Jack_Bauer

Starfleet Command
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,815

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jack_Bauer

  1. Posted

    Both beasts bear some resemblance to Cloverfield (the first in the face, the second in the body, to a degree). But neither is an exact copy of it. They were both designed by Neville Page, who designed Cloverfield, so that's the reason for that.

     

    Of the aspects of the movie that I didn't like, I think the "monsters" was the part I disliked the most. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other Star Trek show/movie that had some giant "monster" trying to eat someone.

     

    That was one of the parts of the movie to me and multiple other people that I know where it was too much of a "Star Wars like" gimmick. Like in The Phantom Menace where the underwater creatures were trying to eat Obi Wan and Qui Gon.

     

    Star Trek has always been more "intelligent" than to have such "fantasy" elements that you'd expect from "Lost In Space" or something of that ilk. So for me, had they left the giant man eating monsters out it would have been a plus.

    http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Hanonian_land_eel

  2. Posted

    Wasn't that 2nd and final monster that chases Jim on Delta Vega( relocated to near Vulcan..Ha..ha) actually the same as the Cloverfield Movie Monster?

     

    Sure looks like the same beast -- recycled from J.J. Abrams previous movie.

     

    Both beasts bear some resemblance to Cloverfield (the first in the face, the second in the body, to a degree). But neither is an exact copy of it. They were both designed by Neville Page, who designed Cloverfield, so that's the reason for that.

     

    I think what it really boils down to is: can you revive a franchise with just box office Movies.. like 2 hours at a whack.. 1 new movie every year. So what's really important is exactly what the actors contracts state? Are they bound to a 1, 2, 3, or 4 Movie deal? Are they free to say-- oh, No thanks-- done that- I'm moving on? Are they obligated to move now to the "small screen"( TV ) and locked into a new series?

     

    If the answer is No to all the above-- then this was just a "milking of the cash cow" once again. And there's no real revival at all.

    And I really don't see how a Trek revival is possible without a NEW weekly installment ( I.E. series )..

     

    All principal cast members (with the likely exceptions of Nimoy, Bana, and possibly Greenwood) and the main producers (Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Burk and Lindelof) are signed to multiple (three, including the first) picture deals. Work has already begun on the sequel (writing it, anyway).

     

    And a Trek revival is entirely possible without a weekly series. From 1979 to 1987, Star Trek was only a motion picture franchise. The popularity of those movies (most notably ST IV) is what lead to Star Trek: The Next Generation. So a new series may eventually come about as result of this movie's popularity. Hard to say with the current split in the franchise's rights.

  6. Posted

    Wouldn't be my first choice, but Khan is still out there in this alternate timeline. Of course, this potential encounter would be more Space Seed than Wrath of Khan.

     

    I still think the Klingons are far more likely to be the villains. And they wouldn't necessarily have to be TOS-style Klingons, they have a possible out in that presumably not all Klingons were infected with the Augment virus before it was cured. They just couldn't use established TOS Klingons (so no Kang, Kor, or Koloth, most notably).

  7. Posted

    According to manager Chuck Binder, the movie's producer went to Carradine's hotel room and found that he had passed away

     

    This article doesn't mention the fact that Carradine committed suicide by hanging himself in the closet. How ironic that the movie he was getting ready to start shooting was titled..........."Stretch"?

     

     

    Very sad case. Everyone seems genuinely shocked that he killed himself. I think the last thing I saw him in was when he played Wild Bill Hickok on "Deadwood".

    I don't think it's a confirmed suicide at this point. There are rumours/theories that is may be some sort of auto-erotic asphyxiation gone wrong based on the fact that a second (or possibly the same) rope has been mentioned tied around part of his body (I'm not gonna say which, but I think it's pretty much implied).

     

    Anyway, still sad. RIP

  9. Posted

    There's where I believe you're putting too much faith in them. The numbers can be manipulated to support whichever decision they'd make. I agree that the new movie probably didn't have anything to do with it, but again I wasn't saying that it did. I was simply saying that I'd be very disappointed if it did.

     

    From a quality standpoint of the product on the screen, a case could have been made to cancel TNG and Voyager after just a couple of seasons. Enterprise was a quality show from start to finish though. As you said, it was a crappy network that was making crappy decisions and moving the series around the way they did didn't help any. If it had been a syndicated show like TNG and DS9 were I really believe that things would have been different.

     

    But none of that is either here nor there, it was cancelled and TPTB are idiots lol.

