Is Kirk incompetent or just rusty?

[RyanKCR]

Kirk in TSFS is excusable. Kirk in TWOK is not. First, he thumbs his nose at a regulation that he well knows -- and that Saavik reminds him of -- and that is there to protect everyone involved. And for what reason? This isn't contacting V'Ger, where raising shields could be misinterpreted and cause an incident. This is a fellow Federation starship. If nothing is wrong, Terrell will understand why Kirk raised the shields: the regulation says to. If something is wrong, as it turned out to be, Kirk has safeguarded his ship and crew. There was absolutely no point to Kirk flaunting the regulation in this case.

But then, on top of that, Kirk ignores multiple warning signs and persists in keeping the shields down. First, Reliant transmits an explanation for their radio silence, which Spock's sensors determine to be a lie. No response from Kirk. Then Reliant raises her shields, which Spock detects and reports. Again, no response from Kirk. It is not until Reliant is literally locking phasers on the Enterprise that Kirk reacts and orders shields raised. At that point, of course, it is too late.

What Kirk demonstrated there was absolutely gross incompetence.

What I find interesting about that exchange is that due to the cut between the two ships the scene "feels" longer then it really is. It could be that the reports are coming one right after the other with almost no time to react. It would be interesting to see the scene without the cuts to the Reliant.

 

[NrobbieC]

Nothing like someone who doesn't like the character to chime in and skew the results...

Could be worse, I could be someone who's never seen it and chimes in to critique. As happens fairly often with ENT/VOY.

"They don't like it, so they must never have seen it". An interesting excuse.

That isn't what I said, I said fairly often which is true, I didn't say always or just as happens with which would've been wrong.

English is a difficult language to grasp, keep at it though.

 

[22 Stars]

I think he did the best with the resources available to him. In the case of ST III the better question is why didn't he beam over to the BoP instead of down to Genesis? He could have simply beamed up the people on the planet once he was there and secure the ship by taking John Laroquette by force if necessary.

If the Klingon ship had shields up, a transporter beam from the Enterprise wouldn't have made it through.

I'm talking about when the Klingons beamed over, if they could beam to Enterprise, I'm sure we could have beamed there at the same time instead of going down to Genesis.

 

[The Borg Queen]

Well we already know that the crew of Kirk's Enterprise were completely incompetent at their jobs, or even basic record-keeping. Re: Psi 2000 viruses and "holes in space", etc.

 

[CoveTom]

How were they incompetent at keeping records of the Psi 2000 virus? Seems like in the TNG episode "The Naked Now," they are able to access pretty detailed information on it, including the cure Dr. McCoy found.

 

[BillJ]

How were they incompetent at keeping records of the Psi 2000 virus? Seems like in the TNG episode "The Naked Now," they are able to access pretty detailed information on it, including the cure Dr. McCoy found.

And the hole in space could've been caused by shoddy record keeping by many, many different people over the course of a century.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think he did the best with the resources available to him. In the case of ST III the better question is why didn't he beam over to the BoP instead of down to Genesis? He could have simply beamed up the people on the planet once he was there and secure the ship by taking John Laroquette by force if necessary.

If the Klingon ship had shields up, a transporter beam from the Enterprise wouldn't have made it through.

I'm talking about when the Klingons beamed over, if they could beam to Enterprise, I'm sure we could have beamed there at the same time instead of going down to Genesis.

I think Kruge and Maltz would have detected Kirk and the gang beaming onto their ship and would have taken steps (such as cutting off life-support at their location) to neutralize them before they got very far (Kirk tried to secretly beam aboard a Romulan ship in "The Enterprise Incident" but was discovered almost immediately--thankfully, he was disguised as a Romulan at the time).

 

[R. Star]

Success is not final, failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts. -Winston Churchill

Seems applicable to Kirk's blunders here. Sure he made mistakes, but he endured and ultimately triumphed.

 

[GreenBlood]

Kirk is and always will be e.p.i.c., as in Every.Plot.Is.Captain-worthy.

 

[CoveTom]

Success is not final, failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts. -Winston Churchill

Seems applicable to Kirk's blunders here. Sure he made mistakes, but he endured and ultimately triumphed.

Really? In the TWOK example we have been discussing, Kirk violated regulations, ignored warning signs, and committed mistakes no 1st year captain should make. He eventually did defeat Khan, yes, but at the loss of Spock, Peter Preston, and countless other lives. In fact, had Spock not been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, the Enterprise would have been destroyed.

Seems a bit more than just the "oops, I made a mistake, but I pressed forward and got it right in the end" situation you're describing. Seems more like when he returned to the starbase he should have been handcuffed and court martialed.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

The problem is if you want to label Kirk as incompetent then you also need to assume that Spock, McCoy and the rest of the crew are also incompetent and/or stupid for following him and continuing to think highly of him. These characters have never been portrayed as mindlessly loyal to Kirk, McCoy especially has been known to call out Kirk harshly when he thinks he is doing something wrong. Same for Spock.

