• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Rate the last movie you saw

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
The only thing worse than being in a quote war with gouri is almost finishing a mammoth response and having the mofo disappear on you. Oh, the humanity.....

But there ain't no point in giving up now.
 
The only thing worse than being in a quote war with gouri is almost finishing a mammoth response and having the mofo disappear on you. Oh, the humanity.....

But there ain't no point in giving up now.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
 
On an old school Clint Eastwood western binge...the Dollars Trilogy is so damn good, probably seen the 3 films 50 times each. Tuco, Indio, the Rojos, Angel Eyes, Man with No Name...just awesome characters. Someone needs to start making good westerns again.
 
Again, this makes no sense. The "reboot" happens IN the movie, when the Narada attacks the Kelvin, so by your own logic the original series and none of Star Trek that happened after Kirk was born would be applicable; this would include the entire Original Series. So you're basically saying that the only thing that counts is what happened prior to this event. But we do know what happens prior to that event, there is a Star Trek series that takes place prior to Kirk called Enterprise

It's a "reboot" in two separate respects. One is the "reboot" that occurs from time travel within the story itself, but it is also a reboot in the sense of the normal type of reboot you get when there is any remake/reboot of an older movie or series, whether it be a superhero "reboot" like any of the Batman or Spiderman remakes, Flash Gordon, Dragnet, Godzilla, Dracula, 3:10 Yuma, or any of hundreds of different TV shows or movies. In the latter kind of reboot, you have the freedom to make certain changes from the original. Here, they are explicitly "rebooting" the original TV series, not making just another entry in the Star Trek pantheon. To me, that frees them completely from any obligation to respect or follow anything from any of the shows produced subsequent to the original Star Trek. To me, that's inherent in choosing to reboot the original series, so the original series is the only one to which they have any obligation.

Additionally, I'd point out all the subsequently produced shows except Enterprise were set at least 100 years in the future, leaving the backstory pretty wide open even if you did assume some obligation to follow those other shows "canon." As for Enterprise, that show was made 10 years after Roddenberry was dead. It was simply two other guys' idea of what they thought the beginnings of Starfleet should look like, and I see no obligation for any other filmmaker to be bound by their choices. That same criticism applies to DS9 and Voyager as well, every episode of which was written years after Roddenberry had died. For that reason alone, I personally wouldn't count any of those as binding "canon" anyway, whatever some other fans may choose to think. The proper frame of reference to judge a reboot of the original series is the original series, not every subsequent series to which the Star Trek label has ever been attached.

In other words, I accept none of those other shows as a basis for criticizing anything in a movie that is presented as a reboot of the original series. You obviously disagree, but that's not really resolvable as an argument. It's a starting premise on which people either agree or not.

It's not a blank slate. The continuity of Starfleet Academy is maintained from Enterprise to Voyager; again, you just don't know about it because you don't watch Star Trek.

Yes, I do/did watch Star Trek, which was the specific title of a specific show. I did not watch "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine", etc., which was a different show with a different name.

Even if I didn't hold the opinion I described above, and believed the movie must be consistent with the "canon" of those other shows (which I don't), there are a hundred or so years that separate the time period of Star Trek from the time period of Enterprise (100 years before), or the other shows (100 years or so after). Even "in canon", an institution can change tremendously in that much time. The Naval Academy that was founded in 1845 is incredibly different from that same "Academy" in 1945, which may be vastly different from how it looks in 2045. Same with West Point in 1805/1905/2005. The differences are massive, with completely different curriculum, focus, amount of time spent with the fleet -- even how many years you had to attend. So no matter how the Academy was portrayed in Enterprise, or any of the other shows, it could have been much different at the time in which the original series was set, without contradicting anything in those shows. That's where the blank slate comes in. It's illegitimate to argue that how the academy was 100 years before or after the setting of Star Trek dictates how it must be portrayed at that time. To m, if you want to say that the portrayal of cadets and the Academy was "against canon", you'd have to show contradictions from the same time period. And you really haven't.

There is no doubt that Roddenberry did not intend or wish to portray Starfleet as a military organization. He went out of his way in the first 3 seasons of TNG to make this point clear; which was something he could not do on TOS, again, for the aforementioned reasons....Roddenberry went out of his way to suggest that the need for a military force in the 23rd century had long since passed. That instead, there was a fleet of vessels that explored the galaxy, acted in a diplomatic fashion, but much like the "merchant marine" (his quote, not mine) could defend themselves if required. In the notes regarding the first Star Trek episode with Capt. Pike "The Cage," Roddenberry explains why he doesn't want to use additional ranks, insignias, or standard uniforms -- because "it's too military." Roddenberry, for whatever reason, felt that in the future, the military as we know it would not exist.

