Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?

[kkozoriz1]

Only that Han Solo's character has an actual development, while nuKirk is at the end the same kid that crashed the Corvette, only promoted.

Exactly. And Luke Skywalker at the end of ANH is the same kid that gazed at the double sunset, only promoted to a hero of the Rebellion. It's a myth that every story requires its lead to grow and change.

Except Luke isn't the same kid. He's the kid who wanted to get away from the farm and when he did he found out it was a lot bigger, badder and more dangerous than he'd ever thought. He learned about the Force. He learned about the rebellion first hand. He wasn't the innocent farmboy any longer.

 

[Steve Roby]

In other words, the new Kirk is exactly what popular mythology assumes the old Kirk was like. The filmmakers are just building on a pre-existing myth arising largely from the events of ST III-IV, which codified the image of Kirk as a renegade and rule-breaker. So if anyone's to blame for this movie's portrayal of Kirk, it's Harve Bennett and his collaborators, not J. J. Abrams and his.

LOL, are you serious?

Sign me up with the various people who agree that Christopher's right on this one. The Kirk of the original series is not the Kirk of popular mythrepresentation, to coin a term, but the Kirk of the movies has some elements of that characterization.

For years, I (and KRAD, and no doubt others) have been lamenting the fact that the general public's perception of Jim Kirk as a hotheaded renegade is a myth based more on a couple of '80s movies than on the original 79 episodes in which Kirk appeared.

At least the Star Trek magazine has run some good articles debunking the Kirk as womanizer and Kirk as maverick memes. It's bizarre how people will pay more attention to something they're told than to what they can actually see by watching the damn TV series.

As for the Abrams version of Kirk -- yeah, it's to be expected that he'd be a womanizing maverick, because damn near every male action movie hero these days has some mix of those characteristics, and Abrams was making Trek to get people's butts in theatre seats, not to give us longtime fans more of what we already have.

 

[Christopher]

For years, I (and KRAD, and no doubt others) have been lamenting the fact that the general public's perception of Jim Kirk as a hotheaded renegade is a myth based more on a couple of '80s movies than on the original 79 episodes in which Kirk appeared.

At least the Star Trek magazine has run some good articles debunking the Kirk as womanizer and Kirk as maverick memes.

And KRAD wrote the best one I've seen, which is why I mentioned him.

As for the Abrams version of Kirk -- yeah, it's to be expected that he'd be a womanizing maverick, because damn near every male action movie hero these days has some mix of those characteristics, and Abrams was making Trek to get people's butts in theatre seats, not to give us longtime fans more of what we already have.

It's not just "these days." The main reason that TOS Kirk got more action with the ladies and more pointless fight scenes as the series went on is because that's what '60s action-adventure shows demanded of their leads. Lots of Kirk's television contemporaries were far more blatant and casual womanizers, such as Jim West on The Wild, Wild West. And then of course there's James Bond.

 

[RookieBatman]

Isn't that kind of like saying "J.J. Abrams gave us Star Trek as Star Wars"?

Well, we already knew that.

I for one, never thought of that as a good thing.

But that's just style.

It's more than just style, according to some (and that was just the first one I found; I recall seeing others previously).

This is not "wrong." This is not bad writing. Some stories are about heroes who need to learn and change, others are about heroes who need to reaffirm the worth of who they already are, to prove themselves or inspire learning in others.

But if someone didn't like the way the character was at the beginning of the movie, can you blame them for not liking how he is at the end?

I always amazes me how people have to say that something is bad just because they didn't like. There is a big difference between I didn't like it, and that was bad. Sure, you generally don't like something if it's bad (unless it's so bad it's good), but that doesn't automatically make everything you don't like bad. There are plenty of movies, shows, and books that I don't like that I am more than willing to admit are still good stories, they just happen to be the type of story that I don't like.

I actually do agree with this. I didn't like it, but I can sorta understand why most people did. "Bad" is purely subjective, so it kind of is up to a majority vote, and the majority said it was good. But I, personally, don't like it.

Abrams said in a couple of interviews that he was never able to identify with TOS-Kirk, and didn't think the kids of today could relate to him, so they changed him into a kid having family trouble, no idea where to go in the future, etc...

This is the part I don't understand. Abrams said he always preferred Star Wars, apparently said he couldn't identify with Kirk... Sure, he was the right guy to make Star Trek fiscally successful again, but I don't think he was the right guy to make it have any resemblance to the original (or, perhaps, even any respect for it, but of course those are both also purely subjective).

