Well, if we're going to really delve into the analysis.....
If I recall correctly, most of the active fleet was deployed elsewhere , and that would have included the vast majority of the experienced people.
No. The cadets are at Starfleet Academy, not Starfleet Command. Just like in real life, no matter what is going on there will be ships at dock. Pearl Habor is a great example of a place that is always bustling with personnel regardless of the situation. Also, it's preposterous to think that there isn't a enough experienced officers on the entirety of both Earth and Mars to put together a bridge crew even though the Academy and Command is filled with them.
The Enterprise was brand new, still at the star base, and not even officially crewed for that reason. An emergency arose in which they had to take her out, and she was captained initially by Captain Pike, with Spock -- also an active duty officer -- being the XO. Nothing wrong there.
Nah.. Spock was an instructor at the academy. The hole in the plot is that they took
him out of the Academy but no one else; and no one from Starfleet Command?? Nobody is available??? Just these new recruits... Running an entire starship and being tasked with such an immense responsibility?? C'mon.
The crew they put together were essentially midshipmen because that was all they had available.
But that's not true, Spock and many other experienced people were available. If they weren't, who was teaching these cadets, and who is running Command?
That would be a huge stretch on a modern ship but much less so when a ship is as automated as the Enterprise was. Even today, midshipmen commonly stand watches on Navy ships for summer training -- including helm, navigation, engineering, etc. -- , so they do have some knowledge of how a ship is supposed to run. Again, I think the automation makes a big difference. And given that -- in past times -- midshipmen received almost all of their training on actual ships, midshipmen back then were even more capable of transitioning quickly to active roles on a ship.
One of my best friends is an officer in the Navy today (at Pearl Harbor); when I talked to him about this movie he said the entire concept of cadets running a ship was absolutely absurd. Take that for what it's worth, everyone has their own opinions, but I tend to agree conceptually -- it seems preposterous.
Regarding automation.. I guess you could try to make that argument, but I don't think it holds much water. Again, it assumes there is literally no one to run this ship and again, I find that preposterous.
The movie doesn't tell us where on that continuum Star Trek midshipmen fall, but it seems from how quickly they adapted that they likely get a lot of time on board actual ships.
They don't. These cadets have spent the last 4 years at Starfleet Academy. Prior to that, most of them would be coming straight out of high school.
A reasonable guess is that ships in the Star Trek universe are much more likely to operate independently than are ships in the modern navy, and that is much closer to how ships operated in the sail era.
Good guess but not accurate. I know because as I said before I follow Star Trek to an almost ridiculous degree. I know that people will say "well then, fuck your opinion" but if just to point your idea that ships are automated; they are not.
Crew size in the sail era also seems much closer to crew size in the Star Trek universe as opposed to the modern Navy.
Again, since we're not really talking about the movie at this point I'll go ahead and give you some greater detail. Star Trek's crew size is not comparable to the sailing seafaring era. The Constitution class ship requires a minimum compliment of 200 people, and generally operates optimally with 450 crew members. So this is actually substantially
more crew and necessary personnel for a starship than for a modern American cruiser, frigate or destroyer. If you want to know how I know, just ask.. :chuckles:
So, I don't think the ability of the Star Trek senior midshipmen to take on the basic officer/enlisted roles is necessarily a big stretch in that universe.
Not only is it absurd, but they explore this possibility in 5 different Star Trek episodes over different series (ST:TNG, 2x ST:VOY, 2x ST
S9). In each episode it is demonstrated that cadets cannot effectively run a ship and that Starfleet would not ever deliberately put them in a situation to do so (except for 1 exception).
It also seemed like Kirk, Uhura, etc. were close to graduating anyway, so they're closer to real ensigns than mere students.
Oddly enough, Uhura had already graduated (she has the rank of Lt.)
As for command, Kirk only got command when both of the actual officers above him -- Pike and Spock -- were incapacitated.
But again, he's a cadet and Uhura would be the next in command, not Kirk...
The part that did seem like the biggest stretch to me was that Kirk got promoted to Captain after the fighting was over. Seems quite a jump.
It was absurd.
On the other hand, they also established that most of the Fleet was wiped out, so you didn't exactly have a huge cadre from which to draw.
The "established this?" When?? As far as I know, this never happened at all. Again, IIRC there are only two engagements in the movie at this time. The first is when the Kelvin encounters the Narada and then, 25+ years later, when Vulcan issued a distress signal and the Enterprise is dispatched (which makes no sense). But Starfleet is doing just fine at this time... there is absolutely NO REASON AT ALL that the Enterprise would be called into service. Also remember that the cadets aren't even needed as there were other ships there. The USS Faragut and another startship where at dock as well and had no reason to load up on cadets before going out to Vulcan, especially considering there was a distress call made.
And while our modern military places a huge emphasis on seniority and experience, including mandatory time in grade requirements, that is not true historically, when someone who demonstrated great leadership or talent might be promoted very quickly. Even in U.S. Naval history, Stephen Decatur was promoted to the permanent rank of Captain at the age of 25. While it still seems a stretch to me, I could buy it if you assume that Starfleet is more willing to promote based on meritorious service without emphasis on time in grade requirements. And if that's the case, Kirk's performance as captain of the Enterprise was certainly meritorious.
Again, if this was some type of Ender's game scenario, or if the complete fleet had been wiped out and there was simply no one left to man these ships, then I could possibly understand that. But none of this is the case.
I realize your post is more about Star Trek and analyzing it than analyzing the movie, but I am deeply familiar with the Star Trek lore and I can tell you, in extreme detail if you like, that everything JJ Abrams did to Star Trek is totally his own makings; it has nothing to do with the Star Trek universe. And for those reading this, or choosing not to, I'm not saying Star Trek is bad because of anything in this post; in fact, I ignored the Star Trek setting for the most part to judge this movie.
My problem is that the film has so many clear plot holes and scientifically preposterous notions (again, like an exploding star threatening all life in the galaxy). Surely they (Abrams) knew the basis of the film didn't make sense. I think Abrams is a master of making flashy summer blockbuster movies that people generally like, but at the same time, his movies are vapid and devoid of anything worth mentioning. It's a roller-coaster ride; but when you get off, that's it. For most, that's good enough, but for me, I expect a bit more I guess.
