Being a starship captain...a big deal?

[Timo]

...which continues to ignore the emphasis of distinction Commodore Stone placed on serving as a starship captain [etc.]

Except not. I am arguing that Kirk is not a special starship captain, not that starship captains would not be special (for a given value of special - say, nobody can deny that the captains of airliners today are special, but declaring them famous as a category gets us nowhere).

This holds fully within Starfleet, where nobody expresses the idea that Kirk would have recognizability (whereas e.g. Pike and Tracey do). Furthermore, nobody thinks the Enterprise has recognizability. This only changes after the first couple of movies - although primarily because the first couple of movies did not yet feature characters other than the main heroes and therefore provide no information on the subject.

At this point in series (in-series) history, Kor had not laid eyes on Kirk, but he knew who he was and the ship he commanded. Furthermore, Kirk and his ship's reputation was so established that Kor has--apparently for some time--hoped to meet Kirk in battle. No one dreams of fighting random officer of cookie-cutter vessel.

This touches on the issue from what one might consider the other end. The lowly Günther Prien and his midget fighting vessel U-47 were famous adversaries even if deep below (har har) the COs of German capital ships, and said ships, in internal rank and prestige. Could Kirk become a famed warrior (which is a status assigned him by Garth of Izar, although apparently for antics preceding Kirk's first command by a wide margin) without being a prestigious top leader in command of a great ship? Obviously, as per precedent.

We already know other Klingon captains--such as Koloth and Kang--were also very familiar with Kirk and his ship, which strongly points out (not really necessary with all of the episode evidence) that Kirk and his ship were always on the front lines, "being a thing" in the galaxy, which is not an opportunity shared by any ship.

Or then these buddies of Kor had a "thing" with the man who humiliated their friend.

Even though the timetable of said friendship is far from established, two Klingons being familiar with the opponent of a third is a very specific and narrow type of fame, thus not necessarily in conflict with the fact that inside Starfleet, it's very much "Kirk who?" at the time.

Continuing, the Romulan Commander from "The Enterprise Incident" were also well aware of Kirk and his ship:
So, she was not referring to Spock or Vulcans, but Kirk and his ship. No run-of-the-mill vessel or commander earns the attention of an enemy government or its fleet officers by name and/or reputation.

...This time we actually witness the specific event giving Kirk this specific and narrow type of fame before any indication of the fame appears. "Errand of Mercy" may have made Kirk a Household name for Klingons, but we can tell for certain that "Balance of Terror" did that for Romulans. Indeed, they'd be starved for household names after a century of isolation. Kirk killing Sarek's long-lost cousin is like a random clown from the Police Academy movies solving a crime after a century of no crime, reflecting not a bit on how great a man this hero-of-the-day really was. Except in Kirk's case it wouldn't even be news for the hero side, which does similar heroics every Tuesday..

...according to what TOS on-screen source? Stone made it clear that being a starship captain was a rare distinction not anyone could do. There's no getting around that line.

Being a fighter pilot is that today. I'm not saying Kirk would not be comparable to a fighter pilot. I'm saying his USAF does not consider him an ace, even when it thinks Pike is decorated and Tracey is experienced.

Nothing in TOS establishes the number of starship captains. Everything outside TOS indicates the number to be high, and to include truly insignificant people.

Do note my continuing use of "in Starfleet", please. There's a continuing and total lack of evidence that Kirk would be a recognized name within that organization, even if he automatically is "less common" than Ensign Nowan and her zillion co-Ensigns by virtue of seniority in a pyramid hierarchy.

Then, there's the Babel conference--even the laziest of observers would not miss that the Enterprise (with Kirk in command) was selected to carry the Mount Rushmore/United Nations of Federation ambassadors and dignitaries to the conference if the ship and crew were not considered the best representation of the Federation's Starfleet. They did not call up Wesley, Tracey, the Defiant or Intrepid captains for such an important, high-security mission. They tapped Kirk and his Enterprise.

What was distinguished about the skippers who hauled Allied leaders around in WWII? Sometimes they were run-of-the-mill battleship COs, which is special within a navy; just as often, they were run-of-the-mill cruiser COs, which is not special within a navy. And Kirk flies a cruiser, and a small one, as per onscreen (even if TOS-external) evidence.

Playing chauffeur to VIPs is a job that may call for a "photogenic" driver with socializing and PR as part and parcel of his job - or then not. From Kirk's other chauffeuring jobs, we know he's not photogenic, but rather the underappreciated servant of self-conscious top men. Does anything in "Journey to Babel" suggest differently for that particular case? He invites nobody to his Captain's Table, and gets no attention from the delegates. Starfleet did not send him for his recognizability, then. For his competence? Sure, but surely competence should not be considered special!

Clearly, TOS (and TAS to a certain degree) established Kirk and his ship as special not only within Starfleet, but to the Federation's greatest enemy governments.

We never met anybody from the Federation's enemy governments, so how could we tell?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Except not. I am arguing that Kirk is not a special starship captain, not that starship captains would not be special (for a given value of special - say, nobody can deny that the captains of airliners today are special, but declaring them famous as a category gets us nowhere).