    I really don't think I'm giving them too much credit. You can manipulate numbers, true, but there is a logic to Enterprise's cancellation. Nothing really gets canceled that there isn't some logic to. It usually comes down to ratings and expense and in Enterprise's case, the ratings did not justify the expense.

     

    I agree about Voyager, I believe it did come close to cancellation at certain points. I don't think it was the case with TNG (But don't quote me on that) because with first run syndication, it brought in a lot more money in syndication fees before it aired. Since that was the case, I would very much agree that VGR and ENT would both have been better shows if they had been on first run syndication, because UPN would not have been able to interfere the way it did, and they would have been far more financially viable.

  10. Posted

    I honestly don't know if Enterprise was losing money or not. All I know is that it was one of the top five most expensive shows on television to produce during at least one portion of its run (a full season allegedly cost $30 million, based on what Save Enterprise were attempting to raise) and it lost over ten million viewers from its first episode to its final episode (most of the lost came within the first season: 12 mil to 3 mil), which obviously led to a major hit it any potential advertising revenue it could bring in (i.e. the amount UPN can charge for advertising). Now there are a number of factors for that loss. Enterprise was poorly promoted and was on a lousy network (and its didn't fit with the core demos that that network was targeting).

     

    I don't know if Enterprise was flat out in the red, or if it just wasn't making what CBS/Paramount consider to be a reasonable return on their investment. Which is perfectly understandable. Nobody invests in anything to just make their money back.

     

    Don't get me wrong, I liked Enterprise and wanted it to continue, but CBS/Paramount made a business decision and unfortunately it resulted in Enterprise's cancellation. But based on what limited numbers we have, it seems like it was the correct business decision. But I do not believe for a second that the new movie is in anyway responsible for Enterprise's cancellation.

  11. Posted

    There's "no way"? They were approached sometime in 2005 but that means that the idea was there before they were approached. Of course I'm not suggesting that this was the reason for the cancellation. I simply said that I'd be disappointed IF that was the reason.

     

    I also don't accept that 'Star Trek (2009)' was their 'last chance' just as i don't accept that they 'had' to create an alternate and parallel timeline in order to attract new viewers. Those were the choices that were made, but they could have been just as successful had they made other (and some would say the right) choices. Another thing that I don't accept is everyone saying that the franchise was "dead". The way the franchise will 'die' is if the people in charge turn their backs on the very fans that made the franchise possible.

     

    As for the Nielsen Ratings, I don't believe they're relevant any longer. They're out dated. Don't forget, it was the "ratings" that got Star Trek cancelled in 1969, but shortly after the cancellation they began tabulating the ratings differently and come to find out that under the new method Star Trek was a top rated show that never should have been cancelled.

     

    Don't put so much faith in Hollywood and the studios. I've learned through family members that are connected to the industry a little bit about how they work out there and they do NOT deserve your faith.

    I meant last chance in the sense that if Paramount did not make a successful Star Trek product before a certain deadline, they would lose the ability to do so in the future (i.e. the option to), because the full rights of the franchise would then revert to CBS (who at this time still holds the TV rights to the Star Trek franchise and to everything past) as a result of the CBS/Viacom split of 2005. If they had not made Star Trek or if it had not been successful, CBS would then be fully in charge and the general consensus is that Chairman of CBS, Les Moonves, is no fan of science fiction. So the franchise would be in an even worse place than it was following the cancellation of Enterprise and it was for all intents and purposes, dead (or at least dormant) at that point, in an official sense.

     

    I admit that Neilsen ratings may no longer be relevant but unfortunately, they are the metrics by which TV shows are evaluated, for the most part. And with respect to that metric, Enterprise was a failure and therefore its expense could not be justified.

  12. Posted

    I greatly disagree about Enterprise not being in the same class as the other 3 modern Treks. I rank it above Voyager personally. At one time I may have even ranked it above TNG but that would be based only on the first 4 seasons of TNG vs. the 4 seasons of Enterprise.

     

    I've always raked DS9 at the top of the list of all of the series but in reality nothing can top TOS, it's just that DS9 is my favorite series overall.

     

    I've said it many times on the boards though, the last 3 seasons of Enterprise (the 3 seasons that never were... seasons 5, 6 and 7) had such promise with so many great stories that never got told. It's really disappointing, especially if it turns out that Enterprise was cancelled to make room for this new movie.

    There's no way Enterprise was canceled to make room for Star Trek. Orci and Kurtzman were approached about Star Trek during the production of Mission Impossible III which began in July 2005. Enterprise was officially canceled on February 2nd, 2005 with the final episodes airing on May 13th, 2005.