And that obviously isn't the case. Every Captain has made mistakes, and yes when you are the Captain of a starship these mistakes can lead to the loss of lives.

Space is dangerous and humans aren't perfect.

 

[Timo]

We might also look at this from the point of view of consistency. In TOS, Kirk often approached fellow Starfleet vessels with which communications had not been established.

- He did not raise shields in approach of the Constellation, and he only raised the alert level to red when deciding the fellow ship had been attacked.
- He did not raise shields in approach of the Exeter, and did not specify alert level when calling for alert.
- He did not raise shields in approach of the Defiant, and did not call for an alert of any sort.

None of those decisions backfired. Was Kirk rusty or incompetent on those occasions?

On the issue of firing back at the Klingons, Kirk had never felt he needed to get in the first shot before. His starship was superior to a full-blown battle cruiser in that respect: he could huddle behind his shields and wait for the enemy to make two moves to his one, then respond appropriately. He should have had nothing to fear from a mere Klingon BoP, had he been able to raise his shields as he planned to do. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have immediately asked for a second strike against the Klingons when the shields failed to work. Yet once again, issues of consistency arise: Kirk has never maintained a high rate of fire, and damage assessment has always been time-consuming.

As for the other issues raised, there's not much precedent to go by, but there are tactical realities to consider.

Beaming to the Klingon ship rather than to the planet? That would pit him against a superior enemy. He'd have to sidestep at least long enough to eliminate the Klingon boarding party from the equation.

Beaming the Klingons out into space? The Klingon commander would retaliate immediately, and the Enterprise would be lost; her loss was guaranteed in all cases, then. Kirk would have to make sure he wasn't aboard the ship when she was lost, and that would only happen if he let the Klingons have the ship for a while.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[R. Star]

Success is not final, failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts. -Winston Churchill

Seems applicable to Kirk's blunders here. Sure he made mistakes, but he endured and ultimately triumphed.

Really? In the TWOK example we have been discussing, Kirk violated regulations, ignored warning signs, and committed mistakes no 1st year captain should make. He eventually did defeat Khan, yes, but at the loss of Spock, Peter Preston, and countless other lives. In fact, had Spock not been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, the Enterprise would have been destroyed.

Seems a bit more than just the "oops, I made a mistake, but I pressed forward and got it right in the end" situation you're describing. Seems more like when he returned to the starbase he should have been handcuffed and court martialed.

Only in hindsight is every mistake obvious. You basically seem to have it out for him because what... he wasn't omnipotent? Chill out, we don't send people to gulags for any excuse anymore.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Star Trek II is about consequences, either of decisions made 15 years earlier, or those made more recently. Kirk dumped Khan on a planet and the consequences are illustrated in the film. Kirk takes a promotion and becomes rusty as a consequence. He misjudges a situation, reacts slowly and his ship is damaged and his crew hurt and killed. Yet, he learns from these mistakes. He starts on his way back to form when he remembers the prefix codes. From that point on, Kirk is working to stay a step ahead of Khan. He thinks on the fly, makes decisions to save the ship long for them to effect some repairs. Kirk's superior battle skills defeated Khan, not Spock. Khan just happened to set off the bomb and Spock's sacrifice saved the ship from THAT consequence. If Kirk made any real mistake is was in not firing more photons and blowing the shit out of the Reliant before the Genesis device went off. If it wasn't ready to activate, it probably would have just blown up with everything else.

The end of the movie, Kirk has shaken off his rustiness and feeling of useless age. He's reborn, back on the bridge of his ship. He's kicking ass and taking names, come to terms with the consequences of his actions, facing his life as it is and regaining his footing in a world he thought he'd left behind. That was the point of his entire story arc.

So, yes, Kirk was rusty. He got over it.

Star Trek III, he was betrayed by the damaged technology of the Enterprise. He fired enough to temporarily disable the BoP. He ordered shields up, but they didn't respond. At that point the BoP was able to fire. Automation circuits overloaded, there was nothing they could do. Not Kirk's fault.

 

[sonak]

Success is not final, failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts. -Winston Churchill

Seems applicable to Kirk's blunders here. Sure he made mistakes, but he endured and ultimately triumphed.

Really? In the TWOK example we have been discussing, Kirk violated regulations, ignored warning signs, and committed mistakes no 1st year captain should make. He eventually did defeat Khan, yes, but at the loss of Spock, Peter Preston, and countless other lives. In fact, had Spock not been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, the Enterprise would have been destroyed.

Seems a bit more than just the "oops, I made a mistake, but I pressed forward and got it right in the end" situation you're describing. Seems more like when he returned to the starbase he should have been handcuffed and court martialed.

Only in hindsight is every mistake obvious. You basically seem to have it out for him because what... he wasn't omnipotent? Chill out, we don't send people to gulags for any excuse anymore.

it wasn't in hindsight. The regulation clearly called for the raising of shields, and it was being pointed out to him while the ship was approaching.

