Shatner's 'Trial Run'

[RookieBatman]

And I think our entertainment these days reflects that. We want to see our heroes struggling for perfection, trying to be that ideal...

But that's the question; was nuKirk struggling for perfection, or was he just happy being a jerk? I don't think the prime characters were perfect, I think they were struggling just as much as anybody, and I think that's what made the show so popular back in its day. But these days, it almost seems like viewers don't even want to see people trying to be better, like it makes them feel judged or something. I don't know; that's completely a layman's opinion (more like a guess, really), but it does kinda look that way from my perspective.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've never liked Rodenberry's "perfect humans" as depicted in 'The Cage' or early TNG. They are cold, soulless people who in the process of eliminating their evils, have lost thier humanity.
People that are still people, but trying to be better are far more likable. I would put STXI in that category.

I always hated the "Perfect Earth" from TNG/DS9 and VOY. I saw people living in a farcical dreamworld that was no different to a holodeck.

What STXI and CC both did was take the layer of fakeness from Earth. People are still people. There is a little dirt, dust and grime. Not everyone has a permanent moronic grin on their face. It's not always a perfect sunny day. But there is still no hunger, no war. People (as a whole) get along even though people (individually) may not.

 

[Christopher]

But that's the question; was nuKirk struggling for perfection, or was he just happy being a jerk?

He was happy being a jerk until Pike sat him down and convinced him he was wasting his potential and should aspire to make something better of himself.

I've never liked Rodenberry's "perfect humans" as depicted in 'The Cage'....

Huh? The Chris Pike of "The Cage" was a brooding, bitter, doubt-ridden male chauvinist who fantasized of running off to become a slave trader. And he defeated the Talosians by embracing his most savage, primitive emotions -- emotions that the Talosians had evolved beyond, leaving them weak and dissolute. I'd hardly say "The Cage" was depicting a perfect humanity.

 

[F. King Daniel]

You're right, Pike was a miserable git and far from perfect. I was referring to the coldness the Enterprise crew showed each other thoughout the episode. It was that same vibe GR resurrected for TMP and early TNG (with the approach quickly abandoned in both cases), and thus I'm led to believe it to be the way GR envisioned "better humans" (or the way he envisioned less-than-perfect humans trying to be "better") to act. Perhaps the idea is something like "if we maintain our distance we will not come into conflict" or something silly like that.

 

[Christopher]

I think you're making the mistake of projecting the values of the older, '80s Gene Roddenberry onto his younger self. The '80s GR was a man of deteriorating health and judgment who'd become far too invested in the fans' embrace of his creation as a vision of a better future and had thus come to think of himself as a philosopher first, a storyteller second. The GR of the 1960s thought like a television producer, not a visionary. He understood that drama was about conflict and tension, and that any philosophical message needed to be subordinated to good storytelling, because if the story wasn't enjoyable in its own right, then people wouldn't watch it and wouldn't get the message anyway.

If you found the characters cold in "The Cage," it's probably because they weren't very interesting characters or very well-cast. That's why the network rejected all the characters and asked Roddenberry to create a whole new cast for the second pilot. The original series format document, along with evidence from the pilot itself, makes it clear that the characters were meant to be anything but cold -- Boyce the cranky humanitarian (first draft of McCoy), Tyler the insecure young officer afraid the universe is out to get him, Number One and Colt both lusting for Pike, with Colt in particular being "disturbingly" female.

As for TMP, the "coldness" was more due to Robert Wise's influence than Roddenberry's; see Wise's The Andromeda Strain, and to some extent The Day the Earth Stood Still, and you'll see that he favored a cool, dispassionate, fairly sterile approach to science fiction.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

If you found the characters cold in "The Cage," it's probably because they weren't very interesting characters or very well-cast.

You've got that right. When I think of the Cage it isn't Jeffrey, Majel or even Leonard I think of. It's Susan Oliver in her green slave girl outfit. Shit it's even Susan Oliver with blonde hair in her Reynolds Wrap outfit. When your entire cast is upstaged by the guest star you know something is veeeery wrong.

Boyce the cranky humanitarian (first draft of McCoy)

You know Hoyt wasn't bad in the part. I would have rather seen him in the second pilot than the guy who played Mark Piper.

Tyler the insecure young officer afraid the universe is out to get him

I still like him better than Wesley.

Colt in particular being "disturbingly" female.