Except...yes, you are making a claim based not on repeated character building in dialogue and action, but on some need to say "he's not" against all evidence provided by the ship-load on-screen, which is all one can refer to.

This holds fully within Starfleet, where nobody expresses the idea that Kirk would have recognizability (whereas e.g. Pike and Tracey do). Furthermore, nobody thinks the Enterprise has recognizability. This only changes after the first couple of movies - although primarily because the first couple of movies did not yet feature characters other than the main heroes and therefore provide no information on the subject.

Again, you are going against evidence from TOS. I've already provided comments that distinguish Kirk and his ship from both ally and enemy which cannot be considered to be anything other than the conclusion that Kirk is a unique captain of one of the best vessels of the massive Federation's central military/exploration branch. with a reputation which most certainly made him--as clearly expressed by Kor and the Romulan commander--pretty much a legend before either ever laid eyes on him.

Could Kirk become a famed warrior (which is a status assigned him by Garth of Izar, although apparently for antics preceding Kirk's first command by a wide margin) without being a prestigious top leader in command of a great ship? Obviously, as per precedent.

Hit the brakes. Kor and the Romulan commander are recognizing Kirk's reputation as a starship captain, not as midshipman, lieutenant, or anything else. No government representative/ship captain (like Kor and the Romulan commander) would care about him if his exploits/accomplishments were based only on his distant, pre-captain years. It is his time as captain where he became a legend/threat to enemy governments.

Or then these buddies of Kor had a "thing" with the man who humiliated their friend.

Speculation based on....nothing. What the TOS presents is Kirk being special---the face of the Federation's Starfleet-- and the largest enemy governments are well aware of him.

we can tell for certain that "Balance of Terror" did that for Romulans. Indeed, they'd be starved for household names after a century of isolation.

So, you have argued my point: Kirk is unique, not for mere contact with the Romulans, but in challenging, then utterly outwitting (what must be assumed to be) the best of this ancient warrior species' fleet captains while testing their latest technological marvel which was supposed to spell certain doom for the Federation. One of the many Kirk "Kaboom!!" heard around the universe.

Nothing in TOS establishes the number of starship captains. Everything outside TOS indicates the number to be high, and to include truly insignificant people.

Logically, one can conclude that of the 12 ships in service (as of season one), only those who distinguished themselves with certain abilities to command such a vessel were catapulted to the big chair, which is all that matters. A graduating class can be filled with 200 individuals who majored in Aerospace Engineering, but if all applied for the same engineering job at NASA, only the best will earn that job, which--once again--argues that those who earn the big chair as Starship captains are special (as plainly laid out by Merik), with the on-screen exploits of Kirk making him the far-and-away top of the line.

Do note my continuing use of "in Starfleet", please. There's a continuing and total lack of evidence that Kirk would be a recognized name within that organization, even if he automatically is "less common" than Ensign Nowan and her zillion co-Ensigns by virtue of seniority in a pyramid hierarchy.

Note that you are repeatedly using anything other what is established on screen in TOS, where Kirk as captain was established, therefore is the heart of the subject. We are not talking about theory based on...whatever, nor should anyone refer to the movies (which begin with his already promoted to admiral for some time) or the convoluted reimagining of the Rick Berman era of Star Trek, or games, novels, comic books, technical manuals, endlessly revised "history" books, action figure backing card descriptions, etc.

And Kirk flies a cruiser, and a small one, as per onscreen (even if TOS-external) evidence.

...again, you are repeatedly using anything other what is established on screen in TOS, where Kirk as captain was established, therefore is the heart of the subject. We are not talking about theory based on...whatever, nor should anyone refer to the movies (which begin with his already promoted to admiral for some time) or the convoluted reimagining of the Rick Berman era of Star Trek, or games, novels, comic books, technical manuals, endlessly revised "history" books, action figure backing card descriptions, etc.

Playing chauffeur to VIPs is a job that may call for a "photogenic" driver with socializing and PR as part and parcel of his job - or then not. From Kirk's other chauffeuring jobs, we know he's not photogenic, but rather the underappreciated servant of self-conscious top men.

You get a bronze-plated TOS-Enterprise keychain for playing the game this long, but none of that laugh-inducing quote is based on anything from the source--TOS (or TAS). What is based on TOS is that Kirk and his ship were so important that the most valued ambassadors and dignitaries were placed in his hands for an all-important conference. That's not a job for Random Occupant of Starfleet Job # 89923867373, but for the host organization's best of the best.

We never met anybody from the Federation's enemy governments, so how could we tell?

Military personnel, from standard ship captains, fleet captains to advance guards on planets (e.g. Krell in "A Private Little War") are representatives of their governments, which happen to be enemies of the Federation.

 

[lawman]

Look, I'm not out to disprove that Kirk would be a starship captain. It says so in his resume, I suppose, even without having seen that. What seems clear from TOS and necessary in the context is that Kirk is not a special starship captain, and furthermore that a starship captain is not a particularly rare or special position in Starfleet, any more than a ship captain is a rare or special position in today's navies.

The United States Navy has all of 430 ships, counting everything from aircraft carriers down to tiny tugs and support and surveillance ships. At the top level, there are only ten aircraft carriers, only nine assault ships, and only 22 missile cruisers. There are over 322,000 active duty personnel in the US Navy, yet only 400-odd get to be any kind of ship's captain, and only a few dozen get to be a prestigious ship's captain. If we analogize Starfleet to the Navy, then (as you posit, and which we obviously do all the time), it seems fair to say that being a Starship captain is indeed a "particularly rare or special position."

...in Kirk's case ["Balance of Terror"] wouldn't even be news for the hero side, which does similar heroics every Tuesday.

Come again? On a weekly basis, someone in Starfleet fights off a strategically critical surprise attack from a powerful enemy that hasn't been seen since a deadly war a century earlier? This is so commonplace that it's not news?

Seriously... even if you extend the comparison to less directly comparable heroics, we have no evidence whatsoever that they're commonplace in Starfleet. The most we can say (because we've seen it) is that such heroics seem relatively commonplace for the Enterprise... which is, of course, one of Starfleet's finest ships, commanded by the renowned Captain Kirk.

Nothing in TOS establishes the number of starship captains. Everything outside TOS indicates the number to be high, and to include truly insignificant people. ... And Kirk flies a cruiser, and a small one, as per onscreen (even if TOS-external) evidence.

Why do you keep trying to invoke TOS-external evidence? The whole focus of this conversation, from the very beginning, has been the status of Kirk and the Enterprise as intended and presented in TOS, not as retconned by spinoffs years later.

 

[Commishsleer]

The United States Navy has all of 430 ships, counting everything from aircraft carriers down to tiny tugs and support and surveillance ships. At the top level, there are only ten aircraft carriers, only nine assault ships, and only 22 missile cruisers. There are over 322,000 active duty personnel in the US Navy, yet only 400-odd get to be any kind of ship's captain, and only a few dozen get to be a prestigious ship's captain. If we analogize Starfleet to the Navy, then (as you posit, and which we obviously do all the time), it seems fair to say that being a Starship captain is indeed a "particularly rare or special position."


Come again? On a weekly basis, someone in Starfleet fights off a strategically critical surprise attack from a powerful enemy that hasn't been seen since a deadly war a century earlier? This is so commonplace that it's not news?

Seriously... even if you extend the comparison to less directly comparable heroics, we have no evidence whatsoever that they're commonplace in Starfleet. The most we can say (because we've seen it) is that such heroics seem relatively commonplace for the Enterprise... which is, of course, one of Starfleet's finest ships, commanded by the renowned Captain Kirk.


Why do you keep trying to invoke TOS-external evidence? The whole focus of this conversation, from the very beginning, has been the status of Kirk and the Enterprise as intended and presented in TOS, not as retconned by spinoffs years later.

Exactly.

I regard Kirk as a captain like real-life Captain Cook or the more colourful Captain Hornblower. Neither were probably regarded as the best captain when first assigned their ships but were subsequently recognised after they achieved so much in their career.

 

[lawman]

Indeed. James Cook is an excellent historical analogy.

 

[johnnybear]

I would rate Kirk as an outstanding Captain! His was one of the only exploratory Starships that actually returned from deep space and saved the earth and Federation many times over!
JB

 

[Timo]

Except...yes, you are making a claim based not on repeated character building in dialogue and action, but on some need to say "he's not" against all evidence provided by the ship-load on-screen, which is all one can refer to.

As regards this specific bit of evidence we are supposed to be discussing, semantically it is clear: Stone never says Kirk is a special starship captain. Inserting that into the scene is pure headcanon, and it is just plain forbidden to use the scene to support the notion that Kirk is a special starship captain, even though the scene of course can be argued to conform to the notion (should one somehow end up with that one) of Kirk being special among his own kind.

For its part, Stone utterly failing to say that Kirk is special among his kind should be telling. Stone is worried that starship captains get a bad rep if one of them gets a court matrial. He's not worried that they get a bad rep because the Youngest or Most Heroic or Hottest of them is a murderer.

Again, you are going against evidence from TOS.

Again, on the specific claim I made, it's you who are speaking against your better knowledge. My paragraph is about nobody in Starfleet finding Kirk special, and that holds.

And again, assuming Kirk is special is not in major contradiction with the fact that nobody calls him special. It's just an assumption that cannot gain support from within Starfleet, not in TOS.

Most of Kirk's post-TOS fame is unrelated to TOS, too - when people remember Kirk, they always fail to mention why he is remembered. Except in VOY "Q2" where the end of TOS amounts to the end of an era (or "a chapter in Starfleet history"), FWIW.

I've already provided comments that distinguish Kirk and his ship from both ally and enemy which cannot be considered to be anything other than the conclusion that Kirk is a unique captain of one of the best vessels of the massive Federation's central military/exploration branch.

No, you haven't. None of the comments come from an "ally", and none specify the ship as "best". Partially true statements cannot be used to construct a broader claim unless the pieces actually fill all the gaps. Otherwise, the gaps must be left to stand. And then the broader claim, with the gaps, either stands or then not.

Hit the brakes. Kor and the Romulan commander are recognizing Kirk's reputation as a starship captain, not as midshipman, lieutenant, or anything else.

