Because.Yes.
Why?
I've never liked Kirk as a character - is this somehow blasphemy?
- Thread starter indolover
- Start date
Because.Yes.
Why?
Because why?
Just because. And if I have to explain it, well then what's the point?
This thread started out well in the first post... until someone disagreed. From there it is going steadily downhill at an increasing pace.
As long as you agree with the first post, you are 'more reasonable'. If you disagree you must write a long essay with many details and, of course, not disagree with anyone who agrees with the first post.
Since this is the pattern thus far, I am taking my leave.
As long as you agree with the first post, you are 'more reasonable'. If you disagree you must write a long essay with many details and, of course, not disagree with anyone who agrees with the first post.
Since this is the pattern thus far, I am taking my leave.
Yes it is but look at my avatar I also think Nemisis is the 2nd best Trek film!!
You don't have to explain it. Just as you apparently don't know when you're being screwed with.
Shatner's fans apparently still take themselves far too seriously I guess.
Probably a smart move. I've never quite understood why the Kirk only fans take this stuff so seriously, but that's the way it is.
Just be glad it's no longer 1994.
From what I can tell, the OP knew very little about Kirk in the first place. And the conversation went downhill when people started playing "my dad can beat up your dad" and "when I was boy..."
Yes.
Why?
Ye gods.
Just for the record, I believe I am from the same generation as Sector 7 and Beaker, that is, if we're talking about the generation that saw TOS either on its first run or very soon thereafter. For the record, I was fairly young - my mom let me stay up past my usual bedtime to watch Trek
- really - but I did see it on its first run. But despite this (or maybe because of this?), I never cared that much for Kirk, either. Not all the time but most of the time, he was portrayed as too much of a swashbuckler, a card-carrying Our Hero, and thus he didn't usually seem all that real to me, and he wasn't relatable either.BTW, I am talking here about the TV Kirk, not the movie Kirk. Just to make that clear.
Maybe I just don't get out enough, but I've never run into anybody like Kirk...or Errol Flynn's Robin Hood or Captain Blood...or the Lone Ranger. It's not that these characters aren't fun to watch, because they are (well, not so much the Lone Ranger - I enjoy watching the others, though, at least in measured doses).
The thing about Kirk is that although he was given faults, they were all stereotypically heroic faults. Sometimes he bucked authority. Hero. Sometimes he chased women. Hero. Sometimes he chased women only as a means to protect his ship and his crew. Hero.
It's not that no real humans don't do those things, because of course they do. But when all your faults are heroic faults, that's not being human, really. That's being a hero.
Unless he had undergone some alien-induced thingy, did he ever show a moment's weakness or vulnerability? And yet all humans are vulnerable at times, even the genuinely heroic ones. Did he ever just flat-out mess up - not like a hero but like a human? And yet all real people mess up, and most interesting fictional people do, too, and they really should admit it at least now and then.
Most importantly, did he grow over the series? No, he didn't.
And to me, all that made him less human. And therefore less interesting, frankly. It's an interesting irony that a pointy-eared person from the planet Vulcan was more interesting, more human, than the one who was supposed to be human.
And BTW, it is heresy for someone of my generation to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway: I agree with those who pointed out that the interactions between Kirk, McCoy and Spock were not always the perfect character moments that so many people try to say they were. They varied, you know? Sometimes they were great, sometimes they were OK, sometimes they were forgettable, sometimes they were just there, and sometimes they were downright hokey and embarassing.
I love the show, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a weekly TV show, and so like any other weekly TV show, it had its ups and downs. That's just a fact. Anyone who watches those shows and sees nothing but genius in any aspect, and that includes the Big Three, is not watching with a critical eye. He or she is watching with a nostalgic eye. There's nothing wrong with nostalgia so long as we recognize it for what it is.
I agree. I don't particularly like TOS myself either. However, I think that every Trek fan should at least respect it. There would be no TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT without TOS, after all.
Withers
Captain
I debate whether or not this is true. It isn't as though TOS was such an overwhelming success that it led to TNG. That's not even kind of how the time line goes. The ideas were always up in somebodies head and it took the right execution at the right time to lead them where they went. That TOS came first in 1964 is incidental if you ask me.
-Withers-
^ I have to disagree. The show was not a great success...but it went on in syndication, and on, and on, and on - and it became a phenomenon. Without TOS there would certainly have been scifi on TV (there was before, after all), but it might not have been Trek-style scifi, which I admit is my favorite kind of scifi. Perhaps somebody else would have come up with it...but maybe not.
Saying "B, C and D would not have happened without A" is probably an overgeneralization, but so is saying categorically "A is completely incidental to B, C and D." All Trek, whether it's Trek you happen to like or Trek you happen to dislike, is related. It all pulls from and borrows from itself a lot, and even when one series it differs sharply from other series in the franchise, you can't really say it's not related because it usually turns out that it was deliberately differentiated from earlier Trek.
Saying "B, C and D would not have happened without A" is probably an overgeneralization, but so is saying categorically "A is completely incidental to B, C and D." All Trek, whether it's Trek you happen to like or Trek you happen to dislike, is related. It all pulls from and borrows from itself a lot, and even when one series it differs sharply from other series in the franchise, you can't really say it's not related because it usually turns out that it was deliberately differentiated from earlier Trek.
Kirk didn't become a great character till the films, really.
Before that, he was okay, but I watched the films first as a kid. I think I'd have liked him less if I hadn't.
Before that, he was okay, but I watched the films first as a kid. I think I'd have liked him less if I hadn't.