No matter how Roddenberry felt Starfleet should be portrayed in the original series (which again, is what was being rebooted), it did not come out that way. They're not rebooting his notes, thoughts, after the fact regrets, comments he made on DVD, or how Starfleet was portrayed in TNG. They're just rebooting the original series itself, as it actually aired, which you acknowledged he was not able to shape the way he wanted:

There is no doubt that Roddenberry did not intend or wish to portray Starfleet as a military organization. He went out of his way in the first 3 seasons of TNG to make this point clear; which was something he could not do on TOS, again, for the aforementioned reasons.

Roddenberry didn't want ranks? Guess what -- the original series had them, and right up the Navy rank precedence. The ranks like Ensign, Lieutenant junior grade, Lieutenant, Lt. Commander, Commander, Rear-Admiral do not exist in the Merchant Marine -- they are purely military ranks. Then consider the ship names -- Enterprise, Constellation, Farragut, Exeter, Yorktown, Potemkin, Hood....these are all famous warships, both U.S. and otherwise. If Starfleet wasn't going to be presented as a military force, perhaps Kirk should have been captaining the USS Beagle instead, as a link to Darwin's ship. And when Kirk screws up, he gets tried by court-martial, which is a purely military procedure.

The fact that some shows did not have a military theme, or that Kirk didn't want to be only a military man, doesn't change any of that.

Roddenberry stated that Starfleet is not a military organization in our traditional sense. It should not be portrayed as such. Meyer thought this concept was absurd, citing the use of weapons, rank, and numerous other military references. They ultimately ended up going to Paramount to lobby their cases but Paramount sided with Meyer. So in Meyer's Star Trek, yes Starfleet is a military organization; but from Roddenberry's mouth it is not.

They weren't rebooting Roddenberry's mouth. Meyer and Paramount were right -- the military elements in the original series were so overwhelming that claiming that Starfleet was not a military organization was absurd. It was a military organization that did a lot more than just engage in combat or perform purely military functions, but a military organization all the same. In fact, Roddenberry's own vision of Horatio Hornblower kind of does him in. Hornblower was not just a military man, and he engaged in a lot of exploration and diplomacy, just as Kirk did. But his ships were still Royal Navy ships, he was still a Royal Navy officer, and when the need arose, he performed purely military functions. Same as Captain Kirk. I think Roddenberry's view of what "the military" is was kind of jaded by the times in which he lived, when the military's sole function was combat/military pursuits. And he didn't want to present that. But that wasn't true in Hornblower's time, nor in Kirk's.

All I said was that cadets wouldn't be running a ship, to which you thought to provide detailed analysis saying that I was wrong yet you agreed it was "preposterous"...

No, that's not true, gouri. It's deja vu all over again with you saying that. You're either forgetting what was actually said, or you've been hanging around Joe Biden too much. :chuckles: Here's the way it went down:

I also can't get past a lot of the core plot points... Like, why are these cadets operating the flagship? Where are all the people with tenure? Like, these are all cadets, even the captain... It's preposterous.

You were calling those cadets running the Starship Enterprise "preposterous". Then I said:

...while expecting midshipmen today to hop on and fully crew a modern combat ship with no other assistance other than a Captain and XO is preposterous, I can tell you that the simulations alone on Star Trek were more advanced than anything we could even dream of, and the Enterprise (NCC-1701) is far more automated than any combat ship we've got out there today....

I did not even agree with you that having cadets crew the Enterprise as in the movie was "preposterous". My point actually argued that such manning would be more reasonable on the Enterprise than in the modern Navy.

1) It's nonsense for you to say cadets can man a ship in the 23rd century when Star Trek canon has said that they cannot in the 24th century. I already said this and you flat out ignored this. The topic of cadets running a ship has been done at least 3 times in Star Trek (twice in DS9, once in TNG). In the DS9 episodes, the ship is falling apart, the crew is totally incapable of handling the pressures of space travel and the severity of their situation.

No I didn't ignore it at all. I just don't accept your starting point, and have stated that repeatedly. I disagree that 1) DS9 is binding in any way on a reboot of the original series, and 2) events that occur 100 years in the future are determinative as to how people who may have undergone substantially different training may have responded 100 years prior.

Discipline and structure on the ship begins to devolve into something less than desirable. They can't handle it from a technical standpoint (they have no idea how to repair anything), a command standpoint (everyone is the same age with the same experience, who is right?), or an emotional standpoint (no older mature person who has been there to tell them it'll be okay).

