>>>> Is this making sense?
>>>> No, but if you would actually watch the new movie you would find
>>>> your objections answered. It's a bit of a radical approach, but some have
>>>> found success with it.
>>> Or heck, read some of the threads that discuss it, in depth.
>>>
>>> <grin>
>>
>> Or simplier: who gives a shit about these stupid details ?
>
> The movie's producers obviously didn't.
No, Berman and Braga didn't care. Abrams (and Orci and Kurtzman) cared,
understood, and deliberately took off in a new direction that worked
really, really well.
You can argue with me about whether the new direction worked, but you
can't argue that they knew their Trek and were very careful to make
clear that this is a new continuity, not a bizarre retcon based on never
having seen an episode.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Joe Pfeiffer
> In article <2elfa5d18doptlq16...@4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:38:57 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
>>Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>>Star Trek the Cage confirms Spock as 3rd in Command on the Enterprise.
>>>
>>>The new movie, does it bridge The Cage and Where no MAn has gone Before?
>>
>>No. It's a new continuity.
>
> There goes logic.
No. You can argue with their decisions, but the new continuity they
created doesn't violate the old.
Greg Goss
>>> Or simplier: who gives a shit about these stupid details ?
>>
>> The movie's producers obviously didn't.
>
>No, Berman and Braga didn't care. Abrams (and Orci and Kurtzman) cared,
>understood, and deliberately took off in a new direction that worked
>really, really well.
>
>You can argue with me about whether the new direction worked, but you
>can't argue that they knew their Trek and were very careful to make
>clear that this is a new continuity, not a bizarre retcon based on never
>having seen an episode.
My complaints about the movie are all within itself, not in the
relationship to the old universe. Well, I've been told that the link
between Scotty and Archer's beagle flunks the timeline, and that's a
valid point to make, but not the links going forward.
Asymmetric travel times to and from Vulcan: fail.
Star Wars style monsters without an ecosystem: fail.
Thumpy Bangy things, er, cuisinart of doom: Traditional, but fail.
Kids straight from school into bridge crew. Running a ship is people
skills, not school larning. Perhaps Pike is doing an experiment.
I'll suspend disbelief on this one.
Transport into a non-co-operating ship at warp. Too powerful -- will
wreck future stories in this universe.
Dimensional Traveler
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> jojo wrote:
>>> On Sep 9, 5:20 pm, "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnabus1...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 9, 8:13 am, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
>>>>>> Is this making sense?
>>>>> No, but if you would actually watch the new movie you would find
>>>>> your objections answered. It's a bit of a radical approach, but some have
>>>>> found success with it.
>>>> Or heck, read some of the threads that discuss it, in depth.
>>>>
>>>> <grin>
>>> Or simplier: who gives a shit about these stupid details ?
>> The movie's producers obviously didn't.
>
> No, Berman and Braga didn't care. Abrams (and Orci and Kurtzman) cared,
> understood, and deliberately took off in a new direction that worked
> really, really well.
>
> You can argue with me about whether the new direction worked, but you
> can't argue that they knew their Trek and were very careful to make
> clear that this is a new continuity, not a bizarre retcon based on never
> having seen an episode.
Yes I can. :D
Dimensional Traveler
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
>
>> In article <2elfa5d18doptlq16...@4ax.com>,
>> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:38:57 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
>>> Doctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Star Trek the Cage confirms Spock as 3rd in Command on the Enterprise.
>>>>
>>>> The new movie, does it bridge The Cage and Where no MAn has gone Before?
>>> No. It's a new continuity.
>> There goes logic.
>
> No. You can argue with their decisions, but the new continuity they
> created doesn't violate the old.
ROFLMAO.
Anim8rFSK
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
And quite accurately; they didn't know their Trek. They didn't even
know Kirk had been killed in Generations, or brought back a couple
different ways. The whole point of the reboot was so they didn't have
to do their homework.
--
Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
--actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST
Dimensional Traveler
the 2009 re-boot is in how they address discipline and chain of command.
TOS was written by people who had some idea of what the military was
really like, many of them having served themselves. Yes, they bend
things a bit for story purposes and the limits of filming a TV show, but
their starting point was a working military. Characters stay at their
posts. Kirk didn't tell his subordinates how to do a task, he just said
"do it". Every time he sits down there's a yeoman handing him a report
to read and sign. How often did we see Picard doing paperwork?
