I see it differently: The idea of Kirk as the sex crazed alien-STD infected guy in fan jokes and webcomics, is just a bit of unflattering fan-humor that should not have been referenced in the film, any more than some base fan humor about Batman sounding constipated should be in something like The Dark Knight. When writers handle a beloved franchise, they do well when they accept it on it's own terms, conceits and all. That means accepting that Kirk is a chivalrous gentleman, but also falls for the ladies. Not reducing him to a dishonest or manipulative philanderer, as in the more cruel jokes. The way he was having one-night stands all over the place with people he barely knew seemed more like the latter.
Well they aren't integral guest stars. They are background characters. No different than scantily clad extras in various TOS episodes that had no lines and no development. Not all roles are created equal.
But he did have one night stands with people he barely knew. You'e seen TOS right. As I said, he's character in an episodic TV show. Goes with the territory.
You are stretching it a bit here; because of course Kirk's lovers in TOS were never background dancers. Plenty of episodes in which there were "girls-of-the-week", such as [SIZE=4]Helen Noel, Marla McGivers, Marlena Moreux, all had substantial roles.[/SIZE]
What I'm saying is those girls were not the "girls-of-the-week" in the film, they were the background characters. Carol is the "girl-of-the-week" in STID, not the cat girls. Not all roles are created equal. The cat girls don't need backstory and motivation for one brief scene,
I didn't really wanna get into one of these back and forth things, which seems to happen every time I come on these forums, but as my last point; isn't this a case of reading into things what you want to see? I mean, we never even see a single person have sex in the entire run of TOS, but you are convinced Kirk fucked them and dumped them? I can already hear what people's responses to that observation will be. "What world do you live in? Guys only care about fucking." What is up with this? How certain points about nuTrek seem to just end up coming down to "all humans are shit, and there is no REAL chivalry, and nuTrek shows it how it is?" I apologize if that's not where you are personally heading Nerys, but I've seen that kinda thing more than a few times, whether it's debating Star Trekian economics or utopian themes - a kind of attrition campaign where people start asserting their view of human fidelity is god-given and bullet proof. I may be wrong, but I disagree that the evidence we saw in TOS necessarily implies a dishonest philanderer.
...and basically, it doesn't matter, and I don't know why I end up debating things like this for 20 minutes instead of just living life.
It's a discussion board, of course there will be a back and forth thing. It's what makes a discussion. What the point of bring up a topic if not to discuss it and exchange ideas? Fuck them and dump them? No. But Kirk's a man on the move, he's not going to be settling down. Most episodes take place in a short time span, often days or even less. Kirk falls in love, things happen and then he moves. on. Sometime the end is tragic and some times it's not. Sex in TOS was usually implied, due to the censorship of the time. The most famous example is in "Wink of An Eye". These days sex is often frankly discussed and portrayed on TV and in the movies.
I'm not sure I completely agree, though I appreciate you explaining your point of view to me. But, I don't see it as funny in the way that you do. I think that nuKirk is a rebel, he is caviler and that applies in his romantic life as well. There is a whole different tone to nuKirk in that he feels far rougher, and quick to run off, and is afraid of commitment. I don't find any of that funny, but I find it intriguing on a character level. I don't think that it is supposed to be making light of his sexual relationships, but a reflection of his broader character growth and what he could become, where Kirk is more mature, more committed, and more serious. Also, as a side note, Kirk's sexual life is kind of a nonissue to me. Prime Kirk had plenty of relationships, implied or exposited, and only two where treated with any real significance-Edith Keeler and Carol Marcus. The rest are, as Nerys stated, girls of the week that Kirk moves on from rather quickly. Do I think that it is to the same degree as it is overhyped in jokes or pop culture? No, but then this is a Captain Kirk who is more mature and more disciplined. This is definitely a moment where I think different people will see it differently, but I don't see nuKirk's romantic life as funny, but a symptom of a larger character growth that needs to happen.