I'll address this particular criticism outside the context of the Star Trek universe, because that's really what's being talked about here. The writers who wrote that must not know all that much about the military, and I don't think most those criticisms would be applicable to how cadets were portrayed in Star Trek anyway. Repairs I'll leave aside for the moment. In terms of command, those exact same problems would theoretically have arisen with midshipmen manning stations in our own Navy, but they don't. You obey the orders of those appointed over you, regardless of rank or experience considerations. Someone gets appointed engineering officer, and others are appointed to specific positions below him. There is a clear chain of command that is followed based on those appointments to specific positions, regardless of seniority or anything else, and you follow that. That's just incredibly basic stuff that the writers of DS9 apparently ignored because they had a story they wanted to tell a certain way.

The idea that everyone is the same age, etc., doesn't matter one damn bit. Same with the emotional crap. Sheesh, you've got sailors that are 18 years old. Commissioned ensigns 21-22 years old lead their divisions, a jg. may be 23 or so, and by the time you hit 25, you may well be a Lt. heading a department. They're not babies, and I'd point out that the cadets in Star Trek generally were older. Kirk was 26 (according to you), Uhura was no 21 year old, etc.. The idea that they couldn't stand watches or follow the chain of command is ridiculous, whatever the goobers who wrote those DS9 episodes may have thought.

2) Let's take your comment about automation into account. Well, I can tell you a bit about system automation... It takes an experienced person to maintain a complex computer system. A fresh graduate (I have a few on my staff) is 1/10th as useful as a seasoned programmer or technician. Literally, there is no comparison. To say that you could bring fresh graduates into my office and have them run the place, I'd laugh in your face.

In very large part, that's because they weren't learning on your exact system in school. Plus, you're equating the guys who show up to work with you with the absolute best and brightest the entire galaxy could produce, who attended the finest school in the entire Federation A bunch of those cadets are likely close to savants in different fields. There is nothing magic that happens from the one instant you are a senior midshipmen/cadet, to the next when you throw your cover in the air and are a commissioned Ensign or Second Lieutenant. Whatever abilities you have as one, you have as the other. The only different before you hit the fleet is follow-on schools, but those all seem to be incorporated into the Academy in Star Trek. So, you'd be attending the equivalent of Nuclear Prototype School (hands on running of actual reactors) and other follow-on schools. The point is that senior cadets, who trained extensively on the exact same systems they'd see on the ship, and very well may have served on actual fleet ships as part of their training, are essentially indistinguishable from the junior commissioned officers already running divisions on that ship.

Sure, manning a ship with even the most highly trained cadets the galaxy has to offer is not ideal. You'd prefer more experience in case advanced repairs are needed (although again, Starfleet likely would have assigned the absolute best engineering students -- savant-level -- in the entire class to the engine room to work on system they may well have already spend a lot of time on). I know some guys who likely had more technical knowledge when they first reported to their ship than did the officer above them. Anyway, the experience factor is why they did better when Scotty came on board. Likewise, the cadets weren't in command -- Pike was, with an Fleet experienced First Officer in Spock. They didn't send a starship out under the command of a cadet who literally just walked out of the Academy.

The problem with your argument is the cadets as portrayed on the movie were older, and shown as being sufficiently trained on that equipment. Pointing to how cadets were portrayed on other Star Trek shows set 100 years distant to say "that's not realistic" is just not convincing, because the movie was entitled to have as well-trained cadets as it liked. I don't want to go too far afield, but there have always been disagreements on exactly how well new officers should be trained, with the tension arising between having a higher percentage of your force in school rather than in actual fleet service. I was personally part of a group that was dealing with this, because we had commanding officers in the Fleet saying that graduates of the Infantry Officer Course were coming to them too proficient, and they'd rather have them come out less proficient but get to them sooner, because they needed more of them. At the time of Star Trek, the Academy may have been veering more heavily in that same direction -- "we're going to ensure all graduates are proficient on all shipboard systems before they graduate" -- which means cadets will be older and spending more time in school than they otherwise might. Maybe that changed back by the time of DS9. Doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that the show presented highly trained cadets, and there was nothing in the movie showing that was not credible.

Sexist much?

There's nothing wrong with being sexy.

8831942_orig.png
 
It's a "reboot" in two separate respects. One is the "reboot" that occurs from time travel within the story itself, but it is also a reboot in the sense of the normal type of reboot you get when there is any remake/reboot of an older movie or series, whether it be a superhero "reboot" like any of the Batman or Spiderman remakes, Flash Gordon, Dragnet, Godzilla, Dracula, 3:10 Yuma, or any of hundreds of different TV shows or movies. In the latter kind of reboot, you have the freedom to make certain changes from the original. Here, they are explicitly "rebooting" the original TV series, not making just another entry in the Star Trek pantheon. To me, that frees them completely from any obligation to respect or follow anything from any of the shows produced subsequent to the original Star Trek. To me, that's inherent in choosing to reboot the original series, so the original series is the only one to which they have any obligation.

