They both are.
Kirk as hero archetype (cf. NuKirk)
- Thread starter plynch
- Start date
Well, we'll find out more about nuKirk in the next movie.
oldKirk, obviously, is done.
oldKirk, obviously, is done.
I'm a little thrown by the idea that OldKirk showed all this personal growth from season to season, yet they are critical of NuKirk and J.J. over a percieved lack of personal growth over the course of a movie.
I mean, how much personal growth did OldKirk show over the course of a single random episode of the TOS? Is OldKirk the same guy he was from the start of "Amok Time" to the end, despite apparently dying?
What about over the course of a series of films? How has OldKirk grown by the end of TVH from the OldKirk at the start of TWoK? Not much.
I mean, how much personal growth did OldKirk show over the course of a single random episode of the TOS? Is OldKirk the same guy he was from the start of "Amok Time" to the end, despite apparently dying?
What about over the course of a series of films? How has OldKirk grown by the end of TVH from the OldKirk at the start of TWoK? Not much.
"Stalwart," to me means dependable; perhaps my understanding of the word is incorrect, though. NuKirk does grow into that, which is a main point of the story, of course. He's young. We'll see how he goes in the next installment in 2014 or whenever it comes out.
I would never use "angsty," an imprecise word, certainly, to describe Shat-Kirk. Granted, he's already 34 when we meet him, but we hear reports he was dull (Courtmartial, Shore Leave) as a youth. By angsty, I mean troubled, torn, emo.
I like the idea of the hero-born-in-strife (nuKirk) being primal/archetypal. I'll look into it. Plus he sort of avenges his father's loss, though unintentionally, so there's some Freud to boot. Bonus!
SATYRQUAZE writes: "I'm a little thrown by the idea that OldKirk showed all this personal growth from season to season, yet they are critical of NuKirk and J.J. over a percieved lack of personal growth over the course of a movie." . . . actually, I kinda like the lack of growth in Shat-Kirk. He is given to us prima facie as "hero" every episode afresh. Very episodic 60s tv. Like Ben Cartwright, Marshall Dillon, or Joe Friday. They have their given attributes, then do their typical thing each week. You could even make the case that Shatner played Kirk LESS deep as the years went on, that the character became less nuanced and more "stock."
Part of it comes down to personal preference and bias. Shatner and 60s-episodic-little-backstory-and-growth-hero imprinted on me every weeknight at 5:00 as a kid. That is MY angsty backstory!!
Be well, everyone. Keep thinking and posting. What fun.
I would never use "angsty," an imprecise word, certainly, to describe Shat-Kirk. Granted, he's already 34 when we meet him, but we hear reports he was dull (Courtmartial, Shore Leave) as a youth. By angsty, I mean troubled, torn, emo.
I like the idea of the hero-born-in-strife (nuKirk) being primal/archetypal. I'll look into it. Plus he sort of avenges his father's loss, though unintentionally, so there's some Freud to boot. Bonus!
SATYRQUAZE writes: "I'm a little thrown by the idea that OldKirk showed all this personal growth from season to season, yet they are critical of NuKirk and J.J. over a percieved lack of personal growth over the course of a movie." . . . actually, I kinda like the lack of growth in Shat-Kirk. He is given to us prima facie as "hero" every episode afresh. Very episodic 60s tv. Like Ben Cartwright, Marshall Dillon, or Joe Friday. They have their given attributes, then do their typical thing each week. You could even make the case that Shatner played Kirk LESS deep as the years went on, that the character became less nuanced and more "stock."
Part of it comes down to personal preference and bias. Shatner and 60s-episodic-little-backstory-and-growth-hero imprinted on me every weeknight at 5:00 as a kid. That is MY angsty backstory!!
Be well, everyone. Keep thinking and posting. What fun.
Of note, William Shatner's 2007 novel "Star Trek Academy: Collision Course" featured a rebellious young Kirk far closer to Chis Pine's in "Star Trek (2009)" than the "Stack of books with legs" descibed in "Where No Man Has Gone Before"
nuKirk is still a work in progress. Trek XI was really Spock's show, while Kirk was simply being re-introduced.
If Kirk doesn't make some major progress in Trek XII, then I will complain, loudly and incessantly.
But is Kirk really an archetype? I think the main thing about him is that he busts the archetype, especially as conceived in the early 60s. He wasn't a strong and silent, repressed, square-jawed type with little personality. He was bursting with personality and contradictions. He could be steely and cold or warm and caring. He broke the rules, yet his life was ruled by Federation principles. He had more feminine qualities than the archetype called for (and thus slash was born). He managed to be a great starship captain because of (not despite) qualities that would seem to make him a poor fit for the role. He was a unique, specific character, not a general archetype.
That's the Kirk they need to build back up to with Chris Pine. Starting off as a smartass punk with potential is okay. All characters must start somewhere.
And remember, nuKirk would be making a lot more progress if his escapades were shown weekly on TV. Gotta give him a break for being stuck with a mere two hours every three years, which he has to share with other characters plus a decent amount of action.
