Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

[BigJake]

I mean the character is not realistic, if by realistic we mean how a real starfleet officer would behave.

TOS Kirk gets away with far more bucking of authority than any real Navy officer would -- even of the Royal Navy of the 19th century, which Starfleet is arguably more than half-modeled on. But he's always acting within the authority of his command and making command decisions he can defend. By contrast:

You seem to be saying that the movies went downhill in part because of this kind of storyline with Kirk, stealing the Enterprise etc..

Yes, hijacking a ship and sabotaging another one Because Friends was a bad sign; we're meant to accept them as Kirk-like actions (though give Shatner due credit, he successfully sold them as "getting old, lovin' my friends and not givin' a f*ck"), but overall they were really a sign to me of sentimentality starting to suck the franchise down its deadly maw.

 

[SeerSGB]

I mean the character is not realistic, if by realistic we mean how a real starfleet officer would behave.

TOS Kirk gets away with far more bucking of authority than any real Navy officer would -- even of the Royal Navy of the 19th century, which Starfleet is arguably more than half-modeled on. But he's always acting within the authority of his command and making command decisions he can defend. By contrast:

You seem to be saying that the movies went downhill in part because of this kind of storyline with Kirk, stealing the Enterprise etc..

Yes, hijacking a ship and sabotaging another one Because Friends was a bad sign; we're meant to accept them as Kirk-like actions (though give Shatner due credit, he successfully sold them as "getting old, lovin' my friends and not givin' a f*ck"), but overall they were really a sign to me of sentimentality starting to suck the franchise down its deadly maw.

Well they're are Kirk like. He disobeyed orders and took Spock to Vulcan in Amok Time. He delayed a medical supply delivery cause he didn't want to give up on Spock and Co. in Galileo Seven. Kirk's been known to put friends ahead of his career.

 

[Franklin]

I mean the character is not realistic, if by realistic we mean how a real starfleet officer would behave.

TOS Kirk gets away with far more bucking of authority than any real Navy officer would -- even of the Royal Navy of the 19th century, which Starfleet is arguably more than half-modeled on. But he's always acting within the authority of his command and making command decisions he can defend. By contrast:

You seem to be saying that the movies went downhill in part because of this kind of storyline with Kirk, stealing the Enterprise etc..

Yes, hijacking a ship and sabotaging another one Because Friends was a bad sign; we're meant to accept them as Kirk-like actions (though give Shatner due credit, he successfully sold them as "getting old, lovin' my friends and not givin' a f*ck"), but overall they were really a sign to me of sentimentality starting to suck the franchise down its deadly maw.

Not quite sure what you mean. I guess you're saying the entire story itself shouldn't have been told because it took the characters beyond believability. But that was the story, so playing within its context, if Kirk believes there's any chance at all of finding Spock and he can be saved, shouldn't he try to save him? It becomes a rescue mission for all points and purposes. I don't see any sentimentality in it. He unknowingly abandoned Spock, and is trying to make it right.
Essentially being called old and irrelevant by Starfleet (especially after rediscovering himself in TWOK) may motivate him to go further outside the lines on Spock's behalf that he normally would, but in TVH, we see he was more than willing to accept his punishment for it. Before, he always had a plausible explanation for his acts. This time, he offered no defense.

Further, by that logic, jeopardizing the mission in TVH to save Chekov is another sentimental moment, I guess. Should they consider the death of one good crewman compared to saving the world an acceptable loss and move on? Would that be more in character? More realistic? Essentially leaving a wounded fellow soldier who can be saved back behind the lines instead of trying to retrieve him?

 

[M'Sharak]

[ ... ]

When we learn from one of the few bits of TOS backstory in (was it "Shore Leave"? or "Obsession," maybe?) that Kirk had a reputation as an incredible tight-ass when he lectured at the Academy, the information isn't surprising.

In "Shore Leave" he talks about being an oh-so-serious midshipman, tormented by upperclassman Finnegan, and in "Obsession" about his first deep-space assignment as a junior officer under Capt. Garrovick. We learn about "think or sink" Academy instructor Lt. Kirk from Gary Mitchell in "Where No Man Has Gone Before".

