I've never liked Kirk as a character - is this somehow blasphemy?

[indolover]

I think of all the captains, Kirk is the one i could not picture as a real life person. picard, yes. There are people who like archaeology, Shakespeare, philosophy, or who are skilled at resolving conflicts.

Sisko, again yes. There are people in the real world who are bold in their persona, like to cook, are single fathers, or who are militarily skilled.

Janeway, yet again, yes. Plenty of people have an interest in science, or like coffee a lot.

But Kirk was not somebody one could relate to. Having quirks such as Earl Grey Tea, Raktajino, or black coffee, is something that most people in the real world have. All we ever saw of Kirk was him chasing women or being charismatic.

 

[Finn]

No, just as I'd be ok with someone disliking at least one of ANY trek actors/characters even Spock. Nobody has to like a specific person, real or not.

 

[The Wormhole]

But Kirk was not somebody one could relate to. Having quirks such as Earl Grey Tea, Raktajino, or black coffee, is something that most people in the real world have. All we ever saw of Kirk was him chasing women or being charismatic.

Chasing women and being charismatic is something people in the real world do, but I've yet to meet anyone who drinks Raktajino.

 

[RyuRoots]

Why would that be blasphemy? What, because he's from TOS? Because he's an iconic character? Frankly, that's a ridiculous thing to think. I don't care for TOS in general much myself, and I didn't care for Kirk at all until the TOS movies with few exceptions.

 

[indolover]

But Kirk was not somebody one could relate to. Having quirks such as Earl Grey Tea, Raktajino, or black coffee, is something that most people in the real world have. All we ever saw of Kirk was him chasing women or being charismatic.

Chasing women and being charismatic is something people in the real world do, but I've yet to meet anyone who drinks Raktajino.

but what did we know about Kirk? who were his parents? did he have any siblings? what were his hobbies/interests?

The point about Rakjatino/Sisko is that it made Sisko a believable character. Most in the world have a favorite drink, or favorite food. Apart from being charismatic and a ladies man, Kirk had no real depth.

 

[Sector 7]

Yes, it is blasphemy. Come on... you knew somebody was going to say it.

We all have our favorites. Mine happens to be Kirk.

but what did we know about Kirk? who were his parents? did he have any siblings? what were his hobbies/interests?

I think what you are really saying, indolover, is that the other captains have characteristics you like; therefore, they have more realism to you. I am a veteran who has known many military men like Kirk: intelligent, resourceful, skirt-chasers, etc.

Some things we do know about Kirk from TOS are:

- He is from Iowa, but his family was part of a colony whose governor became a dictator. Many innocent people died because of Kodos, The Executioner.
- He has a brother, George Samuel Kirk, Jr. called Sam, who died during Operation: Annihilate
- He has a very clear sense of right and wrong, not much grey area in between
- He is a man of action, but will also make a moving speech to persuade people
- He is highly intelligent and can beat the logical Mr. Spock at chess
- He advanced to become StarFleet's youngest captain
- He understands his role as policeman, explorer and ambassador while patrolling the galaxy for the Federation
- He has fallen in love- which did not work out, his first love has become his ship, the Enterprise, which means women come secondary to his main love

There are others, I am sure, but these are standouts. All of those points came out onscreen during the original series. I did not include things we learned later during the movies or in books, novels or writer comments.

 

[Diddle]

The notion of people believing that just because it's the original you're not allowed to dislike it is beyond me. Everyone is entitled to a opinion and not liking something of TOS won't make you less of a Star Trek fan. I don't care for almost everything TOS-related, and Kirk is just meh for me, you know, I don't dislike him, just don't particularly care.

 

[Withers]

I've yet to meet anyone who drinks Raktajino.

Hello. My name is Philip They make what is called Raktajino at a place called Cellar Door and every time I pass it I have one. They claim it is essentially a glass full of ultra fine, extremely robust African blend espresso (I think...I've got that right) with Chai flavoring. It's kind of... thick for coffee actually. You can kind of chew it. Either way one cup of that stuff and I don't care how hardcore a coffee drinker you are- you'll be extremely energized for several hours (before a very debilitating crash.)


As to the OP, I don't care much for Kirk either, though he doesn't particularly bother me either. That's how it is for the TOS cast; I just don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I don't think its blasphemy, I think its your opinion and its every bit as valid as someone disliking Sisko or Janeway or Guinan or Trip or whoever. "Thank you for starting out in 1964 TOS. We appreciate all the stuff that came after ward." Enough said.

-Withers-​

 

[kitsune]

I never had any interest in Kirk, and couldn't really say why, but he does seem awfully two-dimensional when compared to the other lead characters, at least in the sense that he doesn't seem to have any interests of his own (besides womanizing).

 

[Teiwaz]

I think it's the dialogue cheesyness that sometimes makes Kirk a little 2D. Nobody says the same thing about Spock 'cause Leonard Nimoy just has this 'presence'. I just watched an episode of TOS after a particular Family Guy episode - they were spot on with that speech thing.