     

    Enterprise was canceled for the simple reason that it was one of the most expensive shows on television to produce at the time and its ratings were terrible (no matter what flaws exist in the Neilsen system, all shows are graded on that system, and Enterprise fared poorly). It really is a simple decision to understand from a business perspective. Its unfortunate, but that's what it ultimate boils down to. Does Paramount think they can make money producing Star Trek?

     

    Another thing that is very important to consider is that 'Star Trek' was Paramount's last chance to maintain control of the franchise. They had a certain amount of time after the cancellation of Enterprise to make a viable product with the Star Trek brand or the rights of the franchise would go to Les Moonves and CBS and I really don't think we want to see what he would have done with the franchise (i.e. direct to DVD).

  13. Posted

    I'll pick one up for you if I see one and if you want me to?

    No, it's quite alright. I can keep looking or order it online if it comes to it. I was mainly just wondering why this particular action figure is virtually impossible for me to find and if that was the case for other people.

  15. Posted

    Just a quick question, is anyone having trouble finding a six inch Captain Pike action figure? I have seen every other character of the first wave (I own six) and all the other accessories but I have not yet been able to track down a Captain Pike. I get the impression this may be a Canada only thing, as if they've held this one back here or something (I can find it on toysrus.com, but not on toysrus.ca)). So, just wondering if anyone else has noticed this occurrence.

  16. Posted

    Click for Spoiler:

    Its possible Tuvok does exist but in another form. Remember, the Mirror Universe Vic was a flesh-and-blood human and Porthos was a rotweiler.

    Click for Spoiler:

    It is possible Tuvok could still exist. His current birthdate is believed to be 2264, only 8 years after the setting of this movie. And his parents could be among the survivors of Vulcan. Granted the changes in the timeline could have changed the circumstances of Tuvok's birth (and it may not even occur) and even if he is born, he will likely not be the exact same Tuvok we know from Voyager.

  17. Posted

    Click for Spoiler:

    As for the timeline - I hate these quandaries but now that they "know" what will happen - can't they simply rescue Romulus earlier and more or less prevent the entire thing from happening or now that they have changed the timeline maybe the future won't happen at all - such as what if Spock doesn't live to be the old Spock.

    Click for Spoiler:

    They could prevent the destruction of Romulus in the alternate timeline, but it can not be prevented in the prime timeline.

     

    Also, with the Spocks, the young Spock could be killed but the old Spock wouldn't die since they aren't really the same person.

  19. Posted

    Click for Spoiler:

    A major concern for me with the movie is how Uhura ended up on Enterprise. It seems like she used her 'relationship' with Spock to be transferred from the Farragut(sp?) to the Enterprise. While it was made clear that she was a superior communications officer who merited assignment to the Enterprise, why did the writers not have her assigned to the Enterprise with the other cadets? I found that a bit disheartening that the major female character advanced her career in this way.

     

    What about Jim Kirk's brother Sam? Is he a gonner in this version of the Stae Trek saga?

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    She was on the Farragut initially because Spock wanted to avoid the appearance of favouritism. She is fully capable and deserving of serving on the Enterprise, but since he felt it would appear as if he only assigned her to the Enterprise because of their relationship, he decided to assign her to the Farragut. She called him on this and he reassigned her to the Enterprise. So really she didn't use the relationship to advance her career, she had to fight against it and stand up for herself.

     

    As for George Samuel Kirk, I've addressed this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it: They did cast an actor in the role and he does appear in the film (but not as George Samuel Kirk). The majority of his scenes were cut, so they decided to redub the corvette scene so that young Kirk said "Johnny". The actor is older than the young Kirk actor, so they had planned to make him the older brother. As for where he was, I think it can be assumed he was not on the Kelvin, and was likely staying with family elsewhere.

     

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    There were more than just those 2 things, those were simply the only 2 that I mentioned here. As for Khan and Chekov in ST II, it's far closer to possibility that Chekov would meet Khan on the ship even though he wasn't seen on the show. All you have to do is look to "Lower Decks" to see that not every person "on the ship" is seen on the show.

     

    We know from the official Star Trek website that Chekov joined the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise in 2263 though there is no episode that shows him there. If we look to Memory-Alpha it simply says that he joined the crew prior to 2267. Khan was on the Enterprise in 2267, so there isn't a very far leap to suggest that Chekov was on the ship at the time of Khan but just not "on camera".

     

    It's a far easier and more reasonable leap to make than to suggest that somehow he could be born 4 years earlier because Nero jumped back in time.