Q-Tip, you are simply ignoring the points that I'm making....

Abrams, Spock, the DVD commentary.. Just watch the movie.. What you said here is not true. Abrams even says the Narada is a Borg ship. The movie explains that it's not a reboot. If it were Ambassador Spock wouldn't be in the movie. It's not technically a reboot, it's an alternate reality due to Spock's time travel. The events that happened in Voyager predate the events in the Star Trek movie.

Not really going to spend more time explaining this, because we've already been over it. I get what you are trying to say, but that is not the approach the director or writing staff took for this film and you can quite easily verify this fact.

Additionally, I'd point out all the subsequently produced shows except Enterprise were set at least 100 years in the future, leaving the backstory pretty wide open even if you did assume some obligation to follow those other shows "canon."

None of the shows are 100 years after the events of the TOS-era. None of them. Chronologically, there is only a 33 year gap (not more than 100) between the earliest TNG era canon (excluding First Contact) and the latest TOS era canon. The academy is described in detail as we see Picard there in his TOS-era uniform.

Again, your assumptions are off base, but you're sure sticking to them.

As for Enterprise, that show was made 10 years after Roddenberry was dead. It was simply two other guys' idea of what they thought the beginnings of Starfleet should look like, and I see no obligation for any other filmmaker to be bound by their choices.

Again, self-defeating and contradictory arguments... You said before Roddenberry's vision didn't matter, it was what was shown on television... Now when you don't want to account for it, we're back to Roddenberry.

That same criticism applies to DS9 and Voyager as well, every episode of which was written years after Roddenberry had died. For that reason alone, I personally wouldn't count any of those as binding "canon" anyway,

If this is true, then according to Roddenberry, The Next Generation would be more useful to account for his vision than TOS. Roddenberry had direct control over TNG and that was the entire point of it's production, so that he could avoid the control of the networks. He stated clearly that he "loved" the TOS crew, but TNG was his baby and that this was what Star Trek was really meant to be.

Again, your argument is twisting into itself like a pretzel.. One minute you don't care what Roddenberry thinks because Meyer's and others' vision is more closely to what you personal prefer, yet when it doesn't suit you, you'll go back to Roddenberry?

whatever some other fans may choose to think. The proper frame of reference to judge a reboot of the original series is the original series, not every subsequent series to which the Star Trek label has ever been attached.

The proper frame could be determined by simply watching the Star Trek movie and seeing how they frame it. Apparently you don't remember any of this. Spock EXPLAINS THIS TO THE AUDIENCE, which again, you don't seem to understand.

And again, I am not making this argument -- you are.. I said I could care less about continuity, but for some reason you decided to go down this road.

In other words, I accept none of those other shows as a basis for criticizing anything in a movie that is presented as a reboot of the original series. You obviously disagree, but that's not really resolvable as an argument. It's a starting premise on which people either agree or not.

....Ok.

Yes, I do/did watch Star Trek, which was the specific title of a specific show. I did not watch "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine", etc., which was a different show with a different name.

You watched 2-3 seasons of one facet of the Star Trek franchise and ignored the other 25-26 seasons of it and claim to understand it. I think that's a bit pretentious.

Even if I didn't hold the opinion I described above, and believed the movie must be consistent with the "canon" of those other shows (which I don't), there are a hundred or so years that separate the time period of Star Trek from the time period of Enterprise (100 years before), or the other shows (100 years or so after).

I'll again say this clearly:

1) I don't care about continuity.. I'm a comic book fan, there is no such thing as continuity.
2) Star Trek (reboot) does not have continuity even within itself. It tries yet fails. Had they actually rebooted the franchise, then maybe, but they chose not to.
3) You keep saying TNG starts more than 100 years after TOS ends, but this is blatantly false.
4) If Picard defines the TNG era and Kirk the TOS era, then TNG starts 33 years after TOS ends.
5) If the Enteprise/-A defines the TOS era and the Enterprise-D defines the TNG era, TNG starts 71 years after TOS ends (this is the frame of reference used in the show).
6) You obviously didn't watch TNG at all... Roddenberry or not. On the Farpoint mission Admiral McCoy is a guest aboard this ship. TNG is NOT 100 years or more after TOS.