Obviously the quality of the writing is waaay better in STNG, DS9 and Voy. How many episodes does Kirk fight something during the show and get his shirt ripped, and can you see Picard, Sisko or (good grief) Janeway doing the same thing?

I thought Archer was a bit vague as a character tho.

 

[A beaker full of death]

All we ever saw of Kirk was him chasing women or being charismatic.

Might want to pay a little more attention to the show.
Frankly, most of the people I know are like Kirk. But then again, I come from a generation that seeks to exceed its limitations rather than embrace them. We strive. We're interesting. We really don't give a shit what brand of tea we drink.

Of course, that's why our Superman was something to aspire to. And the current one... oh that's right, he isn't Superman, is he? Just a guy in a red jacket trying to find his way in a confusing world.
I'll stick to aspiration, thank you very much.

Funny. The interactions between Kirk and his friends was the most naturalistic of any of the shows. Everyone on TNG had a stick up their ass. You talk. Now I'll talk. Now you talk. Did everyone take their lithium today? You talk.
I'm always amused how everyone in modern Trek knows everyone else's business. They seem to have no boundaries, no integrity as individuals. Curiously, this only started in season 3 of TNG. Prior to that, in TOS and TNG seasons 1 and 2, Star Trek presented fully formed adults interacting within the parameters of individual relationships and military protocol. After that it became 90210 in space.

Obviously the quality of the writing is waaay better in STNG, DS9 and Voy.

If "better" means simpler, lacking in shadings, depth, allusion, literacy and plot complexity and structure then I'd have to agree.
Think I'm wrong? Trace the etymology of the title "Who Mourns For Adonais?"

 

[Teiwaz]

We strive. We're interesting. We really don't give a shit what brand of tea we drink.

And every other generation either before or after yours does?

Obviously the quality of the writing is waaay better in STNG, DS9 and Voy.

If "better" means simpler, lacking in shadings, depth, allusion, literacy and plot complexity and structure then I'd have to agree.
Think I'm wrong? Trace the etymology of the title "Who Mourns For Adonais?"

I agree many of the TOS episodes had really clever titles, but sometimes the cover is better than the book.
None the less, the show was rather formulaic. Not that subsequent versions did not fall into the same situation. The old 'technobabble solution to the crisis'.

The general rule for most episodes seemed to be - Enterprise arrives at planet for some reason (either they were pulled unwilling or whatever), encounter some being or beings that thought they were God or Gods, Kirk had a round of fisti-cuffs and they left. Early STNG had it's share of God-protagonists (but I'll never complain about Q).

Not that I think it's bad for this, good quality escapism. The theme of the show was about humanity and the individual. STNG seemed to concentrate on community, in that it lacked the loneliness of the individual in many ways. A seemingly disparate group found a sense of 'family', I know this was what drew more people to it and many I knew who were fans did not consider themselves into Scifi.
DS9 is more like a soap in many ways, its use of longer story arcs may or may not be completely due to B5 , although it was obviously related to the station on many other ways.
I thought Voyager was more like STNG in it was too twee, not really enough conflict.
Overall, the characters are bound to have fewer idiosyncrasies, coming from a society that has no or few social problems means the majority are sickeningly well balanced. DS9 having more non-federation crew had more ammo for a darker side.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I much prefer the writing on TOS, but alluding to classical mythology doesn't mean the writing is better. The show also used simple tiles like the Empath, Miri and Arena. While the other shows used titles like Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges, Where Silence Has Lease and Ex Post Facto.

 

[John200]

I think of all the captains, Kirk is the one i could not picture as a real life person. picard, yes. There are people who like archaeology, Shakespeare, philosophy, or who are skilled at resolving conflicts.

Sisko, again yes. There are people in the real world who are bold in their persona, like to cook, are single fathers, or who are militarily skilled.

Janeway, yet again, yes. Plenty of people have an interest in science, or like coffee a lot.

But Kirk was not somebody one could relate to. Having quirks such as Earl Grey Tea, Raktajino, or black coffee, is something that most people in the real world have. All we ever saw of Kirk was him chasing women or being charismatic.

Your joking right?

I think Kirk is the most human of all those people let alone a real person.

 

[Withers]

Frankly, most of the people I know are like Kirk. But then again,I come from a generation that seeks to exceed its limitations rather than embrace them. We strive. We're interesting. We really don't give a shit what brand of tea we drink.

If you are any evidence of what your generation produced I'm really glad I never bought Tom Brokaw's book. : |

Honestly, was such a personal attack necessary? So some people don't like Kirk or the POS he rode in on- big deal. Look at my personal hero Anwar; he defends Voyager left and right in spite of logical, valid, well founded examples of why that show was anything but up to par and he does it without being nasty and rude. You could take a page from his book. You could also try to wrap your mind around the idea that there are people who don't sit at the altar of TOS and they are not less or dumber for it. It just isn't their... cup of tea and that shouldn't be such a big deal to warrant such drive-by.