I think Roddenberry's penis was malfunctioning when he cast Colt. Luckily he realized his mistake and cast Andrea Dromm in the next pilot and Grace Lee Whitney in the series itself.

 

[Herbert1]

As for TMP, the "coldness" was more due to Robert Wise's influence than Roddenberry's; see Wise's The Andromeda Strain, and to some extent The Day the Earth Stood Still, and you'll see that he favored a cool, dispassionate, fairly sterile approach to science fiction.

Maybe, but it should also be said that cold and sterile visions of the future were also in fashion in 1970's science fiction films. Perhaps the influence of 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the case of Wildfire in The Andromeda Strain, it was a medical research facility and so I would expect it to be cold and sterile like a hospital. Star Wars and Alien influenced production design in later science fiction films with lived-in futures that showed signs of wear and were dirty.

I wonder what Star Trek II would have looked like without the influence of Nicholas Meyer and if Gene Roddenberry had retained creative control.

 

[elaithin]

I think it would have been a lot less enjoyable. I'm glad we've gotten away from the idea of cold, sterile and impersonal futures.

 

[Captain Robert April]

We would've gotten Spock shooting JFK in order to restore the timeline.

Just to clarify a few earlier points, the network didn't reject the entire cast. They liked Jeff Hunter fine. It was the matter of how he wouldn't be able to make any movies during the production of the show, and how his wife at the time kind of poisoned the well from the get-go by making it abundantly clear that working on a sci-fi tv show was far below her movie star husband, that put the kibosh on his returning for the second pilot, leaving the door open for the highly touted up-and-comer (not to mention slightly desperate for a good gig) Bill Shatner (who was probably just as glad to get the job as he was to avoid the possibility of being trapped on "Alexander" had that one actually sold).

 

[RookieBatman]

I've never liked Rodenberry's "perfect humans" as depicted in 'The Cage' or early TNG. They are cold, soulless people who in the process of eliminating their evils, have lost thier humanity.

I'm not talking about early TNG. I couldn't care less about that; my point was regarding TOS.

People that are still people, but trying to be better are far more likable. I would put STXI in that category.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree there. That is, about the second sentence, not the first.

What STXI and CC both did was take the layer of fakeness from Earth. People are still people. There is a little dirt, dust and grime. Not everyone has a permanent moronic grin on their face. It's not always a perfect sunny day. But there is still no hunger, no war. People (as a whole) get along even though people (individually) may not.

See, I think this applies equally well to TOS as it does to STXI.

But that's the question; was nuKirk struggling for perfection, or was he just happy being a jerk?

He was happy being a jerk until Pike sat him down and convinced him he was wasting his potential and should aspire to make something better of himself.

Again, agree to disagree. My personal perception is that his attitude didn't really change after Pike sat him down. All that happened (in my opinion, of course), is Pike said "I bet you can't graduate from Starfleet Academy," and Kirk got all arrogant and decided to make him eat his words. To me, it wasn't about Kirk's mentality changing, he just couldn't turn down a challenge. I didn't really perceive any change in his attitude, except that he didn't get into bar fights (he got into bridge fights instead).

 

[Christopher]

^But he wasn't just fighting Spock for the hell of it or because he was drunk, he was doing it because it was necessary to get through to him and convince him to do what was necessary to save the day. Kirk's methods may not have changed much, but he was directing them more constructively. That was Pike's goal in convincing Kirk to join Starfleet: not to get him to fundamentally change who he was, but to take the potential he already had -- not just his intelligence, but his "leap before you look" adventurousness and willingness to go beyond the rule book -- and focus it in a more positive direction. And that's what he did. He went from flirting badly and starting bar fights to saving a planet. Sometimes it's not about what tools you use, it's about how you choose to use them.

 

[RookieBatman]

^But he wasn't just fighting Spock for the hell of it or because he was drunk, he was doing it because it was necessary to get through to him and convince him to do what was necessary to save the day.

I contest that he wasn't fighting the people in the bar just for the hell of it, either. He was doing it because he wanted to win, because he needs a challenge (especially one with unlikely odds). That's certainly one quality I'll agree he did maintain from Prime Kirk. But I think it really ended up being his main guiding characteristic.

I guess it'll ultimately be a difference of philosophical viewpoint, but I think there's a key (and noticeable) difference between doing something good (such as saving the world) because the character is an innately heroic person, and just doing it because he can't stand to lose.

