Does Kirk Contribute to the Transporter Accident in TMP?

His commentary track on the TWOK DVD was great. The one he did with the late Denny Martin Flinn for TUC was not.

 

I usually limit my viewings on SFS because I dislike so much about it, which is a shame because it starts off pretty well. I find Shatner's response to David's death to be a low point in the series, down there with Stewart's, "the line must be snorted HERE!" in FC and his bawling in SAREK. Compare any of those with Shatner's response to Edith Keeler's death or even his humbled/subdued end scene in REQUIEM ("an old and lonely man and a young and lonely man - we put on a pretty poor show, didn't we?") and ... well, there is no comparison.

The SFS scene is horrendously staged for one; if Kirk is going to fall, it should be after SEEING David killed, via one of those convenient 'shows everything' main viewscreen visuals, instead of getting the news as a phone call. You could have racked focus off screen,staying on Kirk's back, and seen him slip down out of frame, diminished by what he had seen. Unless you're really really good, it's often best to be shooting an emotional reaction obliquely, because otherwise it can just read like making faces, something Shatner often is accused of anyway. Now if you're Mandy Patimkin in CHICAGO HOPE and reacting to an attorney-friend who has just died on your operating table, you CAN pull it off, but that is more the exception to the rule.

I'm not picking on Shatner at all; his work in the scene with Morrow in the lounge is excellent, as is his early scene with Bones in Spock's quarters, but I think Nimoy made a lot of mistakes, many of which compounded Bennett's, and the result is for me the definitive TOS feature misfire, the most squandered of opportunities.

In answer to the other question, I do not have children, nor have I ever wanted any (if I were well-off I would certainly have adopted, as there are more than enough children in the world needing parents, but I'm not & that's that; even if there weren't a surplus of children in such a jam, I haven't ever felt the need to help conceive one that would likely be color-blind, nearsighted & diabetic.)

I have no contact with any family members (not counting my wife, as that is a choice, not something that happened as a result of nature), as none of them are sufficiently well-behaved or possessing enough integrity to merit my concern. I DO have a few friends (many have fallen by the wayside because they didn't live up to the standards I maintain for friendship, and in one instance where I feel I didn't measure up) who I would risk job and/or life for, because THEY are my family.

Yeah, I absolutely LOVE tff.

 

And still you find it difficult to believe that other people may have emotional responses that don't resemble your own?

 

I'm not responsible for the opinions of others; I'm putting forward a reasoned explanation for the obvious failings I see in something being talked up as some kind of pinnacle. I make no excuses for what fails in TFF (of which there is plenty); however the emotional KSM core of the thing is as solid as anything in FeatureTrek, and it keeps me coming back, no matter how many decks are in the ship or how feeble the Sybok angle is.

 

I'm not holding you responsible for the opinions of other. I'm observing that you basically argued that Kirk's reaction to Kirk's death is implausible because you would be more torn up by the death of a coworker than by the death of the biological child you never wanted and don't have. But...

 

But... his crew betraying him at the drop of the hat from some odd fellow they've never met before (and I believe the film makes a point that it's not brainwashing, or Shatner did in some interview)? How is that a solid emotional core? These are the same people who risked all for Kirk and Spock in TSFS.

The film was a lot of fun for me in my youth due to it's grandiose aspirations, but that one element just ruins it for me these days.

 

Although I love a couple of Scotty moments from TURNABOUT INTRUDER and ARMAGEDDON, the show was always about the big 3 for me, so none of that stuff bothers me in the slightest. The emotional core of TOS is KSM, and even the idiocy of Spock not shooting Sybok in the knee isn't going to detract from the fact that for me this movie actually manages to amplify what was great in the series.

 

The impression I got about Garrovick, who I believe was briefly considered as a recurring character, is that this is the kind of man Kirk would choose to be a father-figure for, not just because of the debt to the father, but because of the foolhardy courage the kid demonstrates.

What David demonstrates does not impress me, not in either film, even if SFS tries to say he does things like Kirk, because David simply does not register dramatically. Geez, opening day in San Jose, the crowd applauded everybody in the opening credits (even Robin Curtis, who nobody had seen), but when Buttrick's name came up ... silence, followed by a burst of laughter at the silence. What could you do BUT kill a non-entity like that?

I don't know why you're considering the view invalid because of my own personal choices. I haven't killed anybody with my own hands, even people who deserve it, but that doesn't stop me from endorsing some of the actions of Dexter, Dirty Harry and countless other fictional creations who apply a fascist mindset while doing their fictional worlds a favor by ridding them of what I could charitably describe as sub-human trash.