Even "in canon", an institution can change tremendously in that much time. The Naval Academy that was founded in 1845 is incredibly different from that same "Academy" in 1945,

Again with this nonsense. Even in canon... then.. not canon. Let's talk about Star Trek, oh wait I don't know anything about ST so let me talk about the Naval Academy instead.

which may be vastly different from how it looks in 2045. Same with West Point in 1805/1905/2005. The differences are massive, with completely different curriculum, focus, amount of time spent with the fleet -- even how many years you had to attend. So no matter how the Academy was portrayed in Enterprise, or any of the other shows, it could have been much different at the time in which the original series was set, without contradicting anything in those shows. That's where the blank slate comes in. It's illegitimate to argue that how the academy was 100 years before or after the setting of Star Trek dictates how it must be portrayed at that time. To m, if you want to say that the portrayal of cadets and the Academy was "against canon", you'd have to show contradictions from the same time period. And you really haven't.

Because the premise of this entire argument is false on it's face.. I've gone out of my way to demonstrate that to you. Picard states that almost nothing changed in over 40 years at the academy. Janeway and Sisko have both reinforced the stability and stoic image of the Academy. Literally, how Picard trained at the Academy is how Crusher trained over 40 years later. But you're saying that 33 years prior to that, it must have been massively different... Because you say so..

Again, your logic is flawed and your facts in error.

No matter how Roddenberry felt Starfleet should be portrayed in the original series (which again, is what was being rebooted), it did not come out that way.

You literally contradicted yourself twice in the same post. Go up and read what you said about Roddenberry.. His intent is now, in this line, irrelevant; but since he didn't write or launch Enterprise or Voyager (he was involved in DS9, you are wrong about that, he wasn't alive when it first aired, but he was a part of the initial project) they must not matter.

They're not rebooting his notes, thoughts, after the fact regrets, comments he made on DVD, or how Starfleet was portrayed in TNG. They're just rebooting the original series itself, as it actually aired, which you acknowledged he was not able to shape the way he wanted:

He wasn't.. TOS was not his vision. Roddenberry was actually "disgusted" with the "militarism" in TOS-era episodes and some TOS movies. So was Shatner, Nimoy, and Nichols for that matter. It wasn't what Trek was about. Even though TWoK is considered the best of all the movies to date, the actors and Roddenberry strongly disliked the initial tone and atmosphere of the film.

Roddenberry didn't want ranks? Guess what -- the original series had them, and right up the Navy rank precedence. The ranks like Ensign, Lieutenant junior grade, Lieutenant, Lt. Commander, Commander, Rear-Admiral do not exist in the Merchant Marine -- they are purely military ranks.

Er... wrong again.

In the episode The Cage, Roddenberry clearly states that there are NO Lt. Commanders/Commanders on-board because that rank is NOT IN THE MERCHANT MARINE. I am impressed you knew about the Merchant Marine, but your Trek knowledge is lacking. These ranks were later added and given to crew members as other writers who were WWII/Korean vets began writing the series.

As far as I know, the first mention of this happens in early in Season 1, but it's not in the first episode. I think the point is that Roddenberry actually specifically excluded these ranks, and they were later included by others...

Then consider the ship names -- Enterprise, Constellation, Farragut, Exeter, Yorktown, Potemkin, Hood....these are all famous warships, both U.S. and otherwise.

We've been OVER this... Roddenberry did not want Starfleet to be a military organization. Yes, in TOS in morphed into one and back again depending on the episode. We already talked about why... because of different writers.. I fail to see your point in mentioning this again and again...?

You submitted the point that making analogs to today's Navy would be foolish, I agree. Yet you keep doing it. You're the one continuing with these silly references as if they had meaning... They don't.

If Starfleet wasn't going to be presented as a military force, perhaps Kirk should have been captaining the USS Beagle instead, as a link to Darwin's ship. And when Kirk screws up, he gets tried by court-martial, which is a purely military procedure.

But we already talked about this at length and you're just going in circles.. You and I have already went over what Roddenberry though, what Nicholas Meyer though, what many of the TOS writers thought, what Paramount decided for TWoK, what Roddenberry did in TNG... I mean... I don't get your point?

The fact that some shows did not have a military theme, or that Kirk didn't want to be only a military man, doesn't change any of that.

Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner are both on record saying that the reason the STIII-V had them out of uniform, relaxed, and more familial than formal was because he and the other actors (save a few) as well as Roddenberry greatly resented the direction of Meyer towards making Star Trek more militaristic. Saying "it was never about that, we were supposed to be explorers."

And I agree with you about many TOS episodes portraying them in a militaristic sense; I've said this myself. But if you want Roddenberry to define it, or Star Trek canon to define it, then no it isn't an extension of the military. Instead, the Earth's military forces were rolled into Starfleet at a later time (Enterprise deals with this in great detail). Starfleet has the ability to defend the Federation, but it's primary purpose and mission is science and exploration, not the exertion of Federation political goals.

They weren't rebooting Roddenberry's mouth. Meyer and Paramount were right -- the military elements in the original series were so overwhelming that claiming that Starfleet was not a military organization was absurd.