It's unfortunate that the thread had a bout of "my generation is better than yours". Although I agree it is PC bunk to say "we're all the same", the problem with that particular post was its author's complete blindness to the strengths of other generations, as well as the fact that such strengths are not necessarily a characteristic of someone born in a particular year.
It's a very narrow view, divisive, and dangerous where it ignores the shadow. The "greatest generation" could also be said to be the most bigoted generation. And are there not generations that came before? Is our memory that short?
Human strength and integrity, and the desire to better ourselves, does not belong to any generation of people. Nor does human failing. Take any page out of any history book...
Now as for Kirk - though I admit I tend to relate more to Spock, or McCoy - Kirk is inseparable from that equation. I wanted to be Kirk in my 20's. The character has grown on me over the years.
As for writing, I think it's fair to say all the shows are all over the map. I watched "Who Mourns for Adonais?" last night. Good episode, but with a sexist opening sequence that made me go WTF?
As for tea, I've had to switch my earl grey to decaf, for health reasons, and though my screename may suggest otherwise, a desire to not be on a drug all the time.
It's a very narrow view, divisive, and dangerous where it ignores the shadow. The "greatest generation" could also be said to be the most bigoted generation. And are there not generations that came before? Is our memory that short?
Human strength and integrity, and the desire to better ourselves, does not belong to any generation of people. Nor does human failing. Take any page out of any history book...
Now as for Kirk - though I admit I tend to relate more to Spock, or McCoy - Kirk is inseparable from that equation. I wanted to be Kirk in my 20's. The character has grown on me over the years.
As for writing, I think it's fair to say all the shows are all over the map. I watched "Who Mourns for Adonais?" last night. Good episode, but with a sexist opening sequence that made me go WTF?
As for tea, I've had to switch my earl grey to decaf, for health reasons, and though my screename may suggest otherwise, a desire to not be on a drug all the time.
Very well put. Certainly there are general differences between generations (note to self: look up etymology of general and generation - surely those words are related?), but there is also HUGE variation within generations. So to make blanket statements is not only unnecessarily divisive...it's also bound to be wildly inaccurate.
You can find people of all ages who just adore Kirk - just hang around the BBS for a while and you'll find them. And you can find people of all ages who are indifferent to him or actually dislike him. To attribute this solely to some generational difference is just silly.
I'm pretty sure we have a gender difference here (note to self: add the etymology of gender to your little list). Women who admire Kirk, and there are lots of these though as I noted earlier I am not among them, don't usually want to be Kirk (as far as I know. But I probably shouldn't generalize about that, either.
) Spock was probably my first major crush, but even if he hadn't appealed to my romantic girlish heart, there were things about him that I would have wanted to emulate, I am pretty sure. In any case, what's absolutely definite is how individual one's likes and dislikes are on topics such as "How do you feel about this character" or this show or whatever.
No.
But the information posted above makes me question whether you've actually sat down and watched the original series. We learned quite a bit about James Kirk (driven student, suffered tragedies both as a child and as a young officer, likes Saurian Brandy, seems to dislike salad, safety of ship and crew are always his first priority) throughout Star Trek. And the reason we learned more about Picard, Sisko and Janeway was that their respective series ran, at least, twice as long as TOS.
Might want to go back and rewatch TOS... take a notepad.
I'm pretty sure we have a gender difference here Women who admire Kirk, and there are lots of these though as I noted earlier I am not among them, don't usually want to be Kirk (as far as I know. But I probably shouldn't generalize about that, either.
A logical choice. (Had to say it).
I'm not sure if that's all that different from the more direct statement of "wanting to be" someone. When I wanted to be Kirk, or whomever, it was not a literal thing. Except when I was really young. I was Batman.
Ben Folds nicely broke something of a taboo in expressing that sentiment about a woman - a song which you should be aware of if you're not already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7BUG8LOd8A
Yep. And it's interesting how it changes as we change. When I was the guy who wanted to "be" Kirk, I couldn't stand Janeway. Now I'd like to make her breakfast.
QFT. You perfectly summed up why I never really could warm up to TV-Kirk. Too much of the Designated Hero. (Now movies-Kirk seemed more human, and therefore I liked him better.)Just for the record, I believe I am from the same generation as Sector 7 and Beaker, that is, if we're talking about the generation that saw TOS either on its first run or very soon thereafter. For the record, I was fairly young - my mom let me stay up past my usual bedtime to watch Trek
BTW, I am talking here about the TV Kirk, not the movie Kirk. Just to make that clear.
Maybe I just don't get out enough, but I've never run into anybody like Kirk...or Errol Flynn's Robin Hood or Captain Blood...or the Lone Ranger. It's not that these characters aren't fun to watch, because they are (well, not so much the Lone Ranger - I enjoy watching the others, though, at least in measured doses).
The thing about Kirk is that although he was given faults, they were all stereotypically heroic faults. Sometimes he bucked authority. Hero. Sometimes he chased women. Hero. Sometimes he chased women only as a means to protect his ship and his crew. Hero.
It's not that no real humans don't do those things, because of course they do. But when all your faults are heroic faults, that's not being human, really. That's being a hero.
Unless he had undergone some alien-induced thingy, did he ever show a moment's weakness or vulnerability? And yet all humans are vulnerable at times, even the genuinely heroic ones. Did he ever just flat-out mess up - not like a hero but like a human? And yet all real people mess up, and most interesting fictional people do, too, and they really should admit