 

[BigJake]

We learn about "think or sink" Academy instructor Lt. Kirk from Gary Mitchell in "Where No Man Has Gone Before".

I thank you, that's the precise connection I was groping for.

It's quite interesting that in general, from those examples, the picture we get is of a serious-minded kid who was tormented by precisely the kind of brawling personality we see NuTrek Kirk become, growing into a serious-minded officer. That's consistent with the mental picture I have of TOS Kirk.

(EDIT: You know, it occurs to me that it really did add to the character of Kirk for me that he had a backstory as, if not quite a geek, then something of a Poindexter. It's a more interesting character evolution, perhaps, than evolving from Bro-to-Captain, and I have to wonder if I'll particularly care for the Young Jerkass Kirk I'm told here is ubiquitous in the novels.)

About Search for Spock:

I guess you're saying the entire story itself shouldn't have been told because it took the characters beyond believability.

Officer thinking, Mister Franklin, that is entirely correct. (EDIT: misattribution corrected.)

if Kirk believes there's any chance at all of finding Spock and he can be saved, shouldn't he try to save him? It becomes a rescue mission for all points and purposes.

Starfleet presumably has missions and tasks that are bigger than one man. That's in fact the whole dramatic message (and a powerful and beautiful one) of Spock's noble death: "It is logical that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." The entire story concept undermines Spock's wisdom, and what's much much worse, undermines the dramatic power of his death.

It's sensible for Kirk to try to persuade Starfleet to have a rescue mission, but godawful and way out of character to have him hijacking and sabotaging Federation ships that presumably have important jobs to do so that he can be the one to conduct it. But far worse yet is having a story that revolves around literally resurrecting Spock at all. (And yes, I know they left the door open for some part of Spock to survive with the "remember" sequence in TWOK. But that didn't have to be taken to the point of actual resurrection.)

 

[Franklin]

I guess you're saying the entire story itself shouldn't have been told because it took the characters beyond believability.

Officer thinking, Mister Franklin, that is entirely correct. (EDIT: misattribution corrected.)

if Kirk believes there's any chance at all of finding Spock and he can be saved, shouldn't he try to save him? It becomes a rescue mission for all points and purposes.

Starfleet presumably has missions and tasks that are bigger than one man. That's in fact the whole dramatic message (and a powerful and beautiful one) of Spock's noble death: "It is logical that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." The entire story concept undermines Spock's wisdom, and what's much much worse, undermines the dramatic power of his death.

It's sensible for Kirk to try to persuade Starfleet to have a rescue mission, but godawful and way out of character to have him hijacking and sabotaging Federation ships so that he can be the one to conduct it. But far worse yet is having a story that revolves around literally resurrecting Spock at all.

But there is a bit of a precedent. In "Amok Time" McCoy warns Kirk he'll be busted if he doesn't follow orders and go to Altair and takes Spock to Vulcan, instead. Kirk still wants to because he knows Spock will die if he doesn't get there soon. He tells McCoy he can't let that happen because he owes Spock his life a dozen times over. He says, "Isn't that worth a career? He's my friend." He then orders a course set for Vulcan.

So, years before the actions in TSFS, Kirk is willing to disobey a direct order and ruin his career to save Spock. Is that sentimental? Is it in character for Kirk?

 

[BigJake]

But there is a bit of a precedent. In "Amok Time" McCoy warns Kirk he'll be busted if he doesn't follow orders and go to Altair and takes Spock to Vulcan, instead. Kirk still wants to because he knows Spock will die if he doesn't get there soon. He tells McCoy he can't let that happen because owes Spock his life a dozen times over. He says, "Isn't that worth a career? He's my friend." He then orders a course set for Vulcan.

Yes, like I said, TOS Kirk gets away with a lot more rule-breaking than a real Navy Captain would. However, note that in Amok Time, he's violating orders to attend a ceremony that two other Starships are already attending. In those circumstances, his caculation is far from unreasonable or out of character. If a risk to his career, it's still a defensible command decision to protect the life of his X.O. Actively sabotaging the Excelsior is worlds away, so to speak.