With the re-boot movie they display a level of military discipline that
Somali pirates would laugh at. Civilian cargo and fishing vessels have
better discipline than the 2009 version Starfleet! In the middle of an
action while at General Quarters a bridge officer leaves his post,
without even telling anyone let alone asking permission or arranging a
replacement, to go interfere with a superior officer doing their job in
a different part of the ship! (Literally running thru the ship yelling
"I can do that!"?!?!?!) One of the duties of an executive officer is to
play Devil's Advocate for his CO, presenting alternatives and pointing
out potential problems with the CO's plans. Its both to help his own
training and to serve as a necessary sounding board for his CO. In the
re-boot, when Spock is in command his reaction to his exec (Kirk)
disagreeing is to literally throw him off the ship! And do you really
want me to go in to the whole idea of a cadet who hasn't even graduated
being given command of a major ship ahead of literally thousands of more
senior, more experienced officers? All of which would be horrid whether
it was a Trek movie or some new setting.
Joe Pfeiffer
The only one of these complaints I'd quibble with even slightly is
Kirk's conduct as XO -- he pushed his disagreement to the point of
insubordination. But Spock's reaction was, as you say, ridiculous.
David Johnston
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
>
>> In article <2elfa5d18doptlq16...@4ax.com>,
>> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:38:57 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
>>>Doctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Star Trek the Cage confirms Spock as 3rd in Command on the Enterprise.
>>>>
>>>>The new movie, does it bridge The Cage and Where no MAn has gone Before?
>>>
>>>No. It's a new continuity.
>>
>> There goes logic.
>
>No. You can argue with their decisions, but the new continuity they
>created doesn't violate the old.
Any more that is, than the old violated itself.
Dimensional Traveler
He was an academy cadet who shouldn't have been XO in the first place,
but what you say is true nonetheless.
Jack Bohn
>You know, one of the differences in feel between TOS and both TNG and
>the 2009 re-boot is in how they address discipline and chain of command.
> TOS was written by people who had some idea of what the military was
>really like, many of them having served themselves.
>Kirk didn't tell his subordinates how to do a task, he just said
>"do it". Every time he sits down there's a yeoman handing him a report
>to read and sign. How often did we see Picard doing paperwork?
Well, he pushed a lot of that on his XO. It's Riker I remember
taking reports and doing crew evaluations and such.
--
-Jack
Joseph Nebus
>Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Well, Riker had all that spare time in-between asking obvious
questions so as to set up expository lumps from Data or LaForge, so it's
just good resource management to have him do the paperwork.
I do think that Next Generation's lack of yeomen and shortage of
clipboards being passed around was meant to reflect Roddenberry's Vision
that in The Future most of the routine stuff of life would be handled by
the quite smart computers around them. It fits with the notion that the
ship didn't need a Chief Engineer as a regular character because the work
of engineering would be done automatically enough not to need regular
bridge-level supervision.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensional Traveler
>
> With the re-boot movie they display a level of military discipline that
> Somali pirates would laugh at. Civilian cargo and fishing vessels have
> better discipline than the 2009 version Starfleet! In the middle of an
> action while at General Quarters a bridge officer leaves his post,
> without even telling anyone let alone asking permission or arranging a
> replacement, to go interfere with a superior officer doing their job in
> a different part of the ship! (Literally running thru the ship yelling
> "I can do that!"?!?!?!) One of the duties of an executive officer is to
> play Devil's Advocate for his CO, presenting alternatives and pointing
> out potential problems with the CO's plans. Its both to help his own
> training and to serve as a necessary sounding board for his CO. In the
> re-boot, when Spock is in command his reaction to his exec (Kirk)
> disagreeing is to literally throw him off the ship! And do you really
> want me to go in to the whole idea of a cadet who hasn't even graduated
> being given command of a major ship ahead of literally thousands of more
> senior, more experienced officers? All of which would be horrid whether
> it was a Trek movie or some new setting.
>
Greg Goss
grin. There were lots of problems with military org charts. Like
when Spock disqualifies himself and walks off the bridge without
designating a successor. There's no third in line?
I can see a genius teenager running through the ship yelling "I can do
that". That's why they don't put kids in charge of the whole ship. I
enjoyed that scene.