I don't know, I guess at the end of the day, it's kinda more a "vibe" thing. I just didn't feel that his attitude had ever changed from the arrogant jerk to something more heroic. But what makes a hero? That's even more subjective. There really has to be a point where this can't be argued logically. You watched the movie and found Kirk to be heroic. I watched it and found him to be an unlikeable jerk. I don't think that you're wrong, I just had a different experience than you had, one that tainted my ability to enjoy the movie. And since such experiences are essentially in the realm of emotion, I don't really know that they could ever be reasoned away.

(Not that I'm saying you shouldn't continue the discussion. But in some ways, I think it will ultimately just come down to what each of us has in mind as a heroic character.)

 

[F. King Daniel]

Back to one of the earlier tangents:
Although I enjoyed Collision Course, my choice for how Kirk, Spock and the rest of the TOS crew met in the prime 'verse is Enterprise: The First Adventure. Although the story itself was fairly poor, I liked the character's backstories (the battle of Ghioghe that won Kirk his promotion to captain, Janice's background and Sulu not wanting to be on the Enterprise) and the general atmosphere. Plus Spock mindmelds with an alien for the first time and end up thinking he's Big Bird!

 

[RookieBatman]

Yeah, I like E:TFA well enough. It wasn't like the best book ever for me, but as a piece of fan service (and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that), it was quite adequate. I think at points, the author tried just a little too hard to fit people in, like Chekov covering the bridge for 3rd shift or whatever. That's just more small-world syndrome in my mind. If you wanted to have a Chekov cameo, you could've just had somebody bump into him in a hallway.

Anyway... overall, though, I thought it was quite enjoyable.

 

[Christopher]

(Responding to post 232 -- two more were snuck in while I was writing):

But I don't think TOS really defined humanity as being innately heroic. It portrayed our betterment as something we chose to do despite having savagery in our nature. As Kirk said in "A Taste of Armageddon," "We're killers, but we're not going to kill today." Similarly, "Arena" and "The Devil in the Dark" portrayed Kirk as a military man whose first impulse was to use force against a threat, but who then made a conscious choice to pull back his aggression and seek another option.

And no, I didn't see the Kirk of the new movie as simply heroic. I saw him as a flawed character undergoing a learning process that ultimately directed him toward more constructive ends. Even at the end of the film, he's still a work in progress, but he's headed in the right direction. And that's fitting for a version of Jim Kirk who's still nearly a decade younger than the one from TOS -- because even that Kirk was still a work in progress, capable of flawed choices (as in "The Conscience of the King" and "Obsession") but finding it within himself to come through at the end, with a little help from his friends. He wasn't "innately heroic," because that's a fantasy. He was an everyman who chose to embrace the better angels of his nature. That's what heroism is -- not something you're born with (the literal meaning of "innate"), but something you choose to do.

That's why TOS's vision of the future was more accessible than TNG's -- because it wasn't about intrinsically better people but was showing us how people like ourselves could choose to improve, to resist our darker sides, to direct our energies more constructively. I don't see the new movie's portrayal of Kirk as being incompatible with that. It's just showing him at an earlier point in the learning curve, which makes sense given the earlier timeframe of the film.

 

[RookieBatman]

...That's what heroism is -- not something you're born with (the literal meaning of "innate"), but something you choose to do.

But don't you think there might be something you're born with that makes you more likely to choose to be heroic?

Heck, I'll even let that point go and agree that the choice of the word "innate" may have been a little off the mark. How about "inherent?" That being a quality essential to the person's character, but not having been present from birth. I'd say that's more to the point of what I was trying to say.

That's why TOS's vision of the future was more accessible than TNG's -- because it wasn't about intrinsically better people but was showing us how people like ourselves could choose to improve, to resist our darker sides, to direct our energies more constructively. I don't see the new movie's portrayal of Kirk as being incompatible with that. It's just showing him at an earlier point in the learning curve, which makes sense given the earlier timeframe of the film.

I hope you're right. If the next movie depicts nuKirk in a way that's more in line with how I perceive heroism, I'm sure it will greatly increase my ability to enjoy that movie. But I have a [somewhat pessimistic] suspicion that it's not so much caused by the earlier timeframe, but by the simple fact that the general perception of heroism has changed.

 

[Christopher]

But don't you think there might be something you're born with that makes you more likely to choose to be heroic?

