XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   Anim8rFSK wrote:   
   > In article <4aa8a058$0$1666$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,   
   >  Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:   
   >>> Dimensional Traveler  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> jojo wrote:   
   >>>>> On Sep 9, 5:20 pm, "Smokie Darling (Annie)"    
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    
   >>>>> 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   
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   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.  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.   
      
   --   
   Things I learned from Usenet #29: Do not chew the peach.   
   Veni, Vidi, Snarki.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)