For years, I (and KRAD, and no doubt others) have been lamenting the fact that the general public's perception of Jim Kirk as a hotheaded renegade is a myth based more on a couple of '80s movies than on the original 79 episodes in which Kirk appeared. As soon as it was announced several years ago that J. J. Abrams's movie would recast and revisit the original series characters, I fully expected that we'd end up with a Kirk who was more like the maverick Lothario of popular myth than the serious, scholarly, disciplined soldier and frustrated romantic of the actual episodes. And that prediction turned out to be absolutely correct. Although I can live with it because the alternate history presented in the film offers a satisfactory explanation for the change in his character.

Sure, you can live with it, but don't you kinda wish that he had been depicted more like in the original episodes?

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Why is it the usual some guys spouting off their hatred of the film whenever the film is mentioned?

I do believe Kirk grows as a character in the film because we see him as a young adult who has no idea on what he wants to do with his life find a path for him to helps him get closer to his dead father and in the end succeeds in surpassing his father not out of competition, but more out of respects. He was able to forge a working relationship with two people who detested him by his actions. In the end, he wasn't the young man with no future, but someone who has made a difference. If that is not growth, then I wonder what is?

What father does not want his son to outshine him, unless your a member of royalty or live in Soap Opera World.

 

[Christopher]

Isn't that kind of like saying "J.J. Abrams gave us Star Trek as Star Wars"?

Well, we already knew that.

I for one, never thought of that as a good thing.

Not a good thing, not a bad thing, just a thing. It was pretty much inevitable. I daresay any director who had been tasked by Paramount Pictures with the responsibility to reinvent a 1960s sci-fi franchise in a way that would fit modern expectations for a sci-fi movie blockbuster would base it on Star Wars, because, like it or not, Star Wars is what created the modern expectations for a sci-fi movie blockbuster.

Heck, Trek movies have been trying to imitate Star Wars since TWOK. Roddenberry intended ST to be an intelligent, sophisticated, literary SF franchise, and that's what TMP attempted to be, but TWOK threw all that out the window and embraced the SW-created notion that a sci-fi movie had to be about ships blowing up and cartoony melodrama. And since that's what worked at the box office, that's what every subsequent Trek movie has been expected to be, a larger-than-life action blockbuster (though TVH was admirably successful in varying the formula, but that just led Paramount to demand that all subsequent movies imitate its humor as well, with often inappropriate results).

So a Trek movie imitates Star Wars? How is that remotely surprising? The question is not only "What else did you expect," but "What else is new?" It's a given that any sci-fi movie today is going to be influenced by SW. There's no point complaining about it. The question is how well it manages to tell a satisfactory story within that paradigm.

But if someone didn't like the way the character was at the beginning of the movie, can you blame them for not liking how he is at the end?

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm merely refuting the specific point that a film's hero not growing over the course of the film is a storytelling error. That's a widely held assumption that's simply incorrect. Now, it's true that you may not like the particular hero, but that's a matter of individual taste. It's not a matter of fundamental story structure.

This is the part I don't understand. Abrams said he always preferred Star Wars, apparently said he couldn't identify with Kirk... Sure, he was the right guy to make Star Trek fiscally successful again, but I don't think he was the right guy to make it have any resemblance to the original (or, perhaps, even any respect for it, but of course those are both also purely subjective).

Paramount didn't hire him to make it have any resemblance to the original. Paramount's priority was not to pay tribute to a pre-existing creative work, its priority was to create a profitable new tentpole franchise. Star Trek was merely the raw material they chose as the basis for that franchise. Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci had been successful at turning another old Paramount television property, Mission: Impossible, into a motion picture that brought profit and critical approval to Paramount, and so Paramount wanted to see if they could do it again. And what those filmmakers did with M:I III was to make something that paid enough tribute to the original to resonate with fans while still being distinct and new and engaging for the majority of the movie audience that had no prior investment in the original. And in the calculus of Hollywood, the latter is the crucial thing, while the former is simply a nice bonus.

My view is that we're lucky the new version of ST is as faithful to the original as it is. It would've been profoundly unrealistic to expect exact fidelity. The most likely outcome of a studio-mandated "reinvention" of ST would've been a complete restart that was drastically different from the original and possibly even repudiated its tropes (as Moore's Galactica did) or made fun of them (as the Land of the Lost movie and countless other film remakes have done). Instead, we got a film made by a team of filmmakers that recognized the need to create something new and fresh, but that incorporated a number of true, loyal fans who strove to keep the new incarnation of ST as faithful and reconcilable with the original as they possibly could within their mandate. That is far, far more than we had any right to expect from this. We should be grateful they even tried at all.

