I guess the transporter accident does fit within the visual language that TMP's going for (and to potentially underscore the additional horror of Ilia's initial fate) even if it's place within story and character isn't on quite as steady ground.
TMP's Transporter Accident on Loop is the Stuff of Nightmares
- Thread starter Fringe
- Start date
It's a good idea that Kirk didn't accidentally kill his long time girlfriend as there's no room in the movie for that.
But between the transporter accident and the warp near-collision, it seems obvious it is a TERRIBLE idea for Kirk to be aboard.
But between the transporter accident and the warp near-collision, it seems obvious it is a TERRIBLE idea for Kirk to be aboard.
It's not a terrible idea for Kirk to be aboard. It's a terrible idea for an unbalanced Kirk to be aboard. That's what the movie is depicting. Notice that these events happen before Spock arrives. When Spock returns, Kirk relaxes and starts making better decisions. His clashing with Decker goes down and he begins to gel more with the ship and her crew.
Yeah, Kirk should not have been in command of the Enterprise. Leave Decker in charge, and Kirk is the admiral who is in charge of the mission and that's it.
TMP paints Kirk in a horrible light and I hate the film for it and this transporter scene.
I think I would say an unflattering light; he saw a chance for command and he went for it. Everything the other characters say about him is correct. He could easily have supervised Decker's command.
That said, the transporter was a freak accident. Kirk didn't authorise their use while undergoing repairs; that must have been Decker. Plus Kirk barging in and micro-managing the situation is entirely in character.
I don't mind him being flawed. I think his error of judgement in TWOK is far worse than anything in TMP.
Yes, his judgement is flawed in TWOK and that movie is worse too. I don't like Kirk in either of those films.
I'm not trying to pick on you, and I don't think anyone wants another thread derailment, but how can you say this and like a film like Star Trek 2009?
Kirk is horrible in TMP, but not when he's smugly cheating, grabbing women's breasts, getting into bar fights, bragging he can complete Starfleet training a year early, arguing with Spock numerous times, shouting at Spock and trying to overthrow him in front of his bridge crew, breaking Spock down emotionally in front of his bridge crew and stealing his command, telling lies to the rest of the crew ("Mister Spock has resigned commission and advanced me to Acting Captain"), viciously shooting Romulans dead after sneaking onboard their ship, mass-murdering those Romulans after their leader refuses his help, and nearly destroying the Enterprise and killing all aboard as he foolishly hangs around as the Enterprise blasts Nero and his crew to Kingdom Come?
I posted a thread about over in the appropriate thread. We can discuss it there.
The short answer is that Kirk is an admiral in TMP and a trained officer. His behavior towards Decker as a fellow officer is so egregiously unprofessional that it shakes me right out of the movie.
Yes, fine. It just amuses me when people make these flat assertions about TMP not infrequently, when there is obviously a lot of egregious material in the other films, but it's hardly ever mentioned.
And Kirk in Star Trek 2009 is hardly without training. He has spent three years at Starfleet Academy and should know what the basic rules of conduct are by then. Being blatantly insubordinate, shouting, punching, and attacking the chief commander of a starship should have had him thrown out of the Academy. He was even on academic suspension when he illegally boarded the Enterprise with McCoy's assistance. I can't see how TMP Kirk is remotely as bad as 2009 Kirk.
Kirk public shames and demotes an officer for no other reason than ego. He puts people at risk because he doesn't know the ship the way Decker does.
Kirk in 09 is trained but inexperienced. He is a rebel without a cause so his behavior is more understandable at least to me. Kirk's behavior, especially coming from TOS to TMP, is more apparent to be out of character and completely uncalled far. Should have been demoted for abusing his command.
Kirk's characterization in TMP is fine for a movie. It's not like a series where everything has to be more or less the same week to week, in a movie it's expected that a major character will go through a major change. Kirk is shown to be essentially out-of-synch, and the reason is not hard to find: He has cut himself off from his friends and taken a job that doesn't fulfill him. He learns a lesson and at the end has lightened up.
I'm glad many people like him. For me it is way to jarring to be enjoyable.
I'll grant you that he does put people at risk due to his ignorance of the refitted Enterprise. And for the transporter accident, there should really be some punishment or some sort of investigation awaiting him. However, it's incorrect to say he publicly shames and demotes Decker. He demotes Decker rather discreetly (although he'd still have been better to do it in a private setting), and there is no shaming involved. After the wormhole incident, where Kirk is ready to blow his top at Decker, he takes the argument to his quarters, sparing Decker (and himself) any public disgrace. He gets better with Decker going forward.