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    Once again, the official website does not actually count as a canon source (and is likely wrong on that 2263 date). Secondly, this proves my point, we are willing to work around goofs to come up with explanations even when there is no evidence to support them. There is no 100% canon proof that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise at any point before Catspaw. Khan's statement was a goof at first, but has since been worked around. And if we are willing to do that for the rest of the Star Trek universe, we have to we willing to do it for Star Trek XI. Some may be more logical than others but that doesn't prevent us from doing so.

     

    I will actually be surprised if the number of retained "New Fans" is all that significant. I hope the numbers are big but I just have my doubts, and what happens when all the "New Fans" start watching real Star Trek and find all these differences? Does it help or hurt the franchise?

     

    Hard to say how many 'converts' there will be, but it is impossible to deny that the audience for future Treks is larger as a result of this movie.

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    As for Paramounts opinion being the only one that matters... I greatly disagree with you on that one. Paramount could say "You know what? We need to bring Yoda in to talk to Kirk and teach him to use the Force. That's our opinion and it's really the only one that matters!"

     

    Now, if that happened what do you suppose would happen? Would the opinions of the fans would just not matter? I think everyone would agree that if they did that it would mark the death of the franchise because all the opinions that "didn't matter" would also say that "it must not matter if I don't spend my money going to see it..."

     

    The only opinion that matters is the collective opinion of the viewing public. (And who's to say it's a 'vocal minority'? That to me just seems a polite way of dismissing someones opinions as 'unimportant')

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    Alright, I admit I misphrased that. What I really meant that overall, the decision to make more Star Trek is always going to come to Paramount's opinion on whether or not they can make money on it. The opinions of the viewing public and the fans on the projects to date will ultimately be a determining factor in that opinion, but Paramount's opinion will be the only one that truly determines the future of Star Trek.

     

    The decision to cancel Enterprise is an example of that. There were a lot of fans who wanted to keep the show on the air. However, their opinion was not enough to change Paramount's mind because they did not believe that they could continue to produce Enterprise in a manner that would be financially viable. Numerous other factors went into that decision but ultimately it came down to financial viability.

     

    And when I refer to a vocal minority, I'm talking about the lunatic fringe, the people who view any change as a bad change and are dead opposed to the very idea of this movie (of which you are obviously not a member). They're aren't many of them, but they never shut up (I've mostly seen this on another board). And their opinions are unimportant in the sense that they will have no impact on the future of Star Trek.

     

    And I would like to apologize if I have in any way implied that your opinion is unimportant.

     

    I even said in another thread that a TV series with this cast might prove to be very interesting. But this being a board dedicated to discussing all aspects of Star Trek I think that a discussion of the movies shortcomings is proper.

     

    I just wish they had been more careful or mindful when writing the script. I have to believe that if Ira Behr had been involved in this production that there wouldn't have been any of these little issues.

     

    Not really a criticism, but I would totally rule out the possibility of a TV series with these characters (or at least the actors). A side story with a new crew is possible, I suppose. Hard to say based on the current split of the franchise's movie and TV rights.

     

    As for Ira Steven Behr, he is an excellent writer, that is for sure. But he is far from infallible.

     

    Also, can we just agree to disagree and let this conversation rest? I've having trouble keepoing track of all the quote and spoiler tags. lol

  20. Posted

    Click for Spoiler:

    I think that's where some of the issues that people have are coming from, I'm sure that there are very few Star Trek fans and far fewer non Star Trek fans that read comics. For the Caonoists, comics and even TAS have always been considered non-canon. So any information in the comics will be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    I fully acknowledge that Countdown is non-canon. But it is an interesting read and can give more information about the intentions of the writers. However, one does not need to read it to get what is going on in the movie. It just gives some unofficial context.

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    I fully believe that this exact story could have been written in such a way that issues of canon would not have been a problem. For instance, if they wanted the movie to be set in 2258 then why have Chekov in the movie? People might have questioned the fact of him missing, but the answer would have satisfied everyone. He was there because he was only 13. That would have given a new movie the opportunity to introduce him.

     

    Other issues could have been dealt with the same way as well. I understand that they wanted to attract a "new audience" and that's great. I agree that new fans are needed. But is there honestly anyone here that believes that they couldn't have accomplished this AND stayed true to canon? Was the canon location Delta-Vega and Chekov's age the 2 key things that made non fans stay away for all these years?

