• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Paul Wesley's incarnation of James T. Kirk

And I'd say he needs McCoy, as well. Having a "miracle worker" in engineering helps, too.
I don't think he "needs" McCoy, Spock, Scotty, Uhura or any of TOS ensemble to "be" Kirk. The fundamental personality is Kirk. The actions and decisions Kirk makes are ensemble influenced. It is in the fundamental personality that Wesley is lacking. Bottom line, there were probably better casting choices.

Also, a lot of people are saying that there no need to have part of Shatner-Kirk's phrasing style. in a approach to the dialogue. While I agree an actor should never try to imitate another actor, you do have to recognize what aspects of that character help define that character and be a bit influenced by that. I go back to Pine, for example. Pine-Kirk never imitated Shatner-kirk, but there were a few times where he gave a "nod" to him. Just look at couple of his bridge entrances. They have Shatner written all over them - and in a good way. At the end of the day, I think the approach to playing great/legendary characters should be building on all those things the other actors that came before you did to helped define that character's greatness. Branaugh's Hamlet built on Olivier's Hamlet, which built on Gielgud's Hamlet, which built on (arguably) John Barrymore's. All of these actors had their own unique take on the role, but always Hamlet and the great performances that had come before.
 
Why does that have to be a bad thing? Moving on and trying something totally fresh, creative and new shouldn't be scary. Using a comic book example, moving on from Peter Parker to tell Miles or Gwen or Miquel stories is much more exciting than a 5th and 6th and 7th new attempt at Parker.

Like how Gene originally moved on from Kirk and Spock to Picard and Data. You can still embrace the old while moving onto the new.
I don't think it is a bad thing. I think it is needlessly restrictive. It is taking an actor and elevating them to god level status that is nigh untouchable. To me, that's not a good thing to forbid an actor from exploring a character just because one actor is the most iconic. That doesn't matter to me.

Mileage will vary.
 
People are shaped by those around them.
True, but Kirk - the core of who he was - was there before he ever met any of his crew mates. For example. You can take 10 different people and put them around the ensemble of the Enterprise and they still are those unique 10 different people. Yes, they've learned and grown, but only Kirk becomes Kirk.
 
I disagree with the statement that Kirk is machismo or bravado. Once again, that's the pop culture version of the character. Kirk does have a lot of heart. He cares a lot. He's self-reflective and emotionally aware. He expresses his feelings... all the time. And that was rare compared to the other stoic leading men on other 60s action-adventure shows.

Sure, Kirk's sterner and more military in TOS than this version of Pike. But he hardly operates from machismo.

And all the qualities Pike gets praised for in SNW are actually qualities Kirk has in TOS.

Absolutely this. Even when he's reprimanding the crew in The Trouble with Tribbles, he's doing it from a position of family and warmth. He's like the Good Dad in that scene with Scotty and the crew as suitably chastised children. Kirk is constantly spinning a lot of plates in terms of his role, but I agree that Kirk cares a lot.

The Pop Culture would have it that Kirk is either fighting or fucking, but he spends much more time making impassioned speeches than the two combined. Kirk was a (sometimes tedious) speechmaker decades before Picard made it his thing. In all those speeches though, he's imploring, pleading, reaching out with open arms. Kirk is all heart.
 
Last edited:
I think you and I define "restrictive" differently, especially when I'm saying to to move past the character as re-doing it is the very definition of restrictive.

Free yourself and move past Kirk. Give us Captain New Person with Commander Original Character at their side and let them shine!
If you treat something as so sacred as to never be touched again then yeah that's restrictive. I welcome both new and revisits. Otherwise we would never had had Mount as Pike.
 
I think you and I define "restrictive" differently, especially when I'm saying to to move past the character as re-doing it is the very definition of restrictive.

Free yourself and move past Kirk. Give us Captain New Person with Commander Original Character at their side and let them shine!
God or bad, how well SNW has so far been received by what seems to be a majority of Trek Fans, proves to the Producers that bringing back and mixing in well loved characters is the way to go.

SNW is proving that it's not as "restrictive" as folks may be thinking. (or desire)
:shrug:
 
God or bad, how well SNW has so far been received by what seems to be a majority of Trek Fans, proves to the Producers that bringing back and mixing in well loved characters is the way to go.

SNW is proving that it's not as "restrictive" as folks may be thinking. (or desire)
:shrug:
Indeed. SNW is in a funny place given the pretty ardent support of it, even from staunch critics of other newer Trek series, and yet the expressed desire to return to the Trek of old. Except, it didn't just return to the TOS era; it recast arguably one of the biggest characters in Trek's history. Would SNW be more or less without Peck's Spock?
 
I gotta be honest, I like him as Young Spock but when he showed up in the Balance of Terror time period I just thought 'no'. Didn't work. Didn't like it. Don't want it.
 
Yeah, I can do without much of the "great man" stuff at this point.

Much as folks may wish otherwise, all of the peculiarities and limitations Kirk displayed in the movie series are part of his character now and will be factors in future portrayals. Hell, the Kobayashi Maru is pretty thoroughly enshrined as a key incident.
 
I gotta be honest, I like him as Young Spock but when he showed up in the Balance of Terror time period I just thought 'no'. Didn't work. Didn't like it. Don't want it.
Why do folks insist on IGNORING the Fact that what Pike saw was an ALTERNATE Future Time Period.

Everybody except Pike was changed in some way.
(though he was changed as well by the end of the episode)

It doesn't necessarily follow that the characters will be that way, when (and if) SNW does actually show us that time period several years hence. :rolleyes:
 
Why do folks insist on IGNORING the Fact that what Pike saw was an ALTERNATE Future Time Period.
Probably because railing against Kirk is more fun.

ETA: lest I be accused of broad strokes against "haters," I'll reiterate that I am unhappy that Kirk is here at all. I just think finding fault with this appearance results in assumptions and generalizations that Wesley will always be like this. Rather than engage the reasonable possibility of his performance being different due to time crystal wibbles.
 
Last edited:
Peck was just fine in the Balance of Terror recreation, although he did bring to mind by contrast just how stagey and overly solemn the performances on TOS could be. Several of the actors were, by their own accounts, really concerned with being taken seriously in a very weird context.

At the outset of the scenario, I got a little hostile vibe toward Pike from Spock as well as Ortegas. I wondered later in the show if they had some resentment about things that had happened in this past, particularly with respect to Una.
 
Henry Alonso Myers talks about how they’re handling Kirk in season 2 in this great interview with Variety:

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/st...kirk-pike-spock-gorn-sybok-hemmer-1235315542/
Decent. I like this quote:
The other ‘Star Trek’ shows are doing bigger, broader experiments, which I think are cool,” Myers says of “Discovery” and “Picard.” “They’re definitely trying to open up the sandbox and do different kinds of things with ‘Trek.’ We’re sort of the opposite. It’s a little easier to be like, ‘We’re just gonna try to do classic ‘Trek.'”
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top