Did JJ ruin Kirk?

[JKM]

Kirk never showed any repentance for his lying about the Nibiru incident. Freeing Khan from the brig was a major mistake. Khan didn't have anything useful enough to contribute to make it worth the risk and if they had left him in the brig, they would've been able to stop Marcus's plot without any more losses of life. The latter alone would be enough to get him court-martialed and shipped off to New Zeland. (Remember of prime universe Kirk got court-martialed and at risk of losing his command over one accidental death that was far less reckless in "Court Martial" [TOS]? Why should alternate reality Kirk be given special treatment, esp. when he doesn't have that Kirk's reputation as a good captain?)

You don't think Kirk telling Spock that Spock needed to be in the Captains chair because the crew needed someone who knew what they were doing isn't an acknowledgement that he was wrong?
Also if they hadn't taken Khan they would have most likely been captured when they took the turbo lifts. Khan led them around.

 

[WebLurker]

You don't think Kirk telling Spock that Spock needed to be in the Captains chair because the crew needed someone who knew what they were doing isn't an acknowledgement that he was wrong?
Also if they hadn't taken Khan they would have most likely been captured when they took the turbo lifts. Khan led them around.

Maybe. They already had Scotty onboard (who had reported it was a small crew), who could've possibly accessed the schematics and ship's systems. I'll concede it's been a long time since I've seen the movie and I'l also admit that this version of Kirk is high on my list of complaints about the movie, so I'm not the most objective person.

 

[BillJ]

Kirk's complex. He's Han Solo, James Bond and Horatio Hornblower rolled into one.

With a shit ton of Superman in the mix. Kirk was as close to a super hero as they could get in TOS without him having actual super powers.

 

[Nerys Myk]

With a shit ton of Superman in the mix. Kirk was as close to a super hero as they could get in TOS without him having actual super powers.

You'll believe a man... can deliver a flying kick.

 

[Pauln6]

Maybe. They already had Scotty onboard (who had reported it was a small crew), who could've possibly accessed the schematics and ship's systems. I'll concede it's been a long time since I've seen the movie and I'l also admit that this version of Kirk is high on my list of complaints about the movie, so I'm not the most objective person.

See, my issue isn't with Kirk; he's quite an engaging character. My issue is the way the other characters react to Kirk, heaping rewards on him that are not commensurate with his actual performance. At least Kirk prime had a history that we could believe was awesome even when he acted like a dunce.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Why does he need redeeming?

Good question. If talking about Pine, I think he's done a kick ass job of bringing a young fresh Kirk without copying Shatner, but at the same time he occasionally places these Kirkisms from TOS that just bring to my mind Shatners Kirk. It is the perfect balance. As for Kirk, he redeemed himself in STID. That was the whole point of that movie.

As many have stated since the JJ Abrams films started, and what I've probably stated beforehand, PineKirk acts like an immature individual that doesn't seem like he's earned the right to command 400+ people. The writing in this respect was pretty poor.

Hopefully, Beyond will 'redeem' the character and make him more mature and give him more gravitas. Yes, I do like PineKirk, but I don't feel he's shown to be 'Captain' material.

 

[fireproof78]

As many have stated since the JJ Abrams films started, and what I've probably stated beforehand, PineKirk acts like an immature individual that doesn't seem like he's earned the right to command 400+ people. The writing in this respect was pretty poor.

Hopefully, Beyond will 'redeem' the character and make him more mature and give him more gravitas. Yes, I do like PineKirk, but I don't feel he's shown to be 'Captain' material.

I think his speech at the end of STID is a step towards that "Captain" material, as you state. Is he there? I'm not sure, but he is far closer than at the end of 09.

I think part of the interesting dynamic is the fact that in the planned society of the Federation and Kirk is a rebel. He doesn't fit, so when they look at his skill sets and test scores, they try to make him fit. It's all so incredibly interesting to see him grow in to that command role.

 

[JKM]

As many have stated since the JJ Abrams films started, and what I've probably stated beforehand, PineKirk acts like an immature individual that doesn't seem like he's earned the right to command 400+ people. The writing in this respect was pretty poor.

Hopefully, Beyond will 'redeem' the character and make him more mature and give him more gravitas. Yes, I do like PineKirk, but I don't feel he's shown to be 'Captain' material.

I feel like a broken record repeating myself, but the fact that he isn't ready to command 400 people in ST 09 was the whole point of the story or rather it IS the story. I get that some people don't like that story line, but to me it's very real world and I enjoyed it. Without pointing fingers, I can't begin to tell you how many idiots I've seen be in a manager/command position and have only gotten there through sheer dumb luck or politics. At least with Kirk he's evolving. That's the whole Story line, or has been with the first two films. Can't say what Beyond is going to do with Kirk, but I agree that we hopefully see a more polished Captain Kirk after the growth in the last film.