Spock never figured out how Kirk hacked his simulation. This leaves
him worried that Kirk can hack his way out of any other arrangement
that Spock puts him into. There's a lot to be said for real bars
instead of those force field things.
The military flaws didn't spoil the movie for me. The slapstick of
the cuisinart of doom scene, with Scotty running back and forth all
over the room nearly did.
Jack Bohn
>*notices none of the "It Was Great" crowd trying to show me I'm wrong*
I dont get into religious arguments. :)
--
-Jack
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
recent "Star Trek" movie, including examples of poor discipline. He
then wrote:
> *notices none of the "It Was Great" crowd trying to show me I'm wrong*
You're not wrong. The movie was fantastically dumb in a number of ways.
The thing is, I liked it anyway. It was good dumb fun. It should have
been less dumb, no argument, but as I wrote to a friend of mine:
It's a fun bit of popcorn excitement. There's some disappointment
in that it could have been better, but if you're looking for some
light entertainment and rock-em sock-em action, this movie delivers.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Happiness is having a large, loving, caring, close-knit family--in
another city." -- George Burns
David Johnston
wrote:
>> > You can argue with me about whether the new direction worked, but you
>> > can't argue that they knew their Trek and were very careful to make
>> > clear that this is a new continuity, not a bizarre retcon based on never
>> > having seen an episode.
>>
>> Yes I can. :D
>
>And quite accurately; they didn't know their Trek. They didn't even
>know Kirk had been killed in Generations, or brought back a couple
>different ways.
How was that important?
Joseph Nebus
> And do you really
>want me to go in to the whole idea of a cadet who hasn't even graduated
>being given command of a major ship ahead of literally thousands of more
>senior, more experienced officers? All of which would be horrid whether
>it was a Trek movie or some new setting.
I put to you a hypothetical: the United States Navy commissions
a ship. It puts on this ship two commissioned officers, and a handful
of non-commissioned, and otherwise fills it up with over a hundred and
fifty cadets, half of them under the age of seventeen, and gives them an
actual mission. It's intended in part to be training for these cadets,
to be sure, but it's still the Navy ordering official business.
Is this scenario remotely credible to you?
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Goss
>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> And do you really
>>want me to go in to the whole idea of a cadet who hasn't even graduated
>>being given command of a major ship ahead of literally thousands of more
>>senior, more experienced officers? All of which would be horrid whether
>>it was a Trek movie or some new setting.
>
> I put to you a hypothetical: the United States Navy commissions
>a ship. It puts on this ship two commissioned officers, and a handful
>of non-commissioned, and otherwise fills it up with over a hundred and
>fifty cadets, half of them under the age of seventeen, and gives them an
>actual mission. It's intended in part to be training for these cadets,
>to be sure, but it's still the Navy ordering official business.
>
> Is this scenario remotely credible to you?
In an panic emergency situation, remotely credible. When they come
back, no. The cadets are scattered to the rest of the fleet and the
experienced officers come back from where they were hiding when the
emergency hit.
Dimensional Traveler
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> And do you really
>> want me to go in to the whole idea of a cadet who hasn't even graduated
>> being given command of a major ship ahead of literally thousands of more
>> senior, more experienced officers? All of which would be horrid whether
>> it was a Trek movie or some new setting.
>
> I put to you a hypothetical: the United States Navy commissions
> a ship. It puts on this ship two commissioned officers, and a handful
> of non-commissioned, and otherwise fills it up with over a hundred and
> fifty cadets, half of them under the age of seventeen, and gives them an
> actual mission. It's intended in part to be training for these cadets,
> to be sure, but it's still the Navy ordering official business.
>
> Is this scenario remotely credible to you?
>
regularly I'm sure. Filling a ship with cadets to be immediately sent
in to combat, no, not really. And putting a cadet, who was on
suspension pending the paperwork going thru to dismiss him from the
service for cheating, in command _after_ the battle is over (in the
process jumping him half a dozen grades) massively less so.
Now, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if someone dug up a historical
incident from (counts how long its been since the US Civil War ended)
140+ years ago where something like that "ship of cadets in combat"
scenario actually happened. If they did, I would expect it was done
solely on the authority of the Commandant of that particular academy,
_not_ on orders from far enough up the chain of command that some
Admiral signed his name to the order. I _would_ be very surprised if
that same historical incident ended with one of those cadets being
assigned command of the ship before he graduated over one of those
commissioned officers after the emergency was over and the ship had
returned to home port.