 

It feels implausible to HIM. Whether or not he has had or never chose to have a child doesn't change that fact, so I'm not really sure what you;re trying to accomplish here other than saying "I disagree."

 

Now, now. TFF does suck.

 

To the original post, I think Kirk's appearance DOES serve as a distraction. BUT Decker had already identified the transporter issue and given orders to replace the faulty part(s). As a leader both Decker and Kirk HAVE to rely on the diligence and professionalism of those under their command. As technical knowledge workers, it's their job to BE the force that prevents accidents like that from happening.

Bottom line, IMO yes Kirk does contribute to the accident, but its the transporter techs in engineering, arguably even Scotty, who have direct responsibility for the accident.

 

It's all on Rand. She was out to get Kirk's girlfriend, Sonak was just collateral damage.

 

Consider why he calls it implausible. He's saying he doesn't believe that Kirk would react that way to the death of the son he barely knew because he (trevanian) wouldn't. I'm just pointing out that, if the fact that he has never reproduced or desired to reproduce don't clue him in to the fact that his emotional reactions to such things are not necessarily typical, the fact that he loves TFF should. Ha ha. His comments were unwittinglly ironic, which I found amusing.

 

I'm not going to judge his reactions and his life experience, nor yours. To do so is a tacky way of invalidating someone else's feelings.

 

Is that what you think I did? "Atypical" isn't a moral judgment.

 

No, but your use of it clearly implies eccentricity.

I've never gotten through very much of TITANIC, either, which would be another minority view given its immense popularity, but I doubt that would qualify to most as eccentric.

Let's try another notion here. I recently found out my father died several years back. I only met him a few times, found that except for Super-8 cameras we had almost nothing in common, but even my wife was surprised at my lack of interest in his passing. I didn't feel wistful due to my not having gotten to know him better, or for any other reason, because I didn't ever want to know him better.

He was not my kind of guy (he chose his rental car on the basis of the one with a radio that picked up the bay area 'beautiful music'muzak station!), and he was not so interesting as to cause me to expand my worldview to accommodate him either. Is this due to reduced empathy on my part, or just being rational about somebody I didn't click with?

By way of comparison, I can still recall how the world seemed to change its spin rate when I was told the friend I'd known longest, since 1st grade, was shot to death at age 19 in 1980.

I don't know if it is something from doing acting 'sense-memory' exercises or not, but I can and do actually tear up when recalling one of the last discussions I had with him, where he was recalling his dead father while the song 'cat's in the cradle' played on an AM radio somewhere (guess that is a case of REPO MAN's 'lattice of coincidence' at work.) That sounds in keeping with the narrator's response to his childhood friend's death in STAND BY ME, so does that make me less atypical?

 

Here on a Star Trek board, where IDIC philosophy predominates, it honestly never occurred to me that you would feel insulted by an observation that your reaction to some things is different from that of most other men.

The only thing I intended to judge was only your word choice when you commented that you find a moment in a film "implausible" because the protagonist doesn't share your minority trait. I can understand that you might find it difficult or impossible to relate to a character driven by psychological drives you don't share, but that's different from calling it implausible.

It was never my intention to offend you, but evidently I managed to do so anyway. I apologize.

 

Let's stop talking about us and talk about Kirk: Kirk knew David existed, regretted "staying away," was upset Carol didn't tell David who his father was. David came to Kirk to comfort him after Spock died, reminded Kirk of his own wisdom regarding death and told kirk he was proud, very proud, very proud to be his son. Kirk, who had lost THREE brothers (Gary, Spock and Sam), who was always portrayed as painfully lonely, is given more than enough motivation to be shaken by David's death. I have no children and never desired to have children but I have no problem with that.

 

Thank you.

I don't remember, and I don't have it handy, but did Kirk know beforehand that David was on the Grissom? If so, did he know that David had beamed down to investigate a life form?

I was always under the impression that Kirk learned that David was on the Genesis planet during the communication between Enterprise and Kruge. The surprise of that fact, followed by the shock of learning that David was brutally murdered caused his collapse. That he regained his composure so quickly speaks to his capability as a captain.

It doesn't matter how close Kirk and David were. Kirk knew he had a son, was just starting to develop a relationship with him, and heard his murder in real time.

Kirk's reaction was real, and in my opinion Shatner's portrayal of that was one of the best of any of his work.

 

Yes, he says he knows David exploring Genesis in his personal log at the movie's start.

EDIT: "My son. My life that could have been and wasn't." All I need to hear.