Sure, you can live with it, but don't you kinda wish that he had been depicted more like in the original episodes?

No, I don't. Because we've already had that. We've had nearly 45 years to get to know that version of Jim Kirk, to watch him in action, to write new stories about him. Now we have an opportunity to explore a new and different version of Jim Kirk, to approach the character from a fresh angle, and that's got a lot of potential. I'm saying this as someone who actually has experience writing that character, and the other Abramsverse characters, in Seek a Newer World. It was an enjoyable opportunity to get to explore these familiar, beloved characters from a new angle, to write Kirk in a way that acknowledged the changes in his history but still explored his essential, underlying Kirkness.

 

[kkozoriz1]

It;s primarily because he didn't earn the position of First Officer. Pike gave it to hi, the same way he got him into the Academy. He got the captains seat the same way.

Now, if the movie had started the same way and ended with him getting a promotion to Lt. Commander that would have worked. Then, the next could show him becoming first officer. And finally, in the third he'd become Captain. Show that some time had passed. Show that he'd learned to work with people and to control himself.

Prime Kirk knew when to follow orders and when to break them. NuKirk hasn't learned that. If it had been shown that some time had passed between graduating and becoming Captain then it would be more believable. Going from third year cadet to Captain while disobeying orders just doesn't work.

 

[Smiley]

Kirk was a brilliant student who would have gotten his commendation for original thinking if Vulcan had not been under attack. He did what was necessary to save Earth and the rest of the Federation from Nero, and that earned him a captaincy.

People wanted Captain Kirk at the end of the movie, not Lt. Commander Kirk. If it makes you feel better, just assume that there was a "Years Later" caption between the Nero attacks and the ceremony.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Paramount didn't hire him to make it have any resemblance to the original. Paramount's priority was not to pay tribute to a pre-existing creative work, its priority was to create a profitable new tentpole franchise. Star Trek was merely the raw material they chose as the basis for that franchise. Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci had been successful at turning another old Paramount television property, Mission: Impossible, into a motion picture that brought profit and critical approval to Paramount, and so Paramount wanted to see if they could do it again. And what those filmmakers did with M:I III was to make something that paid enough tribute to the original to resonate with fans while still being distinct and new and engaging for the majority of the movie audience that had no prior investment in the original.

Of course the original Mission Impossible movie, by Brian Depalma, made Jim Phelps into the villain. Made him responsible for the deaths of IMF agents. Hardly respectable. It also was more of a star vehicle for Tom Cruise than the ensemble cast of the TV show.

It could have been partly redeemed if, at the end, when Tom Cruise's character gets the recording on the plane it had said "Good afternoon, Mr. Phelps.", thus making the name an alias for the prime agent. Instead, it treated the original character very badly indeed.

Most of the characters in NuTrek were treated very well, with the major exceptions of Kirk & Scotty. Spock & McCoy were excellent. Uhura got some development that was long overdue. Suku & Chekov, less so.

Contrary to what some peole say, I don't hate the movie. I'm disappointed that it took the easy way of making a summer blockbuster with a veneer of Star Trek painted on top.

 

[Christopher]

If it makes you feel better, just assume that there was a "Years Later" caption between the Nero attacks and the ceremony.

I would've liked that, and one of the filmmakers has commented that they were deliberately vague about how much time passed between the climax of the film and the promotion ceremony. However, that's unfortunately not entirely accurate, since at the ceremony, Kirk still has partly healed bruises in the same places as his bruises earlier in the film. So it can't be more than a couple of days later that he gets promoted.

Although the bruises are completely healed by the time he takes command of the Enterprise, so there could be a greater time interval there.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

In other words, the new Kirk is exactly what popular mythology assumes the old Kirk was like. The filmmakers are just building on a pre-existing myth arising largely from the events of ST III-IV, which codified the image of Kirk as a renegade and rule-breaker. So if anyone's to blame for this movie's portrayal of Kirk, it's Harve Bennett and his collaborators, not J. J. Abrams and his.

LOL, are you serious?

Sign me up with the various people who agree that Christopher's right on this one. The Kirk of the original series is not the Kirk of popular mythrepresentation, to coin a term, but the Kirk of the movies has some elements of that characterization.

For years, I (and KRAD, and no doubt others) have been lamenting the fact that the general public's perception of Jim Kirk as a hotheaded renegade is a myth based more on a couple of '80s movies than on the original 79 episodes in which Kirk appeared.

At least the Star Trek magazine has run some good articles debunking the Kirk as womanizer and Kirk as maverick memes. It's bizarre how people will pay more attention to something they're told than to what they can actually see by watching the damn TV series.