Joe Pfeiffer
>>
> *notices none of the "It Was Great" crowd trying to show me I'm wrong*
Of course not. I agree with you on many of the flaws -- I came out of
the theatre saying it was great fun, but would have been improved a lot
if it had had a comprehensible plot. I'm disagreeing on whether they
ash-canned to old continuity because they couldn't be bothered to do
their homework (your view), or if they gave a much-needed kick to a very
tired franchise (mine).
Dimensional Traveler
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>> *notices none of the "It Was Great" crowd trying to show me I'm wrong*
>
> Of course not. I agree with you on many of the flaws -- I came out of
> the theatre saying it was great fun, but would have been improved a lot
> if it had had a comprehensible plot. I'm disagreeing on whether they
> ash-canned to old continuity because they couldn't be bothered to do
> their homework (your view), or if they gave a much-needed kick to a very
> tired franchise (mine).
Actually, my view is closer to "they ash-canned the old continuity
deliberately because the whole point was to get people to think of them
when someone says 'Star Trek' rather than the people who actually made
'Star Trek' a well known, valuable property". :-P
Joe Pfeiffer
If you'd just come around as far as "...to get people to think of the
new movie instead of a tired old franchise whose value had been as
systematically destroyed by B&B as Chrysler's was by Daimler" we'd be in
complete agreement.
Dimensional Traveler
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>>>> *notices none of the "It Was Great" crowd trying to show me I'm wrong*
>>> Of course not. I agree with you on many of the flaws -- I came out of
>>> the theatre saying it was great fun, but would have been improved a lot
>>> if it had had a comprehensible plot. I'm disagreeing on whether they
>>> ash-canned to old continuity because they couldn't be bothered to do
>>> their homework (your view), or if they gave a much-needed kick to a very
>>> tired franchise (mine).
>> Actually, my view is closer to "they ash-canned the old continuity
>> deliberately because the whole point was to get people to think of
>> them when someone says 'Star Trek' rather than the people who actually
>> made 'Star Trek' a well known, valuable property". :-P
>
> If you'd just come around as far as "...to get people to think of the
> new movie instead of a tired old franchise whose value had been as
> systematically destroyed by B&B as Chrysler's was by Daimler" we'd be in
> complete agreement.
TOS is still of value. :)
More seriously, Paramount and Hollyweird still consider it a valuable
franchise. Orci and Abrahms are simultaneously trying to basically
steal some of the glory, name recognition and prestige associated with
'Star Trek' while being too frigging lazy to think up something
original. So we ended up with this half-baked abortion of a movie.
<insert 'Defying Gravity' "Abortion Is Bad" message here> 'Star Trek'
(2009) is probably the biggest Mary-Sue story in history.
(Nemo's ship was the Island from 'Lost' in space. The whole movie was
'Lost In Space'!!! *snicker* )
David Johnston
Or more accurately "they ash-canned the old continuity deliberately
because the whole point was to get people interested again in an old
clapped out property that had lost most of its value."
Mbruno
>
> You evidently haven't seen the movie or missed a main point. The
> villain traveled back in time to before Kirk was born and his actions
> changed everything from that point on. The TV series and all prior
> movies are in a different timeline.
When the "new" Enterprise destroyed the "Romulan" vessel, why wasn't
the alternate timeline erased ?
Moreover, the accident that caused the destruction of Romulus actually
happened before the Romulan vessel traveled back in time and,
therefore, was not caused by any external tampering with the timeline.
Since no such explosion of Romulus has ever been mentioned in the
normal ST continuity, how do you explain the inconsistency ?
Bottom line: if Paramount wants to reboot ST to sell it to a younger
generation, that's fine with me. Just don't call it Star Trek.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On 9 set, 14:54, A Watcher <stocks...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> You evidently haven't seen the movie or missed a main point. �The
>> villain traveled back in time to before Kirk was born and his actions
>> changed everything from that point on. �The TV series and all prior
>> movies are in a different timeline.
>
>When the "new" Enterprise destroyed the "Romulan" vessel, why wasn't
>the alternate timeline erased ?
Why would it be?
>
>Moreover, the accident that caused the destruction of Romulus actually
>happened before the Romulan vessel traveled back in time and,
>therefore, was not caused by any external tampering with the timeline.
