I don't know. Doesn't that go against established fact as espoused by practically everyone else?
Kirk, Spock and McCoy were every bit as deep as any of the characters pumped out by Modern Trek.
The Case Against Kirk
- Thread starter YARN
- Start date
How often, actually? The only example I can think of at the moment is Janeway in that VOY 30th anniversary episode (Flashback?)
I guess there was also that clucking about "cowboy diplomacy" in "Unification." And the time cops on DS9 complaining that Kirk was a menace (which was more of a joke than anything else).
But that's all I can think of.
The Case Against Kirk...so far, it seems to be leaning towards that he wasn't perfect, was something of a hothead when he was younger, but then seemed to mellow out as he grew older.
The typical illogical Human...
The typical illogical Human...
Kirk, Spock and McCoy were every bit as deep as any of the characters pumped out by Modern Trek.
Nah, archetypes played by good actors. The movies made them into real characters, though.
Nice to see the knee-jerk reaction from TOSers hasn't changed. Same over-protective conservatives who can't handle any opposing ideas.
Course, when Kirk and co make mistakes its okay because they are "only human" but when any of the TNG+ characters ever act that way it's inexcusable. Same double standards as always.
Last edited:
YARN
Fleet Captain
Didn't Sisko say something about morals/ethics being looser in his time.
Isn't there also general criticism of old Federation practices? It seems like TNG was always making noise about how they were more sensitive to the prime directive than their predecessors.
Maybe I am wrong.
Nevertheless, the court of popular opinion certainly seems to have historically turned against Kirk. It seems to be a rather common perception in pop culture and with fans. Our image of Kirk seems much less flattering than it was 20-30 years ago.
At any rate, majority or minority, popular opinion or lunatic fringe, constant reference or occasional allusion, we can still have fun and discuss the virtues of Kirk in relation to his peers.
^^ Kirk was the classic hero: brave, resourceful, natural leader yet also flawed. But since the late '60s the idea of a hero has changed. Now if you have a hero like Kirk (or Superman or Batman) the idea is that they're psychologically damaged or something. Today's popular heroes are often foul-mouthed, rough, outsiders.
In a sense it's the same thing that happened with superheroes in the '80s with the release of Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns.
The characters are being reinterpreted to rationalize current mindsets.
More on point just compare Gene Roddenberry and William Shatner's Kirk to JJ Abrams and Chris Pine's. TOS' Kirk is an admirable character. Abrams' Kirk is a punk.
In a sense it's the same thing that happened with superheroes in the '80s with the release of Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns.
The characters are being reinterpreted to rationalize current mindsets.
More on point just compare Gene Roddenberry and William Shatner's Kirk to JJ Abrams and Chris Pine's. TOS' Kirk is an admirable character. Abrams' Kirk is a punk.
I'm wouldn't be so sure. Outside of fandom, Kirk is still the most famous STAR TREK captain . . . and he's the only one who is still onscreen (albeit in a new incarnation).
It's interesting, because the ST novel I'm reading (for those who have stopped by the Trek Lit section) is 'Prime Directive' which is--in it's own right--a 'case against Kirk'....where he and his crew have been penalized for a first contact incident.
Well, Trek2009 is a first of a series; so, I would think the writers have nuKirk grow into a strong, mature, and confident character.
Well, with Batman...he was initially 'dark' when he was introduced back in the 40s. It wasn't until the groovy 60s did he become campy...at least on television.
He became 'darker' prior to the 1989 film; and, I remember him being 'dark' in the 70s and 80s.
As for Kirk? Again, we had the first film...and I would think we would see him mature as the film series progresses.
Yeah, but that kind of character isn't acceptable to audiences anymore.
Well, Trek2009 is a first of a series; so, I would think the writers have nuKirk grow into a strong, mature, and confident character.
The Case Against Kirk...so far, it seems to be leaning towards that he wasn't perfect, was something of a hothead when he was younger, but then seemed to mellow out as he grew older.
The typical illogical Human...
Well, with Batman...he was initially 'dark' when he was introduced back in the 40s. It wasn't until the groovy 60s did he become campy...at least on television.
He became 'darker' prior to the 1989 film; and, I remember him being 'dark' in the 70s and 80s.
As for Kirk? Again, we had the first film...and I would think we would see him mature as the film series progresses.
Are they permitted to capture and tow lawfully operated vehicles?
In any event, "territorial waters" isn't the best analogy for "deep space," nor is "US-flagged ship" a fit for the Botany Bay, a vessel (presumably Indian, but who knows) that was launched over a century before the "US"/Federation came into being. It would be more like seizing a United Kingdom vessel, and even that's not a great analogy.