As for the Abrams version of Kirk -- yeah, it's to be expected that he'd be a womanizing maverick, because damn near every male action movie hero these days has some mix of those characteristics, and Abrams was making Trek to get people's butts in theatre seats, not to give us longtime fans more of what we already have.

Though in defense of NuKirk's womanizing, he is younger than Prime Kirk was in TOS and TOS did give the impression that Kirk was a swinger in his younger days i.e. about the age NuKirk is, with the appearances of some of his ex-girlfriends and McCoy commenting that his old friends usually turn out to be attractive women.

It;s primarily because he didn't earn the position of First Officer. Pike gave it to hi, the same way he got him into the Academy. He got the captains seat the same way.

Now, if the movie had started the same way and ended with him getting a promotion to Lt. Commander that would have worked. Then, the next could show him becoming first officer. And finally, in the third he'd become Captain. Show that some time had passed. Show that he'd learned to work with people and to control himself.

And that only works if they knew going in that they would get to make any sequels which they did not.

 

[ClayinCA]

Sign me up with the various people who agree that Christopher's right on this one.

Me too. I get so sick of people banging on and on about Kirk as an intergalactic rebellious lothario, when even a casual reading of the original series completely gives the lie to that idea.

The Kirk of the original series is not the Kirk of popular mythrepresentation

And that is a great word you've just coined. I am totally using that!

 

[JD]

People wanted Captain Kirk at the end of the movie, not Lt. Commander Kirk. If it makes you feel better, just assume that there was a "Years Later" caption between the Nero attacks and the ceremony.

What he said. The whole point of the movie was to get the characters together and into the places they were in in the original series. Sure it was unbeliveable, and I'm admitting this even though STXI is one of my favorite Trek movies up their with Wrath of Khan and First Contact, but they really had to have Kirk in the Captain's seat at the end. But, then again I see to be one of the few Trek fans who's able to believe in the universe, but at the same time recognize that it isn't always going be 100% realistic at all times.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Then start with him already on a ship. Or have the movie broken into segments, each at a different time. Almost anything would be better than third year cadet to Captain. He really deserved it more than EVERYONE else in Starfleet?

 

[Smiley]

With apologies to the Monty Python blokes, Arthur got a sword from a lady in a lake, and that qualified him for the throne. Kirk demonstrated his leadership abilities and was rewarded with the captain's chair. As Spock once said, that job is his first, best destiny, and anything else is a waste of material. The public wants to see legends in their proper place at the end of an origin movie, especially in a summer blockbuster.

There are numerous fixes you can use to mentally justify what was onscreen. Besides the time gap with a similar injury just before the promotion, you might also say that Kirk is a probationary captain with some strings attached that are not disclosed during the film. Let's not forget that he had the backing of Pike, which surely helped him get the posting.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Then start with him already on a ship. Or have the movie broken into segments, each at a different time. Almost anything would be better than third year cadet to Captain. He really deserved it more than EVERYONE else in Starfleet?

It's silly, yes but it's a film, intended as light entertainment. Suspend your disbelief. The guy saves the entire world. A "you just keep reaching for the stars, kid" speech and posting as beta-shift junior backup navigator would not have sufficed. Nor would a "six years later" epilogue - it would have totally chapened the act of saving the world.

Also we don't know what Kirk did at the academy. We know his test scores were though the roof, he'd already achieved the rank of lieutenant (in the novrlization and on a barely-visible screen graphic in the movie) and he was Pike's chosen one/golden boy.
Spock Prime chose against hiding himself, and there's no telling what influence he could have had with Starfleet - and he's pro-Kirk.

 

[kkozoriz1]

I'd suspended my disbelief enough by this point. If I debelieved any more I'd have forgotten the entire movie.

 

[Christopher]

*sigh* You know, if things had gone a little differently, Seek a Newer World would be coming out in a couple of weeks and might just answer some of the questions being raised about the logic of Kirk's promotion.

 

[kkozoriz1]

You'd need a really big trowl and a huge tub of Logic-Spackle to fix that one but it would be interesting to see how you did it.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

If it makes you feel better, just assume that there was a "Years Later" caption between the Nero attacks and the ceremony.

I would've liked that, and one of the filmmakers has commented that they were deliberately vague about how much time passed between the climax of the film and the promotion ceremony. However, that's unfortunately not entirely accurate, since at the ceremony, Kirk still has partly healed bruises in the same places as his bruises earlier in the film. So it can't be more than a couple of days later that he gets promoted.

Or he got similar injuries on a different mission, you know like how DC redamaged the Enterprise in time from TSFS.