If Kirk doesn't make some major progress in Trek XII, then I will complain, loudly and incessantly.
But is Kirk really an archetype? I think the main thing about him is that he busts the archetype, especially as conceived in the early 60s. He wasn't a strong and silent, repressed, square-jawed type with little personality. He was bursting with personality and contradictions. He could be steely and cold or warm and caring. He broke the rules, yet his life was ruled by Federation principles. He had more feminine qualities than the archetype called for (and thus slash was born). He managed to be a great starship captain because of (not despite) qualities that would seem to make him a poor fit for the role. He was a unique, specific character, not a general archetype.
That's the Kirk they need to build back up to with Chris Pine. Starting off as a smartass punk with potential is okay. All characters must start somewhere.
And remember, nuKirk would be making a lot more progress if his escapades were shown weekly on TV. Gotta give him a break for being stuck with a mere two hours every three years, which he has to share with other characters plus a decent amount of action.
That Kirk - whose father didn't die in a Romulan attack, and who grew up to be a "stack of books on legs" in his youth - was a different guy from a different universe. nuKirk will probably veer towards oldKirk in Trek XII, simply because that would be interesting to see, but why expect two different people to be exactly the same?
Well, stories are about dramatic events and conflicts. There's nothing dynamic about young Kirk as described by Mitchell - which is not to say that there couldn't be, but that would have to be manufactured by a writer; none of it is implicit in the back-story we're given. And whether whatever the writer made up would be "in character" or acceptable to people who already have fixed expectations is unknowable in advance. It's been said that no text can withstand a hostile reading, and that's exactly the situation we have here vis-a-vis most fan complaints about Abrams's movie not being true to individual expectations.
I'd enjoy reading of a nerdy Kirk getting broadened through buddy Gary Mitchell and toughening up thanks to Finnegan.
And, yes, he is definitely not the cold, silent type. Sensitive, even, in some moments early in S1, though he was appropriately more formal with crew then.
And, yes, he is definitely not the cold, silent type. Sensitive, even, in some moments early in S1, though he was appropriately more formal with crew then.
All of which falls under the heading of "stuff the writer would have to make up because it's not in the back-story."
Which is fine, but a lot of TOS fans would bitch about it.
It's also not a big story. The only big story about Kirk's background is how he becomes the leader of a lot of people. The rest is just bookkeeping.
It has to be a story you can tell from start to finish in a couple of hours, BTW. Trek does not have the mojo to sell tickets like Harry Fucking Potter or Twilight.
No, I'm just saying I'd be ok with a novel like that. He doesn't have to be a Cool rebel to float my boat.
2. Unrelated. I think nuKirk will be different in xii, even now that he has become Captain Kirk. Younger actor reading lines written in 2012 makes for a different character. Once he's mature maybe he is a deeper character knowing where he came from.
Ho.lee.cow.
Okay, well I was a kid when I first saw Shat-Kirk, so he's older.
I still haven't gotten used to being older than all the major baseball players. (Hail Verlander, by the way!)
My comics realization was when I haul them out of the basement for my kids to read, my comics are older than Action #1 was when I was a kid.
Be well.
Double post, but it's been a day or so. NuKirk might better fit the classic archetype. Odd birth. Goes into an abyss (ice cave), comes out different, with wise guide on the side. Bones as sidekick? Uhura as spunky-female-nature-representative? No racism implied (old stereotype of Africans being more 'natural' in sports, music, etc). The sexism is Jung's, who perceived the good, yet unpredictable female as symbolizing life/nature.
Hm. I still like Shatner-Kirk better, but that's not consciously decided, as describe upstream.
Hm. I still like Shatner-Kirk better, but that's not consciously decided, as describe upstream.
Yea....until the wolf beats and mistreats her too many times. Or until the wolf finds someone younger.
I just see another "Mr. Badass Rebel" being rewarded for being an asshole. I hate these sorta guys, ever since I was in high school, seeing guys and girls like that get rewards and practically worshiped and the decent folks getting little to nothing for their efforts.
And the real Kirk broke rules, yes, but he did because he had no other choices....when Starfleet either would not help or tell him to get stuffed. Like in Amok Time, he broke the rules because Spock, his good friend would have been a dead man if he did otherwise. "Is a friendship not worth a career?" NuKirk was breaking rules just because he was a jerk and to start a fight.
Yep.
To me, Shatner's Kirk will always be Kirk to me.
The booky, somewhat nerdy Kirk is the one I'll always go for.
Let's hope Spock in the second film does not end up wearing all black and cutting himself in his room.
And please don't have "Cupcake" in it, that was such an eye roller....same goes for that little goblin sidekick of Scott's.
Starfleet is no place for Ewoks.
Well, Jar Jar said he was Star Wars fan rather than a Star Trek one, and kept thinking what he could use from Star Wars when making this in one of his interviews...so far you surprised, he even put R2-D2 in the film as a cameo.
That thing seemed more like a demonic Golem/Smeegal to me.