     

    They're all minor things, they can be overlooked but how hard would it have been to do it right and keep the hard core fans happy while at the same time changing things up a little to attract a new audience? The argument seems to be this: "Stop caring and stop being so hard core, they HAD to get new blood into the fandom!" Yes, new blood was needed. But do you have to turn you back on the fans that made the movie possible in order to get new blood?

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    I know what you mean, but do these two glitches make it impossible to enjoy this movie? Does that fact that Khan recognizes Chekov despite never meeting him ruin Wrath of Khan? And these are comparable situations because Nick Meyer knew they'd never met face to face and kept that in anyway. They're deliberate errors for the sake of the story. So yes, they are annoyances, but minor ones and they can easily be explained away. Memory Alpha has already done so:

     

    http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Delta_Vega_(Vulcan_system)

     

    Not ideal, I'll admit but it does work. And c'mon, two little deliberate changes hardly represent turning their backs on the fans who made this movie possible. There is more than enough for the fans in there already to compensate for these minor changes.

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    Would it be worth alienating 20 Million fans in order to get 2 Million new fans? Star Trek fans won't completely turn their backs on the franchise, but at the same time while there might be 50 Million new "fans" right now, 5 years from now how many of those 50 Million will even remember having seen the movie? How many will be retained as "fans". Getting "new blood" doesn't require discarding all of the "old blood" lol.

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    We won't convert all the non-fans into fans but we've got more people now who will be willing to see more of the franchise than we did when Enterprise went off the air and that will translate into financial success, which at the end of the day is all that matters because Star Trek is a business. This movie has succeeded in reinvigorating the Star Trek brand in a way that seemed impossible only a few years ago. 'Star Trek' is the most successful Star Trek movie in terms of box office gross (unadjusted for inflation, and while it currently is not the highest when one adjusts for inflation, it is well on its way to doing so) and it terms of critical praise (currently the highest rated wide release of 2009 on Rotten Tomatoes at 95% (which is also the highest of any Trek movie), though it may not hold that title as I think 'Up' can beat it).

     

    And if you ask me, that is well worth stepping on the toes of a vocal minority. And I think Paramount would agree and their opinion is really the only one that matters.

  21. Posted

    Click for Spoiler:

    The new movie didn't make any mention of this being a new reality sothe destruction of Vulcan would clearly change everything from the other show.

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    The words "Alternate reality" are clearly stated in the movie. At least twice, I believe.

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    One final thing, how does a star going supernova potentially cause the destruction of the galaxy?

    Click for Spoiler:

    According to the Countdown tie-in comic, the star in question would absorb energy from whatever it destroyed, which when then fuel further destruction.

  23. Posted

    I was watching the movie 'Bicentennial Man' with Robin Williams last weekend; there is a scene, in which his character, a robot gradually becoming more and more human-and not just psycho-emotionally-goes to visit the daughter of the woman who loved him as a friend since childhood...the apartment number is 'B4'...hmmm.....

    I would chalk that up to coincidence as Nemesis came out three years after Bicentennial Man (almost to the day actually).

  24. Posted

    Something always bugged me about all the rapid rises in rank. The whole young-people-in-space thing seemed too familiar as a plot. I couldn't articulate it at the time, but I figured it out.

     

    It was the line when that flying motorcycle cop called boy Kirk "citizen" that gave me a clue. Where else have we seen a militaristic-type space movie with young people getting rapid promotions?

     

    Then it hit me. Starship Troopers! This is really just a rehashing of the basic Starship Troopers plot points set in the Star Trek universe!

     

    I suppose there are some similarities. But overall this movie is just better than Starship Troopers on every conceivable level.

    Starship Troopers had more sex. Star Trek just implied sex.

     

    Starship Troopers has more sex than a lot of movies, doesn't make it any better. And sex isn't even one of the levels I'd consider.

     

     

     

    Actually, having a cadet being advanced from Cadet to Captain (skipping Ensign, Lieutenant., Lt. Commander and Commander) and beign given command of the fleets brand spanking new flagship is pretty inconceivable. Not to mention the fact that he was a Cadet that was placed on academic suspension and the way things were looking was about to be expelled. lol

     

    Yeah, I don't think he was gonna be expelled. He did do the exact same thing that Kirk Prime did on the test and he didn't get expelled. Even McCoy said the board would most likely have decided in his favour.

  25. Posted

    That's interesting that Kirk's big brother Sam was originally suppose to be in this movie but got his scenes cut and left on the editing room floor-- were did you find this information? I'd like to read all about that.