 

[WebLurker]

I feel like a broken record repeating myself, but the fact that he isn't ready to command 400 people in ST 09 was the whole point of the story or rather it IS the story. I get that some people don't like that story line, but to me it's very real world and I enjoyed it. Without pointing fingers, I can't begin to tell you how many idiots I've seen be in a manager/command position and have only gotten there through sheer dumb luck or politics. At least with Kirk he's evolving. That's the whole Story line, or has been with the first two films. Can't say what Beyond is going to do with Kirk, but I agree that we hopefully see a more polished Captain Kirk after the growth in the last film.

I feel like a broken record, but the problem with the movies is that Kirk isn't growing, but doing the same thing over and over again.

 

[JKM]

I feel like a broken record, but the problem with the movies is that Kirk isn't growing, but doing the same thing over and over again.

Which I understand, that's why I said some people don't like the Story line. Simple difference of opinion.

 

[Trekkin]

Is it really 'over and over' when something has only happened twice? And it's argueably different the second time?

I mean, Admiral Kirk was promoted/demoted to Captain three times in TOS. Montalkhan came back twice. Kirks closest family members got axed off twice. Yet we don't say the same thing happened over and over.

Not that I'm judging. God knows I've hung shit on Riker for 'always' turning down promotions. All three or four of times in 150+ episodes.

 

[WebLurker]

Is it really 'over and over' when something has only happened twice? And it's argueably different the second time?

I mean, Admiral Kirk was promoted/demoted to Captain three times in TOS. Montalkhan came back twice. Kirks closest family members got axed off twice. Yet we don't say the same thing happened over and over.

Not that I'm judging. God knows I've hung shit on Riker for 'always' turning down promotions. All three or four of times in 150+ episodes.

The problem is that each movie makes a big deal out of how Kirk is learning maturity and proving himself to be worthy of the captaincy. Intro Darkness proves that he learned nothing, and just repeats the same beats. It not only proves him immature, but also a flat character (which is bad, regardless of how out of character Abrams Kirk has been). Maybe they'll do something different in Beyond, but since it's the same people making it (who've proven twice over they don't understand Star Trek at all), why should I trust them?

 

[Trekkin]

The second movie wasn't about him becoming 'mature.' It was about him proving he was Captain material. They're...slightly different things.

Well, unless the second movie we're talking about is TWOK. That one really was about Kirk already being a good captain, but personality-wise needing to grow the fuck up. 'Ageing is gross, and consequences only happen to other people. No Bones, toddlers do not think the exact same thing before ignoring their mother and shoving their hand onto a hotplate!'

Although come to think of it, Kirk had already learned that 'sometimes I'm a selfish idiot trying to recapture the past' lesson TMP...and it was completely forgotten in TSFS... Oh goddamit, I just accidentally smashed my own nostalgia goggles for a second there.

 

[somebuddyX]

I don't mind the two Kirks.

 

[fireproof78]

The problem is that each movie makes a big deal out of how Kirk is learning maturity and proving himself to be worthy of the captaincy. Intro Darkness proves that he learned nothing, and just repeats the same beats. It not only proves him immature, but also a flat character (which is bad, regardless of how out of character Abrams Kirk has been). Maybe they'll do something different in Beyond, but since it's the same people making it (who've proven twice over they don't understand Star Trek at all), why should I trust them?

I don't think that is it though. In ST 09 Kirk has to be challenged to begin to move towards his potential. He is put in to the captaincy by nepotism and that mistake is recognized in ST ID. How often does an episode of Star Trek acknowledge the consequences of a character's actions?

ST ID ends with Kirk learning the value of self sacrifice in leadership, an example we saw in ST 09 in multiple characters, including Robau, George Kirk and Pike. Far from rehashing the same beats, Kirk is on stepping stones of understanding what being a great leader means.

Finally, it isn't the exact same people making Beyond. Abrams is producing, but is different writers (Pegg and Jung) and different director (Lin). Arguably, they seem to be taking a different take on the series.

And I think they understand Star Trek just fine, but that's an old argument

 

[WebLurker]

I don't think that is it though. In ST 09 Kirk has to be challenged to begin to move towards his potential. He is put in to the captaincy by nepotism and that mistake is recognized in ST ID. How often does an episode of Star Trek acknowledge the consequences of a character's actions?

Wrath of Khan and The Search For Spock, as a couple examples. "In the Pale Moonlight" (DS9) also covered similar ground. (Whenever fans tell me that Into Darkness took Trek into a darker direction, my first thought is that that movie's idea of darkness is childish compared to that episode's.) In fact, DS9 was very much cause and effect (and a good show for it).