-Withers-​

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I much prefer the writing on TOS, but alluding to classical mythology doesn't mean the writing is better.

Indeed; the titles as well as rather strained allusions to Shakespeare in a number of episodes were more pretentious than literate - and Meyer carried that to the point of self-parody with his Trek movies.

 

[Nerys Myk]

He's not from the generationBrokow wrote about. His generation (and mine) are the kids that generation produced. We brought you hard rock, disco, questionable fashion choices and what we thought was rebellion. We're also just as likely to prefer one product over another as any other generation.

 

[Saito S]

Frankly, most of the people I know are like Kirk.

I have never in my life met anyone who has more than a little bit in common with Kirk.

But then again, I come from a generation that seeks to exceed its limitations rather than embrace them. We strive. We're interesting. We really don't give a shit what brand of tea we drink.

Of course, that's why our Superman was something to aspire to. And the current one... oh that's right, he isn't Superman, is he? Just a guy in a red jacket trying to find his way in a confusing world.
I'll stick to aspiration, thank you very much.

Please tell me I'm misinterpreting this, because it reads like you are saying that those who are part of the generation that grew up with Kirk are superior (not simply as Trek fans, but as people) to those who are part of the generation that grew up with Picard.

Funny. The interactions between Kirk and his friends was the most naturalistic of any of the shows.

Except when it wasn't. Which was just as often as when it was. Slightly more so, IMO.

Everyone on TNG had a stick up their ass. You talk. Now I'll talk. Now you talk. Did everyone take their lithium today? You talk.

Your gross exaggeration of their stuffiness notwithstanding, said stuffiness IS one of TNG'S biggest weaknesses, I'll grant. But all of the shows have such weaknesses, including TOS.

I'm always amused how everyone in modern Trek knows everyone else's business. They seem to have no boundaries, no integrity as individuals.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here.

Curiously, this only started in season 3 of TNG. Prior to that, in TOS and TNG seasons 1 and 2, Star Trek presented fully formed adults interacting within the parameters of individual relationships and military protocol. After that it became 90210 in space.

TNG season 3 is when Star Trek finally became much more believable, and FAR more engaging, if you ask me. Among what came before that (all of TOS and S1&2 of TNG), there were great episodes here and there, but it was all punctuated by far too much cheesy, over-the-top, hammy goofiness for me.

If "better" means simpler, lacking in shadings, depth, allusion, literacy and plot complexity and structure then I'd have to agree.

I'm gonna take a wild, wild guess that by "better", Teiwaz meant "better." Now, that's just his opinion (and mine), and it's no more or less valid than yours.

Think I'm wrong? Trace the etymology of the title "Who Mourns For Adonais?"

An episode title? What does that matter? That's got to be the LEAST important element when breaking down what makes a great ep great, or what makes a terrible ep terrible.

And no, you are not "wrong." You are not "right", either. As others in this thread have pointed out, not every Trek fan thinks TOS was the best, or even that it was all that good. I personally think TNG and DS9 are better in literally every way. You are certainly free to disagree, but you are not "more correct" than me.

 

[Withers]

He's not from Brokow's Generation. His generation (and mine) are the kids that generation produced. We brought you hard rock, disco, questionable fashion choices and what we thought was rebellion. We're also just as likely to prefer one product over another as any other generation.

Really? I assumed you and I were approximately the same age. For some reason your posts remind me of this guy I went to college with. (I hope that isn't wildly offensive. I didn't mean it to be.) Anyway, thanks for the rock, thanks for platform shoes (I'm short), thanks for the questionable fashion choices and you'll be happy to know the idea of false rebellion lives on (we call it being "emo").

But as for the snide implications and unfair assumptions? Keep 'em. We've got each other and what mass media tells us to think of ourselves for that.

 

[Sector 7]

Frankly, most of the people I know are like Kirk. But then again,I come from a generation that seeks to exceed its limitations rather than embrace them. We strive. We're interesting. We really don't give a shit what brand of tea we drink.

If you are any evidence of what your generation produced I'm really glad I never bought Tom Brokaw's book. : |

a beaker full of death did not insult anyone. He merely described our generation. We cannot help it if that makes you feel inferior to the point of being insulted. beaker did a very good job of detailing our generation's ideals, if it does not apply to you... so what?
I, too, could not care less which beverage is a captain's favorite drink. The drink does not make the captain, the ideals and motivations do. Kirk made things happen. He would listen to his advisors then do something. He did not rule by committee and did not tolerate well those paper-pushers who were clueless about real life. I agree with that. His only ships counselor was a doctor who had no problem telling Kirk he was full of crap when the need arose. Yet Kirk also had more loyalty from his crew than any other captain in Trek.

For the record, Kirk likes Saurian brandy... a captain's drink. No latte, tea or synthehol.