 

[Franklin]

But there is a bit of a precedent. In "Amok Time" McCoy warns Kirk he'll be busted if he doesn't follow orders and go to Altair and takes Spock to Vulcan, instead. Kirk still wants to because he knows Spock will die if he doesn't get there soon. He tells McCoy he can't let that happen because owes Spock his life a dozen times over. He says, "Isn't that worth a career? He's my friend." He then orders a course set for Vulcan.

Yes, like I said, TOS Kirk gets away with a lot more rule-breaking than a real Navy Captain would. However, note that in Amok Time, he's violating orders to attend a ceremony that two other Starships are already attending. If a risk to his career, it's still a defensible command decision to protect the life of his X.O. Actively sabotaging the Excelsior is worlds away, so to speak.

Rule breaking isn't order breaking. Breaking a direct order was the only charge allowed to stick on Kirk in TVH. Kirk and McCoy seemed to be having a very earnest conversation about the risk Kirk was taking in "Amok Time". It was not something to be done lightly at the moment.

Further, before deciding to go to Vulcan, Kirk tried to explain to the admiral as best he felt he should why he should be allowed to divert to Vulcan. However, it's made clear to him that what's going on at Altair is no ordinary matter. The Federation considers it a critical diplomatic mission. To send one less starship than promised could be seen as a slight that could upset the area, again. The admiral's last words to Kirk are, "You have your orders." McCoy thinks that ends it. You don't disobey orders of the admiralty. But Kirk rationalizes that one less starship at the ceremony is not that vital. So, he is not only disobeying a direct order, he's questioning the need for the order.

In TSFS Kirk did try to convince Morrow to let him go to the Genesis planet for Spock, but was turned down. His loyalty to Spock overruled the orders just as it did in "Amok Time".

As far as disabling the Excelsior goes, Kirk had no intention of letting anyone stop him from getting to Spock. Disabling the Excelsior only prevented a situation where it may have had to choice but to fire to disable the Enterprise, or the Enterprise even fires back to try to get away. It could've ended ugly. Comparatively, considering how that could've happened, and considering Spock was alive and safe, it seems defensible.

 

[nightwind1]

I advice Paramount to get real credible and intelligent science fiction writers like Micko Kaku or Neil deGrasse Tyson to at least write the story for Star Trek

I would not refer to Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson as science fiction writers. I am not really aware of them writing science fiction. They are both highly respected PhD physicists who have written science books, not science fiction books.

I don't mean sci fi book like Star Trek novels. Both men write books based on science hypotheses in other words what we see in our sci-fi films.

Both men have written books and published articles about time travel, wormholes, parallel universes. This are all still classified as science fictions.

Time travel, wormholes, parallel universes? In Star Trek?

Why, those would go against everything Trek stands for!

 

[BigJake]

Kirk and McCoy seemed to be having a very earnest conversation about the risk Kirk was taking. It was not something to be done lightly at the moment.

... and the Altair mission was hardly something to be taken lightly, absolutely. It's hardly satisfying to have Kirk defying authority if there aren't stakes, there are always stakes. It's just that in TOS, they're usually set up to be plausibly non-disastrous, whatever the Admiralty was expecting.

(IMO the real violation of this rule isn't "Amok Time," it's "Metamorphosis." Where Kirk entirely fails in his assigned mission but fobs it off by saying "they'll find a woman somewhere to stop that war." Because diplomacy is WimminzBizness, don't you know.)

Kirk rationalizes that one less starship at the ceremony is not that vital. So, he is not only disobeying a direct order, he's questioning the need for the order.

And luckily for him, turns out to be right. That's part of the "Kirk getting away with things no real Navy Captain would get away with" bargain.

In TSFS Kirk did try to convince Morrow to let him go to the Genesis planet for Spock, but was turned down. His loyalty to Spock overruled the orders just as it did in "Amok Time".

Except in this case, he now has (of necessity, as you correctly point out) to actively sabotage an important Starfleet vessel to carry out his plans. Which not Amok Time nor any other TOS instance of "Kirk being a bit of a maverick" required, for good reason.

 

[Harbinger]

Into Darkness is a much better written movie than Gravity. I expect that if Gravity is remembered at all it will be for the nice visuals and nothing more. And I was so excited for Gravity before I saw it.

