Agreed, that especially felt like the filmmakers expected the audience to sympathize with Kirk just because he's the star and he was the star/protagonist in the other timeline and maybe because he's human and purportedly charismatic so he must know better than either a Vulcan or the older, drier admirals at headquarters.
For people who don't like the reboots
- Thread starter indycar
- Start date
Agreed, that especially felt like the filmmakers expected the audience to sympathize with Kirk just because he's the star and he was the star/protagonist in the other timeline and maybe because he's human and purportedly charismatic so he must know better than either a Vulcan or the older, drier admirals at headquarters.
Even though his TOS counterpart was often presented as being a similar way? I mean, Abrams takes it a bit over the top, but Kirk in TOS was often right, and would argue against flag officers who were often wrong.
I like nuKirk because he feels more flawed. Not saying that TOS Kirk didn't have his flaws, because he clearly did. But, nuKirk is making mistakes. I'm not always cheering for him, or thinking he is right. This is something that I honestly don't understand that because Kirk is the protagonist I, as an audience member, must agree with him all of the time.
Well, I don't. It's just my opinion, but I think that both TOS films and Abrams films allow for more evaluation of Kirk's behavior and not just blanket approval.
But I don't think that he was... I mean, sure, there's a degree of "trust us - this guy, the captain, he's really good," especially in the early episodes. But ultimately while he was portrayed as a maverick who didn't blindly follow any order, and while he came off as being a bit priggish at times, he was far far from being portrayed as the arrogant hot head NuKirk is.
And that's, in my opinion of course, the result of his backstory. Prime Kirk worked for his commission, had experience to temper his ambition, and earned his command. And that informs the character; how he's written, how he's viewed by the audience, how he's treated by the actor.
You know, that's the key: NuKirk deliberately has none of what made Prime Kirk worthy of the Captain's chair, and so he's portrayed and treated very differently. I get that. Really, I do.
But I'm sorry, it just isn't interesting to watch a self-righteous kid have have everything handed to him, and then strut around like he's the greatest thing to happen to Starfleet since warp drive was invented.
NuKirk may share many things with his prime counterpart: intelligence, talent, luck, charisma... But he's also cocky, reckless, dishonest, crude. This man is no hero in my book; and the lessons he has to teach, I wouldn't want my children learning.
For me that is another major error cos Starfleet by then was deluding itself that it was more NASA and less USAF. If Starfleet is not the defensive arm of the Federation then who is? A non military organisation based on an ancient Earth naval tradition for what reason, it ain't the merchant navy either.
I thought the Red Squad lot were graduates in their early 20's.
I think near the end of STID Kirk admited he did not know what the hell he was doing. But yeah, I agree with you, in the first movie he was a cocky, arrogant bastard. I don't see how reboot Spock can consider someone he considered a cheat just one film year ago, such a best friend he was crying over him. That scene had mega contrived written all over it.
Spock, McCoy and Saavik knew Kirk was a cheat in TWOK. They (like NuSpock) just prioritised other aspects of his personality as being more important.
Though I did always think Spock bringing it up again as he was dying was a bit of a passive aggressive jab. Couldn't resist a final attempt to get the last word, eh Spock?
Though I did always think Spock bringing it up again as he was dying was a bit of a passive aggressive jab. Couldn't resist a final attempt to get the last word, eh Spock?
I think early Kirk's flaws were more endearing. NuKirk's arrogance less so. I suppose I don't like him being rewarded because everything turned out all right despite his choices being reckless and almost certainly doomed to failure but for plot contrivance. On the other hand, I have to concede that talking computers into self-destructing is also a terrible plan so I can't be too precious. I get to pick my favourite TOS moments from a much larger selection.
Although Into Darkness helped me to empathise and sympathise with NuKirk a bit more, it still did little to convince me that he's a good leader or a good captain.
Although Into Darkness helped me to empathise and sympathise with NuKirk a bit more, it still did little to convince me that he's a good leader or a good captain.
NuKirk is an uppity delinquent who gets handed the flagship in the space of a week. That's just plain nonsense.
It is in good company with the rest of Star Trek.
Including a Vulcan who stole a starship and headed to the planet with the only known death penalty. Walks away without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Star Trek has always played fast and loose with military protocol.
I don't care. I don't care whether it's "plausible" in-universe or not, whether Trek precedence supports it or whatever rationale 'Trek traditionalists' happen to use to excuse rubbish like this. It's bad character development for such a fundamental figure, it's absolutely unnecessary stupidity for people whom are otherwise proven filmmakers and a poor way to conclude the film overall. Frankly, I remember leaving the cinema with the impression that I had not watched a film for grown-ups.
I remember leaving the cinema thinking I had seen a Star Trek movie. Make of that whatever you will...
This is certainly an agree to disagree moment. You don't like nuKirk and his journey and that's fine.
For me, I find him interesting, both as a character and as contemporary social commentary. I don't think he is a hero, and I don't treat him like one. I watched him, analyze him and try to understand his point of view, which is the same way I treat most fictional characters.
For my kids, I don't expect them to look to these films as "role models." They have plenty of real life role models to look to. I look at the films as an opportunity to study characters, and present different possibilities and different potentials.
I guess that is what nuKirk is to me-untapped potential. We know what he could be under different circumstances ("another life."). But this one has different challenges, and one's that may be less familiar to everyone, but still challenges that he has to grow beyond to reach his potential.
That is true but what frustrated me about NuTrek was that it's the 21st century and writers know how to do this so much better. The NuMovies excised most of the existing female characters and bumped Chekov's age to bring in yet another man. Yes, I understand why they wanted to do that, but why not just set it in 2262 and avoid violating canon? Why promote Kirk straight away when you could have him cockily announce to Spock's comment about him commanding a Starship in X years, "I'll do it in three." And then put a subtitle on and have the movie finish with Kirk marching smugly onto the bridge as a captain three years later.
They could have achieved the desired results simply, without offending as many fans about as many things. Those people that are not bothered by what they see now, would not be bothered by some minor tweaks that have the same net effect. I just thought the implementation was a bit slapdash.
Definitely the weakest, most contrived part of an other wise good story, a fairly big flaw but hardly the first or most memorable time we saw Spock or characteristics that he usually had.
His punishment was to spend 20 odd years never getting a promotion and working as Kirk's XO lol
He did get a promotion. He also became captain of the ship he stole, and went from 'no-even-in-the-service anymore to captain' in less than a few years.
Fortune (meaning Starfleet) favors the rule-breakers, it seems. That would explain Picard's static streak.
Fortune (meaning Starfleet) favors the rule-breakers, it seems. That would explain Picard's static streak.
Last edited:
He also went from Vulcan monk to the science officer of the new Enterprise without a lick of training.
I was talking more about training. Spock was able to come aboard a completely redesigned Enterprise and take over the science console without missing a beat even though Decker said no one else was rated on the new designs. Then, Spock is able to fix the new warp drive and get them to warp in no time flat. Even though the people who had worked on the equipment (including Scotty) were unable to make it work.
Star Trek (2009) wasn't the first time a character has played more like a superhero than a realistic military officer.
I wouldn't say I don't like him so much as I don't like what the writers did with him. Kirk had a LOT of potential. And redemption stories often contain a lot of value in and of themselves. I really would have liked to see him overcome his disadvantages and grow as a man and as an officer. It would have made the prize of command all that much sweeter.
You also said you find him interesting as "contemporary social commentary." Would you please expand on this? I'm very interested in your thoughts on this...
Similar threads