>Since no such explosion of Romulus has ever been mentioned in the
>normal ST continuity, how do you explain the inconsistency ?
It happened after all of the events in normal ST continuity.
Greg Goss
>On 9 set, 14:54, A Watcher <stocks...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> You evidently haven't seen the movie or missed a main point. �The
>> villain traveled back in time to before Kirk was born and his actions
>> changed everything from that point on. �The TV series and all prior
>> movies are in a different timeline.
>
>When the "new" Enterprise destroyed the "Romulan" vessel, why wasn't
>the alternate timeline erased ?
Why? The Romulan vessel had already done the damage.
>
>Moreover, the accident that caused the destruction of Romulus actually
>happened before the Romulan vessel traveled back in time and,
>therefore, was not caused by any external tampering with the timeline.
>Since no such explosion of Romulus has ever been mentioned in the
>normal ST continuity, how do you explain the inconsistency ?
The explosion that took out Romulus is AFTER all of the other canon
works. What inconsistency? Insurrection and the end of DS9 were in
2375. Voyager ran until 2378. Nemesis was in 2379. The explosion
was in 2387. You're complaining that a story in 2375 didn't mention
an explosion a dozen years in the future???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek
Joseph Nebus
>nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>> I put to you a hypothetical: the United States Navy commissions
>>a ship. It puts on this ship two commissioned officers, and a handful
>>of non-commissioned, and otherwise fills it up with over a hundred and
>>fifty cadets, half of them under the age of seventeen, and gives them an
>>actual mission. It's intended in part to be training for these cadets,
>>to be sure, but it's still the Navy ordering official business.
>>
>> Is this scenario remotely credible to you?
>In an panic emergency situation, remotely credible. When they come
>back, no. The cadets are scattered to the rest of the fleet and the
>experienced officers come back from where they were hiding when the
>emergency hit.
You're very nearly cautious enough. The case I had in mind was
the USS Somers, a brig launched in 1842 and a ship that was basically
all-trainee. (The Navy was suffering a critical manpower shortage, and
needed *lots* of bodies warmed up swiftly.)
The mission they were sent on was not a particularly challenging
one --- delivering messages to a ship stationed off of Africa, which they
missed anyway, which happened in those days --- but it was the sort of
routine actual operational business that the Navy did.
I don't have a record of what happened to the cadets/trainees
after the mission, or what the precise intent for them after the training
voyage was, but that's probably because the mutiny and summary executions
confused whatever the original plans were.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Nebus
>Now, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if someone dug up a historical
>incident from (counts how long its been since the US Civil War ended)
>140+ years ago where something like that "ship of cadets in combat"
>scenario actually happened. If they did, I would expect it was done
>solely on the authority of the Commandant of that particular academy,
>_not_ on orders from far enough up the chain of command that some
>Admiral signed his name to the order. I _would_ be very surprised if
>that same historical incident ended with one of those cadets being
>assigned command of the ship before he graduated over one of those
>commissioned officers after the emergency was over and the ship had
>returned to home port.
Well, you're sort of right in that I don't have an example on
hand of a cadet pulled right off of being vindicated in a disciplinary
hearing to command a mission. And yet there are examples of comparable
magnitude. Yes, they date to the age of sailing ships, but since the
feel of Star Trek is supposed to be inspired by Horatio Hornblower and
that lot, how is it inappropriate to use things which really happened
in that era as inspiration?
Consider for example the Wilkes Expedition, a four-year mission
to explore strange new oceans, to seek out new shorelines and new --- er,
pardon. But it was a multiple-year exploring expedition for the young
United States, which was put in the hands of Charles Wilkes --- who, I
grant, was not a cadet; but his naval experience was also fantastically
irrelevant to commanding a squadron of ships, and it showed. (He'd been
tucked safely in the Department of Charts and Instruments as a surveyor
for his whole career and as far as I can tell actually sailed in the line
of duty once before this started.)
And in putting together his officer corps he sought out, wherever
possible, the freshly-graduated or the just-about-to-graduate, for reasons
best known to him. (It's possible he wanted to not be upstaged by officers
with more time actually sailing. Note that it's been speculated that Alan
Shepherd insisted on two rookies for the Apollo 14 crew with him so that
*his* command wouldn't be undermined by having a subordinate with more
flight time than his 15 minutes.)
