Did JJ ruin Kirk?
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
I have very much enjoyed this video and his analysis. I agree with it 100 percent, as I think Kirk is going through a powerful growth and change in the films.
I haven't finished the video, because I thought his first video was stupid as hell, and I really fucking hate the condescending tone of these videos.
That being said, for me personally Chris Pine's Kirk was probably the best part of JJs movies. Everyone was so wrapped up with how much Quinto looked like young Nimoy. But when the movie came out, I was actually way more impressed with Pine's Kirk. Because he found a way to portray the character to be instantly recognizable as Kirk, without trying to in any way copy William Shatner's mannerism.
I also really liked the character arc Kirk went through in the first movie. Him getting promoted to Captain in the end was certainly rushed. But in the end of the day, I personally felt it was rightfully earned. My biggest complaint was that they just copy-and-pasted his entire character arc from the first movie in Into Darkness again, where he has to again learn to be a good captain. I would have much more preferred if they had actually advanced his character arc in the second movie, instead of retreat it from the first movie. But even then, Pine's acting and JJ Abrams directing elevated what is arguibly a weak script into a compelling performance.
That being said, for me personally Chris Pine's Kirk was probably the best part of JJs movies. Everyone was so wrapped up with how much Quinto looked like young Nimoy. But when the movie came out, I was actually way more impressed with Pine's Kirk. Because he found a way to portray the character to be instantly recognizable as Kirk, without trying to in any way copy William Shatner's mannerism.
I also really liked the character arc Kirk went through in the first movie. Him getting promoted to Captain in the end was certainly rushed. But in the end of the day, I personally felt it was rightfully earned. My biggest complaint was that they just copy-and-pasted his entire character arc from the first movie in Into Darkness again, where he has to again learn to be a good captain. I would have much more preferred if they had actually advanced his character arc in the second movie, instead of retreat it from the first movie. But even then, Pine's acting and JJ Abrams directing elevated what is arguibly a weak script into a compelling performance.
I think they did a decent job with most of the characters. Kirk in particular was impressed me in the new movies. A lot of the original personality traits were there and made even more interesting and complex as he was raised with no strong family and rushed into command way too soon for his own good. Can't wait to see where they go with his character this time around.
I like JJ's version of Kirk.
I'm reminded a TNG episode, Thine Own Self, where Riker tests Deanna's capability to command the Enterprise by making her realize sometimes she has to sacrifice a lot for the greater good of the ship. In Deanna's case, that meant making the hard call that may potentially send Geordie to his death rather than protect Geordie because he's a friend.
Deanna's final solution was the same as Spock's solution in The Wrath of Khan. Sacrifice the person best able to complete the job, for the greater good of the ship and crew. Be around to face any further threat the ship may face. It's harsh but in those circumstances, was arguably the right call.
Kirk's sacrifice in Into Darkness was senseless. Scotty, who's much more familiar with the engines, was right beside him. The ship was still in danger, the Vengeance was still around and so was Khan. What does Kirk do? Punch Scotty unconscious so Kirk could make the sacrifice instead of looking at the bigger picture. So what ends up happening is the First Officer having to stop Khan by himself, leaving no one to lead on the Enterprise.
The video referring to this as character growth just does not make sense.
Deanna's final solution was the same as Spock's solution in The Wrath of Khan. Sacrifice the person best able to complete the job, for the greater good of the ship and crew. Be around to face any further threat the ship may face. It's harsh but in those circumstances, was arguably the right call.
Kirk's sacrifice in Into Darkness was senseless. Scotty, who's much more familiar with the engines, was right beside him. The ship was still in danger, the Vengeance was still around and so was Khan. What does Kirk do? Punch Scotty unconscious so Kirk could make the sacrifice instead of looking at the bigger picture. So what ends up happening is the First Officer having to stop Khan by himself, leaving no one to lead on the Enterprise.
The video referring to this as character growth just does not make sense.
It's the public perception of Kirk. The ladies man. Though this is Kirk in his mid twenties not his thirties. So it's not that big of a deal. Wild oats and all that.
I thought Kirk was one of the few things he improved, really.
Sure, I would have preferred if the Kobyashi Maru thing was handled better, and I wish they'd show him being a tactical genius (rather than just relying on dumb luck and brute force). But for his character as a whole? He was one of the things I liked about the new movies. Him, Bones, Uhuru, and Chekov were markedly improved over the original characters as far as I'm concerned.
For characters I thought he "ruined?" The big one would be Spock. I really hate that he has mommy issues (though I totally get where they were going with that), and I think a big part of it is just Quinto. He was fine as Sylar, but he just doesn't feel like Spock to me. Way too young (in the way he looks and acts, not biologically), and far too illogical. Nimoy's Spock was a sex symbol for a reason; Quinto lacks pretty much all of Nimoy's gravitas as a Vulcan.
That said, the thing I think he ruined most was the Enterprise. Not because of the way it's designed (I think it looks fine and is nicely updated to modern aesthetic sensibilities; I really have no idea why people go off on it), but in the utter lack of character it has. In TOS, the Enterprise was pretty much another one of the characters. And that was something you really didn't see again (including in the Trek shows and movies) until first Farscape and then the new Battlestar Galactica. I miss that aspect of the original series.
Sure, I would have preferred if the Kobyashi Maru thing was handled better, and I wish they'd show him being a tactical genius (rather than just relying on dumb luck and brute force). But for his character as a whole? He was one of the things I liked about the new movies. Him, Bones, Uhuru, and Chekov were markedly improved over the original characters as far as I'm concerned.
For characters I thought he "ruined?" The big one would be Spock. I really hate that he has mommy issues (though I totally get where they were going with that), and I think a big part of it is just Quinto. He was fine as Sylar, but he just doesn't feel like Spock to me. Way too young (in the way he looks and acts, not biologically), and far too illogical. Nimoy's Spock was a sex symbol for a reason; Quinto lacks pretty much all of Nimoy's gravitas as a Vulcan.
That said, the thing I think he ruined most was the Enterprise. Not because of the way it's designed (I think it looks fine and is nicely updated to modern aesthetic sensibilities; I really have no idea why people go off on it), but in the utter lack of character it has. In TOS, the Enterprise was pretty much another one of the characters. And that was something you really didn't see again (including in the Trek shows and movies) until first Farscape and then the new Battlestar Galactica. I miss that aspect of the original series.
I don't get why people make out stuff like that is a detrimental or shallow character trait. At 'worst' it's showing a character has a harmless kink, which isn't exactly a surprise considering we've seen him fuck (admittedly humanoid) aliens.
I don't know, I think it's just a little too much like slut-shaming for my taste. 'They're enjoying completely consensual sex that's not to my personal taste. Automatic sign they're a person lacking in depth!'
Although I guess it would 'ruin' Kirk. His parents will never be able to get him a good husband now.
He did it himself because he felt responsible for getting his crew into the mess.
Exactly, this version of Kirk keeps throwing himself into danger to keep someone he cares about from having to face it in his place. If he was still feeling guilty over forcing Scotty off the ship I doubt he could have lived with himself for additionally sending him to his death hours later.
In his head, he had brought this down on all of his crew and already lost too many people. If anyone else was going to die to put it right, it would have to be him.
STID JJ Pine/Kirk maintained what Generations Shatner/Kirk did on the 1701-B. Intentional and accidental sacrifice, duty done.
But it makes for better drama. Lead characters and all that.
I disagree. Sacrifice with actual consequences makes for better drama. Kirk being brought back to life thanks to magic blood robs his death of any meaningful drama because nothing is really sacrificed in the end.
Similar threads