     

    This is the best I can do in terms of a source:

     

    http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/02/fun-stuff-...-movie-credits/

     

    You have to scroll down to find it. Spencer Daniels was cast as George Samuel Kirk, but since he's only in the one scene now, they must have decided to drop the reference to him being Jim's brother, just for the sake of simplicity. The point is, they intended to include George Samuel Kirk.

     

    I made the connection/comparison to the "French Foreign Legion" because

    Click for Spoiler:

    1) Jim Kirk getting into trouble and looking like his future (on Earth/Iowa) as Pike pointed out-- he'd probably be the only Genius In Jail/Prison and that Pike challenged him to do better than his father! This all too is an alteration to TOS canon-- In "The Managerie" part 1 & 2 Kirk claimed to have never meet Pike in Person but was aware of his Starfleet Service record. The original Kirk's

    "personal hero" was Fleet Captain Garth- "who's exploits are still required reading at the Acadamy"( Whom Gods Destory ) one of his most influential professors is Historian John Gill ( Where is he in the movie ) and where is his buddy-- Gary Mitchell ?

    2) "Bones" states that his wife got everything in the divorce- leaving him with just his "Bones"- and had no place to go- so he joined Star Fleet.

    (3) Spock chooses Star Fleet because his own race practices "species discrimination" and considers his "human half" a "handicap"-- so instead of attending the Vulcan "ivy league" he chooses to attend the lowly "Star Fleet Acadamy" (UC-Berkeley-- 24th Century) instead.

    It's based on the French Foreign Legion's history of being where mis-fits, convicts,

    homeless out-casts make up their ranks.

    But it's not as if these guys just walked into Starfleet. They obviously had to past aptitude tests. Kirk and Spock are geniuses and McCoy is a doctor at that point. Kirk was a bit of a misfit because he was a genius who liked to waste his time in bars, but he was still a genius whose father was a hero. Pike wouldn't have given him the time of the day if he was anyone else.

    Also, keep in mind that Kirk is the only one whose entrance to the Academy has changed, presumably. Spock made that same decision in the prime timeline and McCoy's story is based on an unproduced script (which eventually became The Way to Eden). Technically that and D.C. Fontana's intention are not canon, but the idea was out there and they decided to use it and make it canon (it likely occurred in the prime timeline, but we can't be sure). So really, this isn't so much a change to Starfleet as it is a change to Kirk's life.

     

    As for the other points, it's an alternate timeline. Following the Narada's incursion to the past, all the previous canon need not be adhered to (that is everything we believe occurred after that point) at least anything that could conceivably be impacted by the incursion, which really is any number of things). Kirk can meet Pike but he doesn't have to meet John Gill or Gary Mitchell. His time at the Academy is later than it should have been.

     

    I understand there are "extenuating circumstances"-- but at the most these cedets might get commendations( Medals) Points in there Service record, maybe graduate the Acadamy a year early, as for Kirk-- maybe skip the rank of Ensign and go straight to Lt. or even Lt. Commander? but straight to the big chair? No-- little too "EASY"

     

    Instead of the ending we got-- wouldn't it have been more realistic to see something like above-- and have Kirk promise that when he did get his own command-- he'd request all the "gang"- or put the "band back together'-- then Spock would have had an interesting few lines-- and we could have watched Captain Pike set off toward Talos Star system with a female #1( new First Officer ), Spock could be Science Officer and we'd have a great 'set up' for a next movie-- Lt. Kirk on the Republic or maybe Farrugut. And Spock(Prime) working behind the scenes to steer all these characters/individuals back together again. Since Spock (Original) still has the knowledge of how to "fly around the sun" and take the Enterprise back in time--- Vulcan can be saved the same way the whales were saved in (Voyage Home)-- Just go back in time-- and beat Nero to Vulcan and "undo" what was done. See-- here's more Plot for 2nd Movie.

     

    His rise is a little rapid, I will grant that but from a film making perspective, the general public is going to have zero interest in watching a Lt. Kirk/Pike in command of the Enterprise movie after having watched Kirk take command and save the day in the first movie. More than anything this movie is about getting all the familiar characters in the places we know best and creating the ability to tell new stories with the franchises most popular characters. This is exactly what the franchise needed.

     

    As for trying to save Vulcan via time travel, its not gonna happen, especially as the filmmakers have used the quantum theory of time travel. Attempting to travel back to save Vulcan would result in another alternate timeline where you could save Vulcan, but it wouldn't be the Vulcan of the original alternate timeline. It'd just be too messy. Plus the destruction of Vulcan is a powerful symbol which establishes that this is a totally new timeline.