But that's not what Meyer said. He said that the Original Series (including ST:TMP) was "...stupid." That it made no sense to him "as they have weapons, rank, and things traditionally associated with the military; yet it's not a military organization?" "...I could not wrap my head around that, so it made sense as a director to change..." "I was glad to be allowed the opportunity to put my own mark on Star Trek..."

Meyer isn't referencing the TOS episodes, he's representing the concept of Starfleet itself. In his vision it should be a military organization, and it is idealistic and "stupid" to consider it otherwise. You realize Meyer only had a very casual understanding of Star Trek and never even watched The Motion Picture before being named director (had no interest).

He was brought in to "reboot" the franchise so to speak, and that's what he did. TWoK is the best Star Trek movie to date, and yes, they are portrayed as being very militaristic in that movie.

As far as what Paramount thinks, well... Paramount also made TNG several years later... so..

It was a military organization that did a lot more than just engage in combat or perform purely military functions, but a military organization all the same. In fact, Roddenberry's own vision of Horatio Hornblower kind of does him in.

Again, this is more Meyer, CBS, and Paramount and less Roddenberry.. He isn't saying Kirk is Hornblower he's saying his character will be like him.

Hornblower was not just a military man, and he engaged in a lot of exploration and diplomacy, just as Kirk did. But his ships were still Royal Navy ships, he was still a Royal Navy officer, and when the need arose, he performed purely military functions. Same as Captain Kirk. I think Roddenberry's view of what "the military" is was kind of jaded by the times in which he lived, when the military's sole function was combat/military pursuits. And he didn't want to present that. But that wasn't true in Hornblower's time, nor in Kirk's.

This is just you assigning your own ideas over Roddenberry's. You're taking Meyer's opinion and CBS/Paramount's over that of the creator and visionary of the franchise. Then you also discount the later series that went back to Roddenberry's vision of Starfleet because they disagree with Meyer/Paramount? It's ridiculous to me.

No, that's not true, gouri. It's deja vu all over again with you saying that. You're either forgetting what was actually said, or you've been hanging around Joe Biden too much. :chuckles: Here's the way it went down:

Not really going to argue over your use of the word preposterous.

You think cadets can run a starship, I don't.

Episodes in TNG, VOY, and DS9 back up my point of view. You have nothing to back up your point of view. You said that the Academy should be more advanced in their era, but the simulations they're doing at the academy in TWoK (the Kobashi) is possible with today's science.. they were just crew acting. They were not in a holodeck-style simulation.

No I didn't ignore it at all. I just don't accept your starting point, and have stated that repeatedly.

I disagree that 1) DS9 is binding in any way on a reboot of the original series,

But DS9 is canon. This Star Trek exists after DS9 not before.

and 2) events that occur 100 years in the future are determinative as to how people who may have undergone substantially different training may have responded 100 years prior.

Again, there is no 100 year gap, you say this out of ignorance because you don't know anything about the later shows. We see the Academy when Picard is there and it is detailed repeatedly by Picard to Crusher. We see the Academy 40 some years after Picard was there when Crusher is there. We see it again and again.

Not much has changed.

I'll address this particular criticism outside the context of the Star Trek universe, because that's really what's being talked about here.

No.. it's not what's being talked about here. I am only talking about Trek.. Not anything to do with the Navy. You keep bringing it up, and it's more of a conversation to be had over a beer than to be had when talking about Star Trek (this is serious business man).

The writer of that episode was a Ron Moore. He portrayed a ship filled with the elite cadets, literally the best of the best. They ended up fucked. The moral of the story? Cadets cannot run a starship. Your argument that the ship can basically run itself is demonstrably not true based on this episode as well as several others.

The writers who wrote that must not know all that much about the military,

But they know a great deal about Star Trek. You know more about Trek than Ron Moore?

and I don't think most those criticisms would be applicable to how cadets were portrayed in Star Trek anyway. Repairs I'll leave aside for the moment. In terms of command, those exact same problems would theoretically have arisen with midshipmen manning stations in our own Navy, but they don't. You obey the orders of those appointed over you, regardless of rank or experience considerations. Someone gets appointed engineering officer, and others are appointed to specific positions below him. There is a clear chain of command that is followed based on those appointments to specific positions, regardless of seniority or anything else, and you follow that.

Q-Tip, this paragraph has little meaning to our conversation, I think we both understand the concept of chain of command it isn't complex.

That's just incredibly basic stuff that the writers of DS9 apparently ignored because they had a story they wanted to tell a certain way.