Historically civilians were tried in admiralty courts and maritime courts every day, and don't forget Harry Mudd. Starfleet commanders could very easily have legal jurisdiction in these matters.[/QUOTE][/quote]
Probably the least of evils here, and possibly actually legal. But the personality of the court is preposterous; if that was legal, Starfleet and the Federation are run by madmen. The unification of functions of judge, prosecutor, and witness is generally considered to produce an unfair trial and ultimately an unfree society.
Last edited:
Batman was already light and campy in the 50s and early '60s comics before the Adam West TV series in '66 (partly because of the Comics Code of the era)---it's where the TV show got its cue. In the late '60s DC comics brought Batman back to seriousness again. Yes, Batman was dark in the sense of being gritty and serious in his origins and in the 1940s, but he wasn't considered psychologically damaged. That came about with Frank Miller's The Return Of The Dark Knight. Miller's take was something of an elseworlds story of an older Batman in the future, but everyone picked up on it as THE way to do Batman. And by and large that's how Batman/Bruce Wayne is generally portrayed since.It's interesting, because the ST novel I'm reading (for those who have stopped by the Trek Lit section) is 'Prime Directive' which is--in it's own right--a 'case against Kirk'....where he and his crew have been penalized for a first contact incident.
Yeah, but that kind of character isn't acceptable to audiences anymore.
Well, Trek2009 is a first of a series; so, I would think the writers have nuKirk grow into a strong, mature, and confident character.
The Case Against Kirk...so far, it seems to be leaning towards that he wasn't perfect, was something of a hothead when he was younger, but then seemed to mellow out as he grew older.
The typical illogical Human...
Well, with Batman...he was initially 'dark' when he was introduced back in the 40s. It wasn't until the groovy 60s did he become campy...at least on television.
He became 'darker' prior to the 1989 film; and, I remember him being 'dark' in the 70s and 80s.
As for Kirk? Again, we had the first film...and I would think we would see him mature as the film series progresses.
It's actually quite cyclical. 30s Superman and Batman were unrepentant vigilantes who killed and thumbed their noses at authority, real "Outside the Law" types. Then in the 50s and 60s they changed to become more wholesome. Then in the 80s things changed again, heroes got deconstructed so they weren't just heroes but closer to people in everyday life with some heroic qualities.
Of course, it goes back much farther than that. Lots of heroes from the 19th century and earlier weren't all that admirable. Ever hear of the Byronic Hero?
These days, the consensus is that there is a place for noble heroes whose flaws are minor to their good traits but there should be more ambiguous characters in the cast to even it out for the audience who LIKE those types as well or just want to see how the values clash goes.
Eh, I'd like Kirk as a person but I wouldn't want to serve under him as a Captain. Maybe the TOS movie version of Kirk, but not the TV version.
And Abram's Kirk actually is allowed to grow as a person and character, he isn't the 100% set in his ways developed character TOS TV Kirk was. We met TOS Kirk in the middle of his story, not so with NuKirk.
Batman was already light and campy in the 50s and early '60s comics before the Adam West TV series in '66 (partly because of the Comics Code of the era)---it's where the TV show got its cue. In the late '60s DC comics brought Batman back to seriousness again. Yes, Batman was dark in the sense of being gritty and serious in his origins and in the 1940s, but he wasn't considered psychologically damaged. That came about with Frank Miller's The Return Of The Dark Knight. Miller's take was something of an elseworlds story of an older Batman in the future, but everyone picked up on it as THE way to do Batman. And by and large that's how Batman/Bruce Wayne is generally portrayed since.It's interesting, because the ST novel I'm reading (for those who have stopped by the Trek Lit section) is 'Prime Directive' which is--in it's own right--a 'case against Kirk'....where he and his crew have been penalized for a first contact incident.
Yeah, but that kind of character isn't acceptable to audiences anymore.
Well, Trek2009 is a first of a series; so, I would think the writers have nuKirk grow into a strong, mature, and confident character.
The Case Against Kirk...so far, it seems to be leaning towards that he wasn't perfect, was something of a hothead when he was younger, but then seemed to mellow out as he grew older.
The typical illogical Human...
Well, with Batman...he was initially 'dark' when he was introduced back in the 40s. It wasn't until the groovy 60s did he become campy...at least on television.
He became 'darker' prior to the 1989 film; and, I remember him being 'dark' in the 70s and 80s.
As for Kirk? Again, we had the first film...and I would think we would see him mature as the film series progresses.
Note, too, that the young Kirk we're told of in TOS is a serious minded and determined student, a "stack of books with legs." Abrams chose to redraw that character and gave us Chris Pine's punk.
And why not? If you're just going to do the same thing 100% the same then there's no point in a reboot.
What's interesting is seeing how Abrams' is going to turn his "Punk" as you call him (and frankly, he ain't that bad) into something resembling the Classical Space Hero. You may have had a lousy first impression and written him off, but I give people chances when it's clear they're going for something long-term instead of wussying out and giving us the character after all the background development already happened.
What's interesting is seeing how Abrams' is going to turn his "Punk" as you call him (and frankly, he ain't that bad) into something resembling the Classical Space Hero. You may have had a lousy first impression and written him off, but I give people chances when it's clear they're going for something long-term instead of wussying out and giving us the character after all the background development already happened.
^ We also have to remember that Kirk was raised differently than Kirk-Prime. His father was killed and he was raised by a seemingly abusive step-father. Kirk's punk misanthropic attitude fits in well with what has happened to him in the divergent time-line. His not being a "stack of books with legs" would also be a part of that.
YARN
Fleet Captain
JJ's Kirk is hardly courageous in terms of character development. We get Kirk the caricature. He's so supposed to be edgy and cool, but he comes off like a backslapping frat boy.
It's easy to play it "Muppet Babies" style and give everyone an even Kirkier punky Kirk (Now with twice the womanizing power!)
I would like to have seen how that stack of books grew into command officer (a la Horatio Hornblower).
It doesn't really matter now, but if Pine's Kirk doesn't evolve, the routine is going to wear thin quick.
So here's to Nu-Kirk growing up a little in the next film.
Old Kirk is dead, Long live New Kirk (and grow up already).
Wouldn't the Botany Bay be by definition a derelict vessel?
Depends on what you mean by "deep space." Does "deep space" mean "space between star systems," or does "deep space" mean "space outside of the territory of the Federation?"
Doesn't really matter, though. By definition, any Indian ship would have come under United Earth jurisdiction in the 22nd Century when United Earth was founded. And by definition, any United Earth vessel would also have come under Federation jurisdiction in 2161.
So, really, the best analogy would be that the Federation Starfleet can board a derelict Federation civilian vessel, as that's what it is.
It's a completely inaccurate analogy, because the United Kingdom co-exists with the United States.
A better analogy would be that the U.S. Coast Guard may board a vessel originally flying a Massachusetts flag before the adoption of the Constitution.
Honestly, I've always thought of that "stack of books" line as an abberation. It was a throwaway line of dialogue in an early episode that, as far I know, was never referenced again. I doubt that it was ever meant to be the definitive statement on the early James T. Kirk, or that anyone expected fans to be citing it as Holy Writ forty years later.
The truth of the matter is that we never really got an origin story for original-recipe Kirk, so there was no need to give him any sort of character arc to explain how he became the James T. Kirk. Since we're starting at the beginning this time around, it makes sense to show us Kirk maturing slowly over time.
Also, on a practical level, movie audiences don't remember that "stack of books" line and that's certainly not how the general public perceives Kirk. Audiences expect a cocky, reckless, impulsive, womanizing Kirk so that's what you have to give them. Giving them a "stack of books" just because of a single forty-year-old line of dialogue makes no sense at all. You're just going to confuse and disappoint the audience.
It would like be making a James Bond movie in which Bond is a mild-mannered virgin attending prep school . . . .
Last edited:
Greg,
That's an interesting comment, because James Bond currently (Daniel Craig) is an asshole.
But, he is an asshole we want to watch. (The guy has no qualms about sleeping with married women, he's impulsive, on an on and on)...
With Casino Royale (and I haven't really seen Quantum of Solace) I thought we were seeing a Bond character that was--hopefully--on his way to growing up.
Unfortunately, though, maybe that is what makes the character; because I don't recall the Connery character being a 'moral' individual either, but he was somewhat lighter than Craig's portrayal. (Timothy Dalton would be a bit more moral; of course, we didn't get much from Dalton, unfortunately).
Bond--Craig's version--is very flawed, and someone we don't want to know in reality; but we still watch him to see how he is going to get out of his predicaments. (Somewhat like Tony Soprano; another guy who is very, very, very flawed; a guy that should be under the jail...but we still want to see how he and his comrades make it from one instance to another).
Yes it's a reboot. But it also illustrates my point of reinterpreting the character. And there really is no reason to believe they will resort to evolving NuKirk into something resembling TOS Kirk because that's not believable to today's filmmakers.