But Garth speaks of Kirk's reputation before this period of his life. And we now know this period of life specifically coincides with a conflict with Klingons. So there's new evidence to consider and to balance: Kirk was a war hero during a Klingon war, but not yet associated with the Enterprise to our best knowledge. How does this affect the Kor issue?

The issue with the Romulans is already clear-cut: Kirk is the first and, for all we know, only starship captain they have had dealings with. This alone makes him special in that roundabout way the Romulans refer to him in "Incident"; it doesn't earn him special points within Starfleet yet.

No government representative/ship captain (like Kor and the Romulan commander) would care about him if his exploits/accomplishments were based only on his distant, pre-captain years. It is his time as captain where he became a legend/threat to enemy governments.

We can't claim this when we know for a fact that Kirk's warrior reputation within Starfleet stems from his relative youth (and when no Starfleet reputation during his TOS days is mentioned).

Plenty of people in WWII were relevant because of what they did in WWI - Goering and Galland, say. Churchill and Fisher were relics of the bygone days and for that very reason significant.

Speculation based on....nothing. What the TOS presents is Kirk being special---the face of the Federation's Starfleet-- and the largest enemy governments are well aware of him.

In that case, Starfleet might put that face in some posters. Yet Kirk is extraneous to the Altair demonstration, the one example of Starfleet actually using a "face". And has no role to play at Eminiar, until forced into one by circumstances.

So, you have argued my point: Kirk is unique, not for mere contact with the Romulans, but in challenging, then utterly outwitting (what must be assumed to be) the best of this ancient warrior species' fleet captains while testing their latest technological marvel which was supposed to spell certain doom for the Federation. One of the many Kirk "Kaboom!!" heard around the universe.

And? This either makes him special in Starfleet or then not. We cannot tell until we find out. And, for the umpteenth time, nobody within Starfleet considers Kirk special, for this or for anything else. Which may mean other starship captains, in bigger ships, do bigger things all the time. Or the not. The required proof is not contained in "Balance of Terror" or anywhere else in TOS.

Logically, one can conclude that of the 12 ships in service (as of season one), only those who distinguished themselves with certain abilities to command such a vessel were catapulted to the big chair, which is all that matters.

Umm, what? Never mind that TOS never said that there were 12 ships in service. Are you trying to say that you have to distinguish yourself in commanding a Constitution before you get to command a Constitution?

If you instead want to claim that only the cream of the cream ever gets to fly a Constitution in the first place, you have no logic behind your belief. People at all sorts of ranks command those ships, only a select few get specified as famous, and obviously Starfleet is much bigger than those twelve ships even back in "Court Martial".

Note that you are repeatedly using anything other what is established on screen in TOS, where Kirk as captain was established, therefore is the heart of the subject.

And? There's nothing to being "the heart" - the pseudo-facts of this fictional character are derived from the piece of fiction in which he appears, and they all put together amount to the character. If one gets an "impression" or whatever from TOS, one has to discard that impression when the pseudo-facts utterly outdate it.

Military personnel, from standard ship captains, fleet captains to advance guards on planets (e.g. Krell in "A Private Little War") are representatives of their governments, which happen to be enemies of the Federation.

But Kirk gets kicked in the head if he attempts to represent. He isn't allowed to do that - indeed, the consequences to his career are stated to be grave if he attempts such a thing, from his very first attempt in "Armageddon" on.

Kirk flies the ship. He only gets to represent by accident.

The United States Navy has all of 430 ships, counting everything from aircraft carriers down to tiny tugs and support and surveillance ships. At the top level, there are only ten aircraft carriers, only nine assault ships, and only 22 missile cruisers. There are over 322,000 active duty personnel in the US Navy, yet only 400-odd get to be any kind of ship's captain, and only a few dozen get to be a prestigious ship's captain. If we analogize Starfleet to the Navy, then (as you posit, and which we obviously do all the time), it seems fair to say that being a Starship captain is indeed a "particularly rare or special position."

And I'm fine with Kirk being one of 430. It's just that it's not the aircraft carrier one, but one of 'em smaller ships, as we can clearly see with our own eyes.

Kirk being prestigious among his own kind is a fan misconception, not supported by TOS and clearly opposed by the rest.

Come again? On a weekly basis, someone in Starfleet fights off a strategically critical surprise attack from a powerful enemy that hasn't been seen since a deadly war a century earlier? This is so commonplace that it's not news?

But it isn't. Nothing about Kirk's adventures appears to make the news. Heck, when Kirk and Romulans are discussed among his own kind, it's the Cochrane Deceleration at Tau Ceti that matters, not that nonsense at the Neutral Zone.

That Kirk has these weekly adventures by stumbling onto them is already proof that having the adventures does not require you to be Kirk. Kirk is never sent to do this stuff - Kirk happens onto stuff, or sometimes mops up after Starfleet's first choice didn't deliver (but when this happens in "Immunity Syndrome", Kirk is the first to state that he is no better off than his unfortunate predecessors when it comes to his ship or his skills or his other resources).

Why do you keep trying to invoke TOS-external evidence? The whole focus of this conversation, from the very beginning, has been the status of Kirk and the Enterprise as intended and presented in TOS, not as retconned by spinoffs years later.

That's bullshit. "Retconning" supposedly means something was changed. But everything changed from one TOS episode to another, so the word is meaningless. New episodes merely add data - and the "original" data (in its fragments or in whole) contains nothing on Kirk being special or flying a special ship, while the additional data resolves the ambiguity in favor of Kirk commanding a fairly small ship in a universe where everybody can be a hero, even on ships not named Enterprise.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Commishsleer]

That's bullshit. "Retconning" supposedly means something was changed. But everything changed from one TOS episode to another, so the word is meaningless. New episodes merely add data - and the "original" data (in its fragments or in whole) contains nothing on Kirk being special or flying a special ship, while the additional data resolves the ambiguity in favor of Kirk commanding a fairly small ship in a universe where everybody can be a hero, even on ships not named Enterprise.

Timo Saloniemi

So everything changed from one episode to another. You could say the same for TNG, VOY or any episode of any series.
And people have pointed out in several TOS episodes where it contains people saying Kirk is a special person and captain and the Enterprise is a special ship on important missions. If everything on screen in TOS and in the writers guide and Sisko's admiration is not enough evidence then nothing ever will be.
Even if the Admiral of the Fleet announced in TOS that Kirk and his ship were the best ever you could twist it around and say he was drunk or he hadn't seen Picard yet.

 

[Timo]

So everything changed from one episode to another. You could say the same for TNG, VOY or any episode of any series.

And I do.

No single writer's vision survives beyond the end of his or her direct contribution to writing. Sometimes this contribution ends with a single episode. Sometimes indeed sooner, as the writer fails to put all of the contribution into the episode and the rest vanishes to the winds.

Where do you draw the arbitrary limit? At the end of TOS is simply an odd place to stop, considering the changes Kirk underwent during the run of the show. Few of those changes actually involved a "retcon" despite posing some continuity problems; basically none of the later, post-"Turnabout Intruder" changes involved any retconning at all.

And people have pointed out in several TOS episodes where it contains people saying Kirk is a special person and captain and the Enterprise is a special ship on important missions.

But mostly they have been wrong.

All the claims of somebody in Starfleet saying Kirk is special for a starship captain are baseless. Others are - Tracey is declared the most experienced, Pike is implied to be famous and later (in DSC) declared to be decorated. Kirk never receives this attention.

The claims of the important missions being special, or the special missions being important, are all relative and subject to comparison. Within TOS, we may declare certain things unique, but that would be foolish when we realize we're following just a single ship within a limited timespan. If a cop apprehends a criminal in a TV show, it surely shouldn't follow that the other cops in the universe of that TV show (mentioned to exist but never shown) never do that sort of thing!

If everything on screen in TOS and in the writers guide and Sisko's admiration is not enough evidence then nothing ever will be.

You can't play it both ways. If you want to limit yourself to TOS, then Kirk is no hero. If you consider his fame outside TOS, then you must admit it does not (necessarily) stem from what he did in TOS (a show where he received no special praise for his actions).

And we're discussing Kirk, not the people who wrote Kirk. Again, you have to choose one perspective: if Kirk is real, the writers don't exist, and if the writers are real, then Kirk doesn't exist.

Even if the Admiral of the Fleet announced in TOS that Kirk and his ship were the best ever you could twist it around and say he was drunk or he hadn't seen Picard yet.

But there is no such announcement, which is my one and only real point. It's all in the heads of ill-informed fans.

It can be there just fine. It fits the evidence. But it is not evidence.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Commishsleer]

You can't play it both ways. If you want to limit yourself to TOS, then Kirk is no hero.

Kirk was a hero on many occasions in TOS.
He risked his life on many occasions to save others.
He was even recognised in the form of all his medals that they didn't have time to read out in "Court Martial" because there were so many.

 

[Cγrano Mudd]

One could make the argument that Kirk was a "big deal" or "special" (both very broad and subjective perceptions) by virtue of the fact that compared to the other captains seen in the series, of the best of the best class of ships (if you count the writer's Bible as an authority), Kirk survived his assignment.

Compare Decker. Kirk came out on top. Sure, it's because Kirk used the Constellation as a weapon, but only after Decker made the mistake of engaging the Doomsday Machine and subsequently crippling the ship, ending the engagement. Would Kirk have made the same mistake? Well, he didn't. Sure, because he saw the condition of the Constellation and knew it was a losing battle. But, he didn't. Decker again attempted to fight the Doomsday Machine with the Enterprise, still after witnessing the Doomsday Machine's power. Sure, he had PTSD which affected his judgement... see? We can do this all day. They're not proofs, they're niggling little "yeah, but..." derivitave - not deductive, but derivative arguments. What we can say is: during the encounter with the doomsday machine, Commodore Decker lost his ship, his command, and his life. Kirk still had all three when the credits rolled.

In The Immunity Syndrome, Kirk didn't have any information going in, but I'd say he fared much better than the captain and crew of the Intrepid. Obviously the Intrepid's captain didn't think about antibodies... At any rate, Enterprise/Kirk 1, Intrepid/Vulcan commander 0.

The Exeter became infected, with Tracey the sole survivor. Tracey had no problems with going about the business of killing thousands… and they still came. And Kirk stuck to the prime directive as much as possible (for Kirk), eventually beat Tracey in personal combat, and came out on top again. Enterprise/Kirk 1, Exeter/Tracey 0.

Defiant/Tholians/Uhura in her nightgown, blah, blah, blah… Kirk and the Enterprise come out having figured it all out and off to the next mission.

I’m not going to count the Excalibur and the Lexington. Or should I?

So that's 4 out of 13 ships sunk. Right?

So, was Kirk just doing his job, or was he a Hero? I put it to you: In those circumstances, what’s the difference? Timo wrote

I am arguing that Kirk is not a special starship captain, not that starship captains would not be special

I’d say going into the same circumstances as four other failed starship captains (who, as quoted above, we all seem to agree that as a brand are “special”) and coming out on top, with crew and ship intact, qualifies as special.

To put it another way, to solve the problems found unsolvable by a third of your peers – presumably also the best and the brightest - is significant. Hero significant? I don’t know. “Special” significant? Well, sure! Except that…

Heh. Just kidding. Repeat to yourself “it’s just a show, I should really just relax.”

 

[lawman]

That's bullshit. "Retconning" supposedly means something was changed. But everything changed from one TOS episode to another, so the word is meaningless. New episodes merely add data...

This is picking up on a tangential discussion from another thread, but you seem to be using a quixotic definition of "retcon" here. A retcon doesn't necessarily have to change anything. It is merely a retroactive implant of new information into pre-existing continuity. It might merely insert new information in-between or behind the scenes of known events, completely consistent with what went before (e.g., "Trials and Tribble-ations"), or it might involve (apparent) changes or contradictions that beg to be reconciled (e.g., the use of cloaking in DSC). Both are retcons.

As for the notion that "everything changed from one episode to another," I honestly don't understand what you mean. Surely you're not saying that TOS did no worldbuilding at all?

The claims of the important missions being special, or the special missions being important, are all relative and subject to comparison. Within TOS, we may declare certain things unique, but that would be foolish when we realize we're following just a single ship within a limited timespan. If a cop apprehends a criminal in a TV show, it surely shouldn't follow that the other cops in the universe of that TV show (mentioned to exist but never shown) never do that sort of thing!

I have to disagree here. To put one foot outside of an in-universe perspective for a moment: there are a zillion cop shows. A zillion westerns, a zillion medical shows, a zillion courtroom shows. It makes sense to assume that (most) cops and cowboys and doctors and lawyers are relatively interchangeable characters, and are meant to be. (Although even there, exceptions spring to mind. Did Perry Mason ever lose a case?) However, there's only one Star Trek. It was the one and only shot at telling stories set in its particular universe. It stands to reason that if Kirk and his crew and the Enterprise were not among the most capable officers in Starfleet, having the most meaningful and exciting adventures, then the show ought to have been focusing on whoever was. You tell your story about the most interesting characters, not the most ordinary ones.

 

[Samuel]

I always kind of felt that Captain Kirk taking Enterprise command after Captain Pike was kind of like QB Steve Young of the 49ers taking over the starting job from Joe Montana (but reversing the order with Montana winning one Super Bowl and Young winning four).

Pike was considered arguably the best of the Constitution class starship commanders. After all they promoted him to Fleet Captain (Commodore) and named a prestigious award after him.

Kirk comes along and his regarded as a strong up and comer but unproven (the Vanguard novels largely follow this idea). Kirk quickly proves himself to be an even better commander than Pike was.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The United States Navy has all of 430 ships, counting everything from aircraft carriers down to tiny tugs and support and surveillance ships. At the top level, there are only ten aircraft carriers, only nine assault ships, and only 22 missile cruisers. There are over 322,000 active duty personnel in the US Navy, yet only 400-odd get to be any kind of ship's captain, and only a few dozen get to be a prestigious ship's captain. If we analogize Starfleet to the Navy, then (as you posit, and which we obviously do all the time), it seems fair to say that being a Starship captain is indeed a "particularly rare or special position."

....and that is the point made by Commodore Stone in season one, supported by Kor's excitement/desire to face off against Kirk and his ship, and the Romulan Commander with the following exchange:

SPOCK: Commander, shall we speak plainly? It is you who desperately need a ship. You want the Enterprise.
COMMANDER: Of course. It would be a great achievement for me to bring home the Enterprise intact. It would broaden the scope of my powers greatly. It would be the achievement of a lifetime.

Capturing the Kirk-commanded U.S.S. Enterprise would not only "broaden the scope of" her powers, but would be "the achievement of a lifetime". There is no argument here: anything that is the subject of the lifetime achievement only means said subject is the zenith of its class/identity/value. That is what the 1701 means, and in addition to being a top of the line ship, the Romulan Commander would benefit from its reputation being the means which Kirk's made one legendary achievement after another.

Come again? On a weekly basis, someone in Starfleet fights off a strategically critical surprise attack from a powerful enemy that hasn't been seen since a deadly war a century earlier? This is so commonplace that it's not news?

Exactly. The Romulan captain of "Balance of Terror" was the vanguard of a new era in Romulan history with a weapon designed to topple the Federation. For Kirk to so thoroughly stop this attack/historic event (the 1st appearance of a Romulan in a century) makes Kirk an instant legend. Then again, before the event, Kirk and his ship already making galactic waves with their missions.

Seriously... even if you extend the comparison to less directly comparable heroics, we have no evidence whatsoever that they're commonplace in Starfleet. The most we can say (because we've seen it) is that such heroics seem relatively commonplace for the Enterprise... which is, of course, one of Starfleet's finest ships, commanded by the renowned Captain Kirk.

...hence Finney's spitting jealousy after watching Kirk succeed over and over again, and from his "the great Captain Kirk" line, one can conclude that is based on so much public recognition of Kirk that he would be considered great.

Why do you keep trying to invoke TOS-external evidence? The whole focus of this conversation, from the very beginning, has been the status of Kirk and the Enterprise as intended and presented in TOS, not as retconned by spinoffs years later.

Well put; the only way to try to tarnish a character designed and constantly presented as great is to scrape whatever nonsense was created in the decades since--usually as a means of bolstering new characters, protecting them from living in the inescapable shadow of TOS Kirk and his ship.

For its part, Stone utterly failing to say that Kirk is special among his kind should be telling. Stone is worried that starship captains get a bad rep if one of them gets a court matrial. He's not worried that they get a bad rep because the Youngest or Most Heroic or Hottest of them is a murderer.

Spin job..and a bad one at that. Stone is clear that:

STONE: Now, look, Jim. Not one man in a million could do what you and I have done. Command a starship.

Stone is emphasizing two irrefutable, connected points: that starships are so unique that it takes a rare kind of individual to command it. A million other people like Merik ("Bread and Circuses"), Finney ("Court Martial") and Ramart ("Charlie X" ) need not apply because they are not of that special class of leader.

Most of Kirk's post-TOS fame is unrelated to TOS, too - when people remember Kirk, they always fail to mention why he is remembered.

The deliberate omission on the part of post TOS-production individuals trying to avoid celebrating the well-established in-TOS legend of Kirk, lest sequel series commanders appear like ants next to a giant, but again, this is about Kirk's reputation as established by the only source that matters--TOS.

And again, assuming Kirk is special is not in major contradiction with the fact that nobody calls him special. It's just an assumption that cannot gain support from within Starfleet, not in TOS.

Willful avoidance of the oft-quoted characters--two in Starfleet--will not make your "Kirk is no big deal" campaign gain any momentum.

TOS in-series evidence hard-selling Kirk's unique, legendary status:

Stone: Was not ambiguous about how extraordinary one must be to command a Starship--and recognizes Kirk as that kind of individual.
Finney: Acknowledges that Kirk is considered a great captain.
Kor: Absolutely giddy with the idea of facing (what his reaction says) a legendary captain and ship well known to the enemy government.
Merik: Attended Starfleet Academy for five years and recognizes that a starship and her crew are special in reference to Captain Kirk and the Enterprise. Not Kirk as a cadet, lieutenant or anything else, and not some random ship.
Romulan Commander: Not only admits that certain people and ships--namely Kirk and the 1701--are known to the Empire (a unique status), but that statement supports her being quite forthcoming about seizing the 1701 being the "achievement of a lifetime" and broaden the scope of her powers greatly. There's no underselling what it all means to rise in a government to the degree her dialogue implies. She's already an on-screen acknowledged commander of the fleet's flagship (Uhura identifies the ship), so one can logically conclude that she would attain a level of control in the Empire far above its fleet. Again, the 1701 is considered as great ship, but that is also based on the exploits of her commander.

Dodge or spin as much as you want, but the evidence of Kirk being a great--legendary Starfleet captain was the obvious intent successfully executed by TOS' creators. This was not a series about Joe Average Just Gettin' By each week. True to its various influences, it was unabashedly about the sweeping adventures of a legendary captain and his exceptional crew & ship. That's the point. No spin job necessary.

 

[Timo]

Kirk was a hero on many occasions in TOS.
He risked his life on many occasions to save others.
He was even recognised in the form of all his medals that they didn't have time to read out in "Court Martial" because there were so many.

In the above sense, Kirk was a heroic character. The argument is whether this qualifies him as a hero within Starfleet, where potentially everybody is a hero.

Case in point, his decorations. Supposedly, the medals get represented by the tiny triangles, analogous to today's ribbons. Kirk has plenty of triangles. But so do all the others wearing those things!

The writers naturally wanted to make Kirk a heroic character. But they didn't go out of their way to show other characters as weak or villainous (Stone or Decker etc.), except when these specifically were villains (Finney). That only came when Nimoy got to direct... Hence the ambiguity about Kirk's standing within this fictional universe, where he's supposed to be a competent professional but not necessarily the Greatest of the Messiahs.

This is picking up on a tangential discussion from another thread, but you seem to be using a quixotic definition of "retcon" here. A retcon doesn't necessarily have to change anything. It is merely a retroactive implant of new information into pre-existing continuity. It might merely insert new information in-between or behind the scenes of known events, completely consistent with what went before (e.g., "Trials and Tribble-ations"), or it might involve (apparent) changes or contradictions that beg to be reconciled (e.g., the use of cloaking in DSC). Both are retcons.

Point taken. But the first definition is relevant to this issue, too: every episode dealing with Kirk retcons him by introducing new facts. This holds within TOS just as much as it does outside TOS - all the more since TOS always was open-ended.

As for the notion that "everything changed from one episode to another," I honestly don't understand what you mean. Surely you're not saying that TOS did no worldbuilding at all?

Umm, no? The opposite, actually. Kirk was built of bits and pieces that never were supposed to be put together. But he's such a loose construct that the pieces don't actually clash (much), either. So we can first learn he was a stack of books with legs, then that he was quite the charmer and risk-taker, that he stuck to the Academy and was an early warrior hero, that he faced all-new space monsters but was a veteran of facing space monsters.

If an episode today or fifty years from now told us that Kirk underwent four sex changes in his/her restless youth, this would be no different a retcon than when "Obsession" or "Whom Gods Destroy" revealed us things about his past. It's all the same both conceptually and in dramatic practice.

However, there's only one Star Trek. It was the one and only shot at telling stories set in its particular universe. It stands to reason that if Kirk and his crew and the Enterprise were not among the most capable officers in Starfleet, having the most meaningful and exciting adventures, then the show ought to have been focusing on whoever was. You tell your story about the most interesting characters, not the most ordinary ones.

I don't understand this at all. Today, there are several storylines about the Trek universe. They show multiple heroes, naturally centering on one ("their own") at a time. This is in no way different from the zillion cop shows out there, or the zillion westerns.

Trek may have been a single storyline with a single hero in its first incarnation. But that incarnation did nothing to preempt or otherwise oppose the existence of other heroes; it did not paint Kirk as unique within its own fictional reality. Instead of Flash Gordon, we got a space bluecollar who sorted out space vampires and scantily clad alien commandresses as a matter of routine. The universe inherently had space for spinoffs and parallel heroics. And sure enough, those emerged as soon as the thing turned into a phenomenon and a franchise.

The big picture here is rather fascinating. Certain parties feel that since Kirk is the star, he must be flying the best starship in the universe. Others feel that since Kirk flies the best starship shown in the universe, he must be an exceptionally capable individual. And then these two are mashed together into a circular argument where Kirk must be the biggest hero in the biggest ship, just because.

None of this is founded in anything else but the thing you refer to: that the camera is pointed at Kirk. But this somehow makes people see things that are not there: praise of Kirk from within Starfleet (when there's not a single line to that effect), specifying of his starship as especially large or especially capable (when again absolutely nothing of the sort is stated). Existing lines are perverted to serve this character-worshipping cause, Kirk's routine missions interpreted through a distorting lens.

Why is this even worth having an argument over? Because today, we know better. We can see Kirk's ship is not the biggest and his reputation is not the greatest. And the character is no less heroic, likeable, complex or memorable for that. He is not the golden child who got born to the purple. He is the man who made an impact without having everything handed to him on a gold platter. Kirk made good and gets remembered for things he achieved in a smallish starship, against the odds and without the extra support a poster child might enjoy. He didn't have to wait until earning the command of the Fleet's biggest battlewagon before he got a chapter in the history books.

This is Hollywood as it ought to be, according to Hollywood: heroes arise from the rank and file, and (often quite absurdly) choose to return down there or remain put even after achieving great things. Kirk defeated the Peter Principle, which is heroism in its own right. Why take that away from him by arbitrarily insisting he already had it made the first moment the camera revealed his handsome face to us?

None of this nonsense of "You're a starship captain, therefore you must be special as starship captains go" or "now that I call you the Great Captain Kirk I actually mean you are great as Captains go even though I despise you with every cell in my bones". It's perversion of semantic logic, it's perversion of writer intent, it's degrading to the great character of Kirk. (In addition to creating needless inconsistencies within the Trek universe, regardless of whether a TOS aficionado minds that or not.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[matthunter]

And I'm fine with Kirk being one of 430. It's just that it's not the aircraft carrier one, but one of 'em smaller ships, as we can clearly see with our own eyes.

Please direct us to the TOS episode that showed a Federation starship larger and more powerful than the Enterprise.

 

[C57D]

I have been following, and occasionally contributing to, this thread for what seems like an eternity.
Timo, you have posted many memorable posts all across these forums and I respect you for that. But on this thread you come across as trolling imho. You have reiterated the same argument about thirty times now. Right I get it, in your head canon Kirk is a second rate captain of a second rate ship who just happened to consistently stumble into great occurrences, and by a fluke come out on top.
Its not my Kirk but seems to be yours!

 

[1001001]

Okay, let's not let it get personal.

Especially since it's all, you know....make believe.

 

[Shawnster]

Especially since it's all, you know....make believe.

You take that back!

 

[Neopeius]

The difference between commanding a civilian ship verses a military ship?Supported by there was only one woman in TOS above the rank of lieutenant.

I assume you're talking about Dr. Mulhall? There's another red-shirted Lt. Commander in the background in The Tholian Web (perhaps wearing Mulhall's tunic!).