Or because you cannot realize that in combat things change... You can tell me about your experiences in the Naval Academy, I can tell you about my uncle's experience in Vietnam, fighting, on the ground. Chain of command... when all was said and done didn't mean shit when bullets started flying. So many men had so little respect for their commanding officer it was ridiculous.

What you are saying here is what amounts to your personal opinion. I could offer you Erich Remarque's opinion about the chain of command as well, but you'd probably think you know better than him too.

Again, I don't really care about this in an American military historical context.. I thought we were talking about Star Trek... The point is about what is going on in Star Trek. And to your point, the cadets were not mentally, physically, emotionally, or intellectually prepared or capable of running a starship. At all... And these were the best.

Your point about automation falls on its face.

The idea that everyone is the same age, etc., doesn't matter one damn bit. Same with the emotional crap. Sheesh, you've got sailors that are 18 years old. Commissioned ensigns 21-22 years old lead their divisions, a jg. may be 23 or so, and by the time you hit 25, you may well be a Lt. heading a department. They're not babies, and I'd point out that the cadets in Star Trek generally were older.

Again, this is wrong. You're Trek knowledge is insignificant for this conversation.

Ages we know:
Chekhov (TOS) was 13 years old when he took the Starfleet Academy entrance exam. He had the rank of Ensign at 17.
Crusher (TNG) was 15 years old when he took the exam, and graduated at 18 (Ensign).
Peter Preston (TWoK) was 14 years old when he joined the Academy.
(DS9) Most members of the USS Valiant were between 13-16 when going to the Academy.
Nog (DS9) was 18 upon joining the Academy
Crewman Tarsees (TNG) was 17 when he enlisted into Basic Training and joined Starfleet. He did not go to the Academy.

Everything you are saying is dependent upon Starfleet resembling something we have a present-day analog for. You keep using the Navy (even though you say it's a ridiculous comparison, it's almost ridiculous how you are contradicting yourself). Starfleet is not the Navy.

Do you understand that:
1) The Academy is more of a school then a military program.
2) It's for children, teenagers, and young adults. McCoy was a "late entrant" because he was 19.
3) That most members of Starfleet do NOT go to the Academy.
4) That most members of Starfleet do not take the Oath and are not bound by the same rules and regulations as the people we see generally on the show?
5) That most "crew" aboard a ship like the Enterprise are actually civilians, even if in a Starfleet uniform.

Starfleet is not comparable to the military. Yes, it is often portrayed this way on TV and in film but there are episodes where they completely ignore this. Doctors and scientists who have no military training at all and did not go to Starfleet Academy often where Starfleet uniforms (TOS, Space Seed and many others). Diplomats having the same command authority as Admirals (TOS).

You see Starfleet as a military organization, when it has been expressly stated by many including the creator that it is not. Yes, Meyer said it was, so did Paramount...

Again, what is the point?

It's just like when you said Starfleet Academy had to "cost money."

You don't understand Star Trek...

Kirk was 26 (according to you),

Scholar made an excellent point. This is a different Kirk. TOS Kirk was 19 when he carried the rank of Ensign having served 2 years at the Academy. He was 21 when he was promoted to Lieutenant and served under Capt. Garrivick.

Your facts are in error.

Uhura was no 21 year old, etc..

To be honest we have no idea how old she was in canon. Like literally it's never mentioned. Only Spock, Kirk, McCoy and Chekhov's age are mentioned.

The idea that they couldn't stand watches or follow the chain of command is ridiculous, whatever the goobers who wrote those DS9 episodes may have thought.

Because you know better?

In very large part, that's because they weren't learning on your exact system in school.

Oh is that why?? Thanks.. :chuckles:

They learned the SAME framework we use here.. It's called the .NET Framework. Standards like Unit Testing, etc, are taught in school. We also use Java, which is taught in ever school in the world.

The problem with your argument is the cadets as portrayed on the movie were older, and shown as being sufficiently trained on that equipment. Pointing to how cadets were portrayed on other Star Trek shows set 100 years distant to say "that's not realistic" is just not convincing,


This has grown tiring and you are arguing in circles... I will sum it up this way.

Everything you've said about Star Trek has been wrong, regardless of the era. TOS, TNG, etc... almost all wrong.
The movie projects it's backstory into the TNG era which you ignore.
The director, Abrams, references the Narada as being a Borg-based ship on the DVD.
You claim the movie is self-consistent based on your imagination.
You believe that you can toss out limitless hypotheticals that are contradictory to anything we've seen in Star Trek and they'll be supported by at least some shred of evidence; thus they must be equally valid.

The conversation has simply worn thin.. I don't even understand your point.

You stated that
1) Cadets could run a starship primarily due to advanced training and automation.

I countered that this was highly unlikely due to the events we've seen in TNG, DS9, and VOY especially on the USS Valiant.