I also don't think conference room scenes are necessarily bad for a trek movie. There's a lot of movies out there that do quite well with scenes that are just people talking. If they were that bad the ratings of the TV series wouldn't have been as good.

They should have one Star Trek movie where it's just the entire crew sitting around a conference table talking about what to do. Star Trek: Downfall.

 

[Opus]

Good stuff going on in this thread!

I too highly recommend Best Destiny. That book changed how I viewed Kirk as Captain and how passionate he was about losing any member of his crew. When a book delves that deep into a character that it literally changes how you view them, that it makes you go back and rewatch those old episodes with a fresh perspective, it's a keeper. It's one of my favorites.

 

[Harbinger]

I would not refer to Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson as science fiction writers. I am not really aware of them writing science fiction. They are both highly respected PhD physicists who have written science books, not science fiction books.

I don't mean sci fi book like Star Trek novels. Both men write books based on science hypotheses in other words what we see in our sci-fi films.

Both men have written books and published articles about time travel, wormholes, parallel universes. This are all still classified as science fictions.

Time travel, wormholes, parallel universes? In Star Trek?

Why, those would go against everything Trek stands for!

I love Michio Kaku. He always talks about science and entertainment and usually references things like Star Trek, The Matrix, Mass Effect, etc. While I'm sure they could possibly write some great science fiction (many have!) they also serve as consultants for various movies and television.

 

[BigJake]

he now has (of necessity, as you correctly point out) to actively sabotage an important Starfleet vessel to carry out his plans. Which not Amok Time nor any other TOS instance of "Kirk being a bit of a maverick" required, for good reason.

To add a little clarity to this?

Sabotaging your own side's warships is not the kind of thing you have Your Heroes do because it's a wacky, consequence-free prank.

It the kind of thing you have enemies do because they want to destroy you.

 

[Franklin]

he now has (of necessity, as you correctly point out) to actively sabotage an important Starfleet vessel to carry out his plans. Which not Amok Time nor any other TOS instance of "Kirk being a bit of a maverick" required, for good reason.

To add a little claarity to this?

Sabotaging your own side's warships is not the kind of thing you have Your Heroes do because it's a wacky, consequence-free pranl.

It the kind of thing you have enemies do because they want to destrouy you.

That's the most useful possible connection you can have between Old and Prime Trek.

Or, Scotty did them a service by pointing out a critical engineering error in the configuration of the shiip. After all, didn't he call the Excelsior a bag of bolts? Hell, he should've received a medal.

 

[Timewalker]

Nu-Kirk is definitely drawn from the novel and comic versions of how Prime-Kirk's early life was and how his reputation is seen among others in the fleet: Smart mouth, genius, with a bad attitude that needs a kick in the ass and made to straighten up.

I don't understand why this Kirk is such a shock to Trek fans? We've been reading the young Kirk as a dick for thirty years in the novels, including Starfleet Academy: Collision Course by William Shatner.

Who is "we"? As pointed out previously, not everyone reads the novels. Or at least they haven't read all the novels. Or maybe they have but don't happen to care for them (ie. I really don't like the Diane Carey books). I haven't read any of the Shatner novels, and it's been decades since I regularly read any of the comics.

I mean the character is not realistic, if by realistic we mean how a real starfleet officer would behave.

TOS Kirk gets away with far more bucking of authority than any real Navy officer would -- even of the Royal Navy of the 19th century, which Starfleet is arguably more than half-modeled on. But he's always acting within the authority of his command and making command decisions he can defend. By contrast:

You seem to be saying that the movies went downhill in part because of this kind of storyline with Kirk, stealing the Enterprise etc..

Yes, hijacking a ship and sabotaging another one Because Friends was a bad sign; we're meant to accept them as Kirk-like actions (though give Shatner due credit, he successfully sold them as "getting old, lovin' my friends and not givin' a f*ck"), but overall they were really a sign to me of sentimentality starting to suck the franchise down its deadly maw.

Kirk says to Sarek that if he hadn't tried to save Spock, the cost would have been his (Kirk's) soul. He put that, plus his friendship for Spock, and his own conscience ahead of his career.

I mean the character is not realistic, if by realistic we mean how a real starfleet officer would behave.

TOS Kirk gets away with far more bucking of authority than any real Navy officer would -- even of the Royal Navy of the 19th century, which Starfleet is arguably more than half-modeled on. But he's always acting within the authority of his command and making command decisions he can defend. By contrast:

You seem to be saying that the movies went downhill in part because of this kind of storyline with Kirk, stealing the Enterprise etc..

Yes, hijacking a ship and sabotaging another one Because Friends was a bad sign; we're meant to accept them as Kirk-like actions (though give Shatner due credit, he successfully sold them as "getting old, lovin' my friends and not givin' a f*ck"), but overall they were really a sign to me of sentimentality starting to suck the franchise down its deadly maw.

Not quite sure what you mean. I guess you're saying the entire story itself shouldn't have been told because it took the characters beyond believability. But that was the story, so playing within its context, if Kirk believes there's any chance at all of finding Spock and he can be saved, shouldn't he try to save him? It becomes a rescue mission for all points and purposes. I don't see any sentimentality in it. He unknowingly abandoned Spock, and is trying to make it right.
Essentially being called old and irrelevant by Starfleet (especially after rediscovering himself in TWOK) may motivate him to go further outside the lines on Spock's behalf that he normally would, but in TVH, we see he was more than willing to accept his punishment for it. Before, he always had a plausible explanation for his acts. This time, he offered no defense.

Further, by that logic, jeopardizing the mission in TVH to save Chekov is another sentimental moment, I guess. Should they consider the death of one good crewman compared to saving the world an acceptable loss and move on? Would that be more in character? More realistic? Essentially leaving a wounded fellow soldier who can be saved back behind the lines instead of trying to retrieve him?

Kirk is not one to leave a crewmember behind if he can at all help it.

And in this case, it might be argued that it could mess up the timeline if Chekov were to die and the 20th century authorities discovered that he didn't officially exist anywhere.

 

[Opus]

Who is "we"? As pointed out previously, not everyone reads the novels. Or at least they haven't read all the novels. Or maybe they have but don't happen to care for them (ie. I really don't like the Diane Carey books). I haven't read any of the Shatner novels, and it's been decades since I regularly read any of the comics.

To be fair, I think Billj was speaking overall and not to any specific fan or group. The info is "out there", so to speak, for people to peruse.

No need to erupt.

 

[BillJ]

Who is "we"? As pointed out previously, not everyone reads the novels. Or at least they haven't read all the novels. Or maybe they have but don't happen to care for them (ie. I really don't like the Diane Carey books). I haven't read any of the Shatner novels, and it's been decades since I regularly read any of the comics.

To be fair, I think Billj was speaking overall and not to any specific fan or group. The info is "out there", so to speak, for people to peruse.

No need to erupt.

Yeah. I haven't read every novel but have been aware of the "young Kirk is a dick" trope for decades.

Orci and Kurtzman didn't make it up out of thin air to piss off fans.

 

[Timewalker]

Who is "we"? As pointed out previously, not everyone reads the novels. Or at least they haven't read all the novels. Or maybe they have but don't happen to care for them (ie. I really don't like the Diane Carey books). I haven't read any of the Shatner novels, and it's been decades since I regularly read any of the comics.

To be fair, I think Billj was speaking overall and not to any specific fan or group. The info is "out there", so to speak, for people to peruse.

No need to erupt.

No need to be snide in referring to a completely different issue in a different thread.

 

[BillJ]

Who is "we"? As pointed out previously, not everyone reads the novels. Or at least they haven't read all the novels. Or maybe they have but don't happen to care for them (ie. I really don't like the Diane Carey books). I haven't read any of the Shatner novels, and it's been decades since I regularly read any of the comics.

To be fair, I think Billj was speaking overall and not to any specific fan or group. The info is "out there", so to speak, for people to peruse.

No need to erupt.

No need to be snide in referring to a completely different issue in a different thread.

I have no idea what you're talking about?

But the "bad boy" Jim Kirk didn't originate in the novels:

CAROL: Listen, kiddo, Jim Kirk was many things, but he was never a Boy Scout!