Despite many more crises than one of those, you know, tried or
experienced commands and officers might have had (maybe; the attempts by
the experienced to organize the expedition failed impressively compared
to Wilkes's experience) the expedition turned out to be a staggering
success, however.
I grant that it is not exactly what we got in the New Trek Movie.
But a six-ship, multi-year exploring expedition commanded by a person who
had never commanded a rowboat and was pulled in from non-line duty, with
the support of people who were barely finished training, is of a similar
enough order of magnitude that the movie's proposition gains credibility.
Oh, by the way, on the course of the expedition Wilkes took his
actual rank of Lieutenant and bumped it up to Commodore, at the time the
highest rank the Navy granted at all. On his own. Resentful underlings
were really hoping they would run into an actual Captain, or at least see
how he sailed back into port with the Commodore's ensign flying. New Kirk
at least didn't show that level of arrogance.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bohn
[historical incident snipped]
> I grant that it is not exactly what we got in the New Trek Movie.
>But a six-ship, multi-year exploring expedition commanded by a person who
>had never commanded a rowboat and was pulled in from non-line duty, with
>the support of people who were barely finished training, is of a similar
>enough order of magnitude that the movie's proposition gains credibility.
Wow. I would not have gone into a defense based of the new movie
on its military protocol. (Or, if I had, I would have been
comparing it to TOS with its "By asking 'why,' the court has
opened itself to any evidence I choose to submit.")
At the risk of moving the discussion, what makes it Star Trek is
not about which has the more realistic military structure, the
most coherent plots, or even the size and shape of the starship
(rassing frassing brewery...)
Star Trek is lines like:
"I will not kill, today!"
"How will you explain to Starfleet that we will send a ship each
year to collect our 'cut'?" or
"Serpents, Mr. Scott. Serpents for the Garden of Eden."
Or, that type of writing having gone out of style, the other set
of lines:
"...and only one of each of us. Don't destroy the one named
Kirk."
"Are you sure you don't know what irritation is?"
"In a pig's eye!"
and the recording of Kirk's final orders, where he tells Spock
and McCoy that they need each other (and which they deny
listening to).
This is fans of the movie respond to:
Spock submitting to Vulcan bullies who explain the logic behind
their trying to raise an emotional reaction from him.
McCoy lost after his divorce, which left him nothing but his old
bones.
Kirk, knowing he has a winning hand at the Kobayashi Maru.
--
-Jack
Joe Pfeiffer
> At the risk of moving the discussion, what makes it Star Trek is
> not about which has the more realistic military structure, the
> most coherent plots, or even the size and shape of the starship
> (rassing frassing brewery...)
<snip>
> Kirk, knowing he has a winning hand at the Kobayashi Maru.
That was actually a scene that didn't ring true for me. Kirk (and yes,
I do mean the snot-nosed kid in this movie, not Shatner) was too smart
to give away so obviously that he had an ace up his sleeve. He should
have been acting nervous but professional, even though he knew he'd
rigged it and was going to win.
Fallen
> Jack Bohn <jack...@bright.net> writes:
>
>>At the risk of moving the discussion, what makes it Star Trek is
>>not about which has the more realistic military structure, the
>>most coherent plots, or even the size and shape of the starship
>>(rassing frassing brewery...)
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>Kirk, knowing he has a winning hand at the Kobayashi Maru.
>
>
> That was actually a scene that didn't ring true for me. Kirk (and yes,
> I do mean the snot-nosed kid in this movie, not Shatner) was too smart
> to give away so obviously that he had an ace up his sleeve. He should
> have been acting nervous but professional, even though he knew he'd
> rigged it and was going to win.
It was already shown he was a cocky snotnosed kid. I thought they played
him perfectly there, he was simply showing off and thumbing his nose to
authority.
Fallen.
RobertVA
> Star Trek the Cage confirms Spock as 3rd in Command on the Enterprise.
>
> The new movie, does it bridge The Cage and Where no MAn has gone Before?
>
>
>
> McCoy must have been the number 2 mdic.
>
> Scotty a junior engineer.
>
> Is this making sense?
Some time travelers made some important changes over a decade before the
events depicted in "The Cage" (Menagerie flashbacks) took place,
therefore IF anyone had a run in with the Talosians the events could
have been quite different, including which ship and crew made that first
contact.