Thats kinda the thing though - every love interest that I can remeber in TOS was a major part of the story. I cant think of a single time they werent afforded a pride of place. They were never just a 10 second joke. I guess that change didn't really sit too well with me either; but a lot of entertainment seems to trivialise sexual love these days - I just never expected it from a 'stately' franchise like Star Trek, that thoughtfully focuses on what it means to be human and so on. I can see both points of view; although I do think the cat-alien thing was definatly intended as a tongue-in-cheek reference to fandom jokes about Kirk - but which arn't accurate about the character (perhaps they are more accurate about William Shatner). When I was young watching the series, the feeling I got was that Kirk probably had a genuine love for the women he fell for, but probably had to have an emotional parting at the docks, so to speak, when the Enterprise cruised away and left the system. I guess I understand now that sexual motivations are a bigger part of things - but his loves seem like deeply passionate affairs, rather than one-night stands. But anyway, this topic seems exhausted
It's not exhausted. Consider that ST Continues wrote a whole story (White Iris) summing up Kirk's tragic love-life in narrative the way this thread is doing in a roundtable discussion. It's worthy of exploration. To get back on topic, what I see here is the tightrope that you need to walk when you reboot or continue the storylines of characters that have such legacy. What are the odds that the new show will retell Kirk/Spock/McCoy or any other existing character? The consensus is pretty low, right? The movies are already doing KSM and so it's unlikely that CBS will go there, even though legally they could. That being said, I don't think the question of how to handle the iconic characters, whether this or that behavior is suitably heroic or role-model-like is going to factor in. If you have new characters, there's no preexisting expectation for how they should behave other than generic expectations about Starfleet officers.
As I've said before, Kirk falls for a lot of these women at first sight. The relationship lasts days, if not hours. With some, like Lenore Karidian or Deela, he's playing an angle. Not all were like Edith, Mirimanee or Rayna, where Kirk formed a deep emotional attachment. Those tend to stick out more in our minds than the ones where Kirk simply moves on without a second thought, Of course this Kirk is younger. Still sowing some oats, not the older, more experienced, slightly "wounded" man we see in TOS.
I would also like to add to this conversation (and it may have been said before) NuKirk is a different version of Kirk that grew up without a strong male authority figure. His dad died the same day he was born and he spent most of his life without direction or discipline. It shows not just in his attitude towards women nut also in a more roguish command style than we know from Kirk prime. Not having a strong male role model growing up will impact a mans attitude towards women. Kirk has always been a ladies man regardless of what universe he is in. I see NuKirk's sexual exploits as how Kirk prime would have acted had his father not been there to be that role model.
Or maybe not. It's possible that he did grow up with a too strong male authority figure--the guy who was berating him over the phone for stealing the antique car as a kid may have been playing that role. NuKirk also was focused enough to ace aptitude tests. He may only become "the only genius-level repeat offender in the Midwest" at the time his prime counterpart went straight into Starfleet Academy...
Maybe, but I don't think he looked up to that man as a role model. I think Kirk was a man with raw talent that had no direction in life. It wasn't until a role model intervened (Pike) that he found direction and lived up to his potential.
If we all start looking at Kirk's childhood development in the new timeline, things will start looking unrealistic very quickly. Because, Kirk would have been an entirely different person, probably not even having anything to do with Starfleet, in a universe that had been changed so much (due to a butterfly effect). Just a few small factors would have driven him into a different career - let alone one where he apparently cheats in an identical way on the Kobayashi Maru (reprogramming it in both cases, depite presumably not even attending the academy in the same year). This has always been one of the least believable parts of the new continuity. I just ignore this, so that I can enjoy the movie for what it is.
But he was probably an authority figure just the same. If anything, if he was too authoritative, that might have driven Kirk to become a maverick/rebel earlier in life than his prime universe counterpart. It really kind of takes focus and determination to have that kind of raw talent, though. People with truly no direction in life usually don't have aptitude tests that are "off the charts." NuKirk may have been just as studious (and possibly an overachiever) as Prime Kirk while he was in school. The only thing this Kirk might have lacked was knowing what to do with himself afterward, unlike the original.
I'm not sure why Kirk's development is unrealistic. He lacks any drive or ambition beyond self interest. As for the Kobayashi Maru test, in Prime continuity he reprogrammed it in a way that he was never, ever, caught. In nuTrek, Kirk's arrogance results in him just reprogramming it because he can. I tend to agree. I think he did things that came fairly easy to him, but at the end of it all, he didn't see any reason to continue on in to Starfleet. There was no ambition to become better.
So re-watching some of Fuller's Trek episodes it stuck me that a full half of them are crummy. Not that it worries me at all, I'm still very happy with the news. Just funny is all.
It's been noticed before - which is why I was surprised how universally positive his reception was, both here and on Reddit. But I guess, after knowing his work on Hannibal, and seeing him genuinely geek out in that interview, its because he is a genuine fan (i.e. talking about his once encyclopedic knowledge of Romulan politics), has a strong sense of style (Hannibal looks beautiful), is appropriatly intellectual (witness his description of his awakening to film with Alien's psycho-sexual themes for example), seems to be a humanist who supports the general Trekian worldview, etc. That already seems to put him well ahead of a lot of the competition - although I would have been interested to see what Seth MacFarlane or J Michael Straczynski might have brought to the show. Who he hires for his writing staff will be very interesting. Whether he consults with NASA, or has a science adviser will be interesting.