If your right about the intent, I'll concede its not a bad idea. But, I think if they had cut the whole idea of Kirk screwing up and getting demoted in Into Darkness and centered his lessons on how he handled Marcus's mission (since Kirk is blinded by wanting revenge for Pike's murder), that would've helped, since in that case, it would've felt like he was actually moving forward, rather than repeating

Also, if Into Darkness starts to suggest that Kirk was not ready for the chair, the movie then just plops him him back in again in time for the big fight scenes. Had they showed him earning the right to the chair first, instead of putting him in it and then trying to retroactively justify it, I would give the movie more credit for character development.

ST ID ends with Kirk learning the value of self sacrifice in leadership, an example we saw in ST 09 in multiple characters, including Robau, George Kirk and Pike. Far from rehashing the same beats, Kirk is on stepping stones of understanding what being a great leader means.

I though that's what the first movie was about. Did I miss something?

Finally, it isn't the exact same people making Beyond. Abrams is producing, but is different writers (Pegg and Jung) and different director (Lin). Arguably, they seem to be taking a different take on the series.

But it's built on the same rotted foundation that its predecessors were built on. The problem isn't just that the previous movies were not very good movies, the main problem is is that the movies are Star Trek in name only. I hope they do something else (for variety, if nothing else), but since the others made big bucks, I think they're going to want to stick to formula rather than take a creative risk and kill the alleged golden goose.

And I think they understand Star Trek just fine, but that's an old argument

Why is that (and I'm not being facetious here)? I genuinely do not understand that point of view. So, when people express it, I'm curious what I'm missing that others are picking up on.

 

[fireproof78]

Wrath of Khan and The Search For Spock, as a couple examples. "In the Pale Moonlight" (DS9) also covered similar ground. (Whenever fans tell me that Into Darkness took Trek into a darker direction, my first thought is that that movie's idea of darkness is childish compared to that episode's.) In fact, DS9 was very much cause and effect (and a good show for it).

Personally, I have never argued that ST ID added a darker tone to Star Trek. I thought that the film took a lot of nods from DS9 in terms of concepts and then crafted them accordingly. Childish? Hardly, but I'll agree that it can't go in to the depths that a season long series arc can.

Is the story perfect? No, but it works to show Kirk's continuing journey.

If your right about the intent, I'll concede its not a bad idea. But, I think if they had cut the whole idea of Kirk screwing up and getting demoted in Into Darkness and centered his lessons on how he handled Marcus's mission (since Kirk is blinded by wanting revenge for Pike's murder), that would've helped, since in that case, it would've felt like he was actually moving forward, rather than repeating

Also, if Into Darkness starts to suggest that Kirk was not ready for the chair, the movie then just plops him him back in again in time for the big fight scenes. Had they showed him earning the right to the chair first, instead of putting him in it and then trying to retroactively justify it, I would give the movie more credit for character development.

I don't think it's retroactive. I think Marcus gave him the Enterprise expecting Kirk to die. So, no, Kirk doesn't "get the chair" because Marcus thinks he has earned it. Kirk gets it because he's a pawn.

I though that's what the first movie was about. Did I miss something?

I think the first film is only the first step-that of Kirk learning his place in the Federation, his destiny, as Spock would put it. But, as much as I love ST 09, no, I don't think Kirk is ready to be Captain. And guess what? We see that consequence the next film.

But it's built on the same rotted foundation that its predecessors were built on. The problem isn't just that the previous movies were not very good movies, the main problem is is that the movies are Star Trek in name only. I hope they do something else (for variety, if nothing else), but since the others made big bucks, I think they're going to want to stick to formula rather than take a creative risk and kill the alleged golden goose.

Yes, because Star Trek was never about making money...oh wait.

Why is that (and I'm not being facetious here)? I genuinely do not understand that point of view. So, when people express it, I'm curious what I'm missing that others are picking up on.

Because Star Trek, at its roots in TOS, is an action adventure series with social commentary woven in from time to time. I think that Abrams rebooted TOS style Trek with a lot more adventure and action that most series did afterwards.

It also explores the importance of father figures and the development of leaders. Kirk doesn't have one and goes on to become directionless, rebellious and reckless, contributing nothing to society. Similarly, we see the importance of Sarek in Spock's development, and his embracing of both halves of his heritage.

It's that mentorship that drives both Spock and Kirk to become more than they are. And that's part of Gene's eventual vision as well, that people work to better themselves.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I don't think Kirk is ready to be Captain. And guess what? We see that consequence the next film.

The consequences being Kirk pretty much doing what he usually did in the Primeverse, but suddenly its bad now.

 

[SolarisOne]

Chris Pine as Kirk is one of the very few things I like about the Abramsverse movies--I've never been able to stand Shatner.

 

[SolarisOne]

Because, to be honest, in most instances Shatner isn't a very good actor. Nimoy outclassed him by a wide margin.

Confession: I find it very difficult to watch TOS, because of Shatner. The Kirk in my head when I'm reading a TOS-era novel is far more palatable, though (because even my imagination is a better actor. )