This wasn't Monday morning quarterbacking, this was common sense. If a captain of a ship doesn't take obvious precautions, and that decision results in deaths, he is responsible.

I like Kirk as a character a lot, it's just a shame they had to make him look bad to drive home the idea that he was rusty.

 

[ITL]

I like what TV Tropes says about TWOK:

The subtitle of this movie could just have easily been The Deconstruction Of Kirk. Most of the core traits associated with Kirk and what their consequences in Real Life would probably be are examined and pulled apart. The adventurer who faces a problem on a weekly basis, solves it and promptly forgets it ever happened is suddenly brought face to face with one of those problems from a decade and a half before, and discovers the consequences of his thoughtlessness can be measured by the body count. The suave lady killer with a girl in every port discovers that one of his conquests (and it's implied that it's the only one he ever truly loved) has resulted in a son he's never known and who hates him. His tendency to play fast and loose with the rules leads to his ship being crippled and a score of dead cadets, all of which could and should have been avoided by simply raising the shields, and his trait of finding novel solutions to intractable problems ends the life of his best friend and trusted right hand. It also shows what happens when you take the dashing, devil-may-care heroic adventurer, let him get old and put him in a desk job: a full-blown mid-life crisis.

 

[Timo]

Yet what Kirk did was not particularly bad-looking. Rather, a regulation flying at the face of all Star Trek precedent and common sense was invented in order to establish the sensible actions as being "rusty" or "incompetent" - and not particularly successfully at that.

Clearly, raising of shields is a big deal in the Star Trek universe: ships and commanders will do almost anything to avoid this action, even in times of war and when operating in dangerous regions of space. For a regulation to demand that this action be taken merely because the situation is unclear is very difficult for the audience to swallow if they have watched even half a season of TOS (or, as is more likely today, a few seasons of modern Trek, or perhaps a newer movie).

If anything, this episode managed to make Starfleet look bad in comparison with its hero captain, even when following the regulation might have saved the day.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[22 Stars]

If the Klingon ship had shields up, a transporter beam from the Enterprise wouldn't have made it through.

I'm talking about when the Klingons beamed over, if they could beam to Enterprise, I'm sure we could have beamed there at the same time instead of going down to Genesis.

I think Kruge and Maltz would have detected Kirk and the gang beaming onto their ship and would have taken steps (such as cutting off life-support at their location) to neutralize them before they got very far (Kirk tried to secretly beam aboard a Romulan ship in "The Enterprise Incident" but was discovered almost immediately--thankfully, he was disguised as a Romulan at the time).

Oh it wouldn't be a stealthy move, more one of 'well we know most of them are beaming over here.. let's swap places with their crew in the transporter, overpower the few that are there and use their ship to rescue our people down there'

Certainly as good a plan as let's beam down onto a dying planet, with no real assurance that we can get off the planet.

This scenario did however set up my favorite shot and music cue, with the 'what have I done..' and Enterprise burning up in the atmosphere.

 

[Timo]

let's swap places with their crew in the transporter

This has never been indicated to be technologically feasible. The transporter handles one load at a time; at most, a bunch of people coming from the same location can be split in two batches and one put on hold ("Day of the Dove"), or two batches from two locations can arrive simultaneously on the same platform (STXI), but the simultaneous swapping of parties from two locations, one being the pad itself, never happens.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sonak]

Yet what Kirk did was not particularly bad-looking. Rather, a regulation flying at the face of all Star Trek precedent and common sense was invented in order to establish the sensible actions as being "rusty" or "incompetent" - and not particularly successfully at that.

Clearly, raising of shields is a big deal in the Star Trek universe: ships and commanders will do almost anything to avoid this action, even in times of war and when operating in dangerous regions of space. For a regulation to demand that this action be taken merely because the situation is unclear is very difficult for the audience to swallow if they have watched even half a season of TOS (or, as is more likely today, a few seasons of modern Trek, or perhaps a newer movie).

If anything, this episode managed to make Starfleet look bad in comparison with its hero captain, even when following the regulation might have saved the day.

Timo Saloniemi

Why is it difficult to swallow? It is very clearly an extrapolation from modern naval practices dealing with unfamiliar ships. You've got a ship approaching you that you can't establish contact with. You have no idea what their intent is. Now if they weren't coming near you, you could say "well you can afford to be a little relaxed," but in this case they were coming at them with no contact established. Kirk himself said it was "damn peculiar," which indicates caution is warranted.

And all that doesn't even include the message that they'd already gotten from Regula I, which indicated potential trouble as Kirk pointed out when offering Spock command back.

I don't know where you get the idea that raising shields is considered something to be avoided even in times of war. The only times it would be avoided would be if they were very low on energy or if they were dealing with a ship and they wanted to make very clear that they weren't a threat to them.


Neither example applied here. Enterprise wasn't low on power, and if Terrell HAD been in command of Reliant, no harm would have been done had Kirk raised shields because Terrell would have known why.


It just makes Kirk look lazy and stupid to not raise shields when there's zero downside AND it flouts a regulation.