2009 Kirk is not a "rebel without a cause". He joined Starfleet of his own volition. That means he has a cause. He's had three years to learn and grow. But he's still such a loose cannon that he literally argues with Spock and tries attacking him on his own bridge. This alone is far worse than anything Kirk does in TMP. I honestly don't know how you can say TMP Kirk is worse than the Kirk shown to us in the 2009 movie.
It is hard to do comparisons but Kirk in Trek 09 clearly had no place being in command any more than Ensign Chekov had any place as chief engineer over any of a dozen better qualified actual engineering officers. Kelvin Trek does a lot more things for story convenience rather than story logic.
I think TMP does an excellent job at characterisation, even if we can shake our head at some of Kirk's behaviour.
In fact in both movies it's Spock that does most of the hard work and Kirk nudges it over the line with a blag at the end.
Demoting Decker for no reason is pretty much the shame. Decker's been in charge of the crew for the refit and then suddenly he is no longer in command.
He actually is and that is the point of his character arc across the films. But, again, different forum
Decker wasn't demoted for no reason. Kirk demotes him because he believes he has more experience than Decker at commanding a starship, which he does. Does he do it in a shitty way, for somewhat self-serving purposes? Yes. But Kirk's reasoning doesn't lack all logic. Kirk is a seasoned starship commander, if a little out of touch. Moreover, they're facing an immense unknown, and Kirk is compelled to act in haste.
Would you enjoy serving under a "rebel without a cause"? I don't think you would. The whole premise is absurd and far more extreme than the Kirk we see struggling to regain his sense of composure/balance in TMP. 2009 Kirk has no place aboard a starship, much less sitting in the captain's chair.
The 2009 movie is stocked with cliched, aggressive, unruly brats. Like that redshirt ensign who blatantly goes for a joyride and refuses to open his parachute when they're falling toward the drill platform. Heck, that guy even makes Kirk look sensible. Which is probably the point: render other characters into complete asshats so Kirk looks better by comparison. The good thing about TMP is that it doesn't do that. That's why you can perceive Kirk to be acting so unfairly to Decker. It's above those simple tricks and actually has more than one half-way competent Starfleet officer for a viewer to lock onto and become invested in.
I didn't say it lacked reason from Kirk's point of view. I said it was a demotion and shaming and self-serving. That bothers me more.
I wouldn't mind serving under a rebel without a cause. Fascinating case of psychology there. Also, that Kirk isn't ready for the captain's chair and that's point of the next movie.
So does ST 09. Several, in fact.
You said "Demoting Decker for no reason is pretty much the shame". You gave no qualification of "no reason". So I responded that Kirk had his reasons for demoting Decker. Now you've moved the goalposts and are claiming those reasons are invalid. But they clearly aren't. Kirk is more qualified for the command seat than Decker in many respects. Are you honestly going to claim the same for 2009 Kirk in relation to Spock?
"Fascinating case of psychology"? The much more fascinating character from a psychological point-of-view is actually Spock. Kirk is a complete headcase by comparison. The tone is set from the very first scene (and, admittedly, for Spock, too) when kid Kirk drives that classic convertible off a cliff and nearly kills himself in the process. A reckless bout of egotistical, nihilistic stupidity repeated by adult Kirk when he nearly dooms the Enterprise inside the black hole at the end of his score-settling encounter with Nero.
Yeah, sure.
What does Kirk and Spock in 09 have to do with this? I see Kirk demoting Decker for no good reason (adding my clarifiers now). I don't think Kirk's experience is sufficient for a demotion. It's ridiculous and nonsensical, hence the "no reason."
I am hoping that makes a little bit more sense. No, I don't compare between 09 and TMP situations because they are two completely different ones. Such a comparison is a false equivalency. I have different expectations of Kirk as an admiral with years of experience not coming in and swinging his authority around by demoting an officer simply because...I have more experience than you. That's BS. That's Tarkin level stealing the Death Star project BS.
Again...we have a whole new thread about this. Kirk fascinates me as a character, a rebel without a cause who is self-destructive at the beginning. And I agree-Spock is fascinating too.
ETA: Thread link Star Trek 2009-11 years later
Glad we agree.
Last edited:
