Kirk...

[Bry_Sinclair]

I know that this post is likely to see me hung, drawn and quartered, but...

Is there anyone else who cannot stand Kirk as a Captain? Or am I alone in this?

 

[Merky]

I have a love-hate with Kirk. Sometimes he's just bad ass amazing and other times I want to punch him in the dick.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I imagine there are some. I do find the Kirk of the movies somewhat irritating, but the TV show Kirk is pretty OK for me. He can be a swaggering, overbearing, tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood, though.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I imagine there are some. I do find the Kirk of the movies somewhat irritating...

This. The character becomes something of a parody in the TOS-based movies of the 1980s. Kirk is at his best as a character in the first year of the original series, and there he's a far more magnetic and entertaining lead than any of the actors who followed him in similar roles IMAO.

 

[WisTrekFan]

I do think there is a difference in Kirk as the series and movies evolved. The Kirk of the first season, particular the first half of the first season, is different from the Kirk of the third season. The second season Kirk lies somewhere in between. I see more of the second season Kirk in the movies.

 

[Mr_Homn]

I love Kirk with all my heart, but Picard was more interesting and complex. It is not a coincidence that Patrick Stewart is a far better actor than William Shatner could ever dream of being.

 

[scotpens]

I love Kirk with all my heart, but Picard was more interesting and complex. It is not a coincidence that Patrick Stewart is a far better actor than William Shatner could ever dream of being.

I wouldn’t say one actor is better than the other. Different styles, different acting traditions, different ways of approaching a character.

And Picard is a great big bore. Kirk is DA MAN!

 

[Wingsley]

Any lead role in any STAR TREK TV show or movie is always going to be an acquired taste. All the lead characters always have personality quirks that make them either interesting to watch or irritating, depending on your point of view.

Part of this is the actor/actress playing the role. Part of it is the style of the show's writing and part is the overall tone of the show. Any TREK is an acquired taste. Just ask someone who hates TREK no matter what vintage it is.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Right... different acting... styles. Keep telling yourself that...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAvRBDQqSmY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UMxWrwPeto

 

[Merky]

Kirk is the personification of the perfect 60s action hero so of course, compared to Picard, he's going to seem more "lively". Also, like Wingsley said, the character is partly defined by the actor. Shatner is more energetic and active compared to Stewart, who I feel is more homely and mellow.

Though, Picard was looking fabulous in First Contact. Way more so than Kirk did in the movies. rawr.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually Kirk was more reflective and intellectual than most "action heroes" of.that era.

 

[Merky]

Actually Kirk was more reflective and intellectual than most "action heroes" of.just era.

Who said action heroes had to be dumb?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I like him enough that I'm rooting for Pine's Kirk to keep migrating as a character more towards Kirk-Kirk.

Kirk is a very complicated character when you dig below the surface. He's a lot more interesting than the standard square jawed astronaut type. He has a lot of vulnerabilities, puts himself on the line emotionally, butches up, takes crazy risks, and then suddenly slams on the breaks and becomes reflective, and then goes too far into faux-profundity and teeters on the edge of self-parody. He's a mass of contradictions. He's unpredictable. He keeps things lively.

Pine's Kirk right now is just a cocky young guy. Boring. But the kid has potential...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually Kirk was more reflective and intellectual than most "action heroes" of.just era.

Who said action heroes had to be dumb?

Hard to post from a smart phone - that should have read "of that era."

You called him the perfect 60s action hero. I pointed out that most displayed less sophistication and intelligence than he did, and that is true.

 

[Merky]

In a broader sense, he is the perfect man of the 60s. Charming, dashing, a ladies man, charismatic and damn near flawless. Kirk represented, I think, the ideal version of an action hero as well as a man of the 60s.

He was so flawless in what he did, he became superficial. If he was supposed to be tragic like they said... I didn't see it.

I'm glad that in the movies he became a flawed captain.

 

[BillJ]

He was so flawless in what he did, he became superficial. If he was supposed to be tragic like they said... I didn't see it.

I'm glad that in the movies he became a flawed captain.

Jim Kirk was always a flawed character. All you have to do is watch an episode like Arena or The Devil in the Dark to see it.

Jim Kirk (and Shatner's potrayal) is one of the reasons we're still talking about this series nearly fifty years later.

 

[Merky]

He was so flawless in what he did, he became superficial. If he was supposed to be tragic like they said... I didn't see it.

I'm glad that in the movies he became a flawed captain.

Jim Kirk was always a flawed character. All you have to do is watch an episode like Arena or The Devil in the Dark to see it.

Devil in the Dark? He was the one that talked sense into Spock and McCoy to help the Horta. Kirk never had a true moment where everything went to hell because of a decision he specifically made. He always had an idea or some plot to get out of whatever sticky situations he was ever in.

I don't think Kirk ever had a moment where he was really dependent on his subordinates to save him, y'know? Maybe Bread and Circuses?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

In "Devil," he acted shockingly like a capitalistic oppressor, yelling about how the mine had to get back in operation, no matter what.

 

[BillJ]

He was so flawless in what he did, he became superficial. If he was supposed to be tragic like they said... I didn't see it.

I'm glad that in the movies he became a flawed captain.

Jim Kirk was always a flawed character. All you have to do is watch an episode like Arena or The Devil in the Dark to see it.

Devil in the Dark? He was the one that talked sense into Spock and McCoy to help the Horta. Kirk never had a true moment where everything went to hell because of a decision he specifically made. He always had an idea or some plot to get out of whatever sticky situations he was ever in.

I don't think Kirk ever had a moment where he was really dependent on his subordinates to save him, y'know? Maybe Bread and Circuses?

Seems you may be misremembering The Devil in the Dark...

SPOCK: Gentlemen, if you'll examine your charts, please. I last located the creature in the area marked adit26 moving in bearing two zero one. This particular group will move out beyond that area in all directions in an effort to surround it, and possibly capture it.
KIRK: Your orders are shoot to kill. Protect yourself at all times. Commander Giotto, disperse your search parties.
GIOTTO: Aye, aye, sir. Louis, Vinci, take your men out.
(The red-shirts leave.)
KIRK: Mister Spock. Capture it? I don't recall giving any such order.
SPOCK: You did not, sir. I merely thought that if the opportunity arose
KIRK: I will lose no more men. The creature will be killed on sight and that's the end of it.

***

SPOCK [OC]: Kill it.
KIRK: I thought you were the one who wanted it kept alive, captured if possible

 

[BillJ]

I don't think Kirk ever had a moment where he was really dependent on his subordinates to save him, y'know? Maybe Bread and Circuses?

You're arguing two different points here... the above doesn't mean that Jim Kirk was a flawless character. As a matter of fact, it was usually his own short-sightedness that got him into the situation to begin with.