2) You stated that Kirk being promoted to Captain was understandable..

Well, I think that's kinda silly...

3) Starfleet is a military organization.

This one really hasn't much to do with the movie, so I don't know why it encompasses most of your post but anyway all of this shit about the Navy, to me honestly, flies in the face of Roddenberry's vision and it's why I don't like discussing it... It's irrelevant.

Just as there is no money in Star Trek there are no soldiers.. People have evolved beyond that. Is Starfleet tasked with military responsibilities, yes, but is it a military organization? No. Why? Because Gene Roddenberry, and the most important writers, producers, actors and directors of Star Trek didn't think it was.

Did Nick Meyer and Paramount and many of the TOS writers think Starfleet was a military organization? Yes.. They also had Kirk say things like "I'd give real money to make him shut up." What "real money?" You said earlier there was no money. Things get confused with multiple writers who have different visions. This is why Roddenberry wanted to correct the record and created TNG.

(cut a lot about the Navy, I don't care about the Navy)

At the time of Star Trek, the Academy may have been veering more heavily in that same direction -- "we're going to ensure all graduates are proficient on all shipboard systems before they graduate" -- which means cadets will be older and spending more time in school than they otherwise might. Maybe that changed back by the time of DS9. Doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that the show presented highly trained cadets, and there was nothing in the movie showing that was not credible.

This is all baloney. I already told you why.. You just can't accept it.

Cadets can't run a warp drive. Cadets can't fix one. This among other things.. but it's just that simple. We've seen this time and time again. Geordi's ascension through the ranks was remarkable because he was so uniquely qualified. When he became Chief Engineer, his backstory was changed so that he had went to the Academy with Riker instead of what appeared to be a fresh graduate.

There's nothing wrong with being sexy.

But plenty wrong with being a sexist.

But to be honest, this conversation isn't enjoyable because you aren't actually refuting my points. Every time I say anything about Star Trek you talk past me about your personal experience in the Naval Academy. I don't really understand or accept the connection. Your experience is not applicable to this conversation. I think any topic should be discussed within it's own scope; your personal experience and understanding is interesting to me as an individual (like I said, it's something to discuss over a beer or a football game) but it's simply not applicable to this conversation.

1) "Starfleet Academy must've cost so much money.." But no money exists... you ignore it.

2) The Academy isn't comparable to the Naval Academy.. you ignore it.

3) "Starfleet is just like the Navy" but Roddenberry said, and I quote "Starfleet is not a military organization" ... you ignored it by ignoring Roddenberry. Even though you said it would be silly to make such comparisons.

4) If automation and simulation-based training would allow cadets to run a starship, why is it that elite cadets in the 24th century can't run a starship, why can cadets run one in the 23rd according to you? This seems contradictory... you ignored it, talked about the Naval Academy.

5) Ship is highly automated. But in "The Ultimate Computer" a crew of less than 45 has Kirk saying they were in danger due to being undermanned "How can I run the ship with only 45 crew?" ... you ignored it... talked about the Navy.

6) Star Trek is a pure reboot ... I explained that it isn't and that no one suggested that it was, in fact, they spent 35-45 minutes explaining how it takes place AFTER VOY, not before... you ignored it, talked about the definition of reboots and what matter to you.

The list just goes on and on.... This conversation isn't going anywhere and it's literally dragging on..
 
On an old school Clint Eastwood western binge...the Dollars Trilogy is so damn good, probably seen the 3 films 50 times each. Tuco, Indio, the Rojos, Angel Eyes, Man with No Name...just awesome characters. Someone needs to start making good westerns again.

Westerns is a genre I never dabbled into watching. Although I am a Eastwood fan. I haven't seen any of his. The last western film I saw (I believe) was 3:10 to Yuma- Don't ask me anything about it, because I surely don't remember.

I may just have to indulge in that genre and see what I think of it.


And anything to derail this conversation about nerdy space stuff, and things of that nature.
 
Check out The Good The Bad and the Ugly Nicky. The best movie of that trilogy with one of the best endings of all time.
 
Westerns is a genre I never dabbled into watching. [snipped] I may just have to indulge in that genre and see what I think of it.

I recommend Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid. Good story. Again, a great ending. No Eastwood, however. Edit add: not perhaps a western in pure sense of what most think of them.
 
Check out The Good The Bad and the Ugly Nicky. The best movie of that trilogy with one of the best endings of all time.

What about Fist Full of Dollars, or A Few Dollars More? Also, A Mule for Sister Sarah is pretty good too.

I love the Eastwood westerns but I actually prefer some others overall.. Shane, Winchester 73, Hombre... All great movies.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-12: "Max Strus Juice"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top