Regardless of what I think (and I don't care to get into a nature-vs.-nurture debate), I'm fairly certain it's not what Gene Roddenberry thought, which is the point. His message wasn't "Some people are born better than others." There's a disturbing elitism to that idea. Roddenberry believed that all humans had the capacity for greatness or barbarism within us, and that we could better ourselves by choosing the more constructive path. His ideal wasn't "I'm not capable of killing," but "I will not kill today." It's right there in the words spoken by his heroes: heroism comes from the choices we make.

If anything, it's the characters who thought they were innately better or wiser than the people around them, who didn't stop to acknowledge their own human failings -- Gary Mitchell, Khan, Ron Tracy, etc. -- who were generally the villains. The heroes were the people who admitted their imperfections to themselves and thus were able to resist them. The message of TOS wasn't that heroism was an entitlement of birth, but that it was a learned behavior, a choice to resist our weaknesses and fears.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I agree people are born with innate communication skills that makes them better at teamwork or working by themselves, but to be a good leader you need experience and training. Those two things will always trump natural leadership and intelligence. Just ask Khan.

If we got to see Kirk, who as a recent Cadet is practically the same person he is to become, where is the character's growth? I rather not see a Kirk who can accomplish everything as a young man in the same way he does as an experienced starship commander.

 

[seigezunt]

Back to one of the earlier tangents:
Although I enjoyed Collision Course, my choice for how Kirk, Spock and the rest of the TOS crew met in the prime 'verse is Enterprise: The First Adventure. Although the story itself was fairly poor, I liked the character's backstories (the battle of Ghioghe that won Kirk his promotion to captain, Janice's background and Sulu not wanting to be on the Enterprise) and the general atmosphere. Plus Spock mindmelds with an alien for the first time and end up thinking he's Big Bird!

Yeah, I like E:TFA well enough. It wasn't like the best book ever for me, but as a piece of fan service (and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that), it was quite adequate. I think at points, the author tried just a little too hard to fit people in, like Chekov covering the bridge for 3rd shift or whatever. That's just more small-world syndrome in my mind. If you wanted to have a Chekov cameo, you could've just had somebody bump into him in a hallway.

Anyway... overall, though, I thought it was quite enjoyable.

I agree. I couldn't stand the circus folk, especially the blond laughing vulcan, but I liked the proto back story. Though now, vis a vis McCoy, it doesn't mesh with Vanguard, apparently...

 

[RookieBatman]

But don't you think there might be something you're born with that makes you more likely to choose to be heroic?

Regardless of what I think (and I don't care to get into a nature-vs.-nurture debate), I'm fairly certain it's not what Gene Roddenberry thought, which is the point.

But... did you read the next paragraph of my post where I decided that wasn't really what I was trying to say?

Heck, I'll even let that point go and agree that the choice of the word "innate" may have been a little off the mark. How about "inherent?" That being a quality essential to the person's character, but not having been present from birth. I'd say that's more to the point of what I was trying to say.

(I guess I should've just deleted that first part, but I like a little stream-of-consciousness. I guess it just clouded the issue this time.)

His ideal wasn't "I'm not capable of killing," but "I will not kill today." It's right there in the words spoken by his heroes: heroism comes from the choices we make.

But even disregarding the nature-vs-nurture debate, don't you think some people are more prone (for whatever reason) to make good/heroic choices, and some people are prone to make bad ones? Innate, inherent, or whatever, the people that ultimately turn out to be heroes are the ones who more often make the heroic choices, because there's something in there that makes them respond that way. The thing that differentiates Kirk from Khan or Gary is that his natural tendency is to make the heroic choice. And it just seemed, from my personal purely subjective viewpoint, that nuKirk didn't display that natural tendency. He was making choices that coincidentally were heroic because he loved a challenge, or had a desire to be top dog, or a combination of any number of things. But my personal opinion is that doing good (or what he believed was good, since that's another pretty subjective judgment) wasn't one of those reasons.
And we can argue about what his motivations are all day, and I really don't think there's any way for either side to win the argument. But I can tell you that that was my perception at the time, and I didn't find it appealing.

Who knows? Maybe my perception will be different next time I see it.

If we got to see Kirk, who as a recent Cadet is practically the same person he is to become, where is the character's growth? I rather not see a Kirk who can accomplish everything as a young man in the same way he does as an experienced starship commander.

But he did. He saved the Earth from an opponent with vastly superior technology, surmounted a challenge of overwhelming odds, came out of a harrowing, seemingly impossible mission unscathed. How is that any different from what the experienced starship commander could do?

The only thing that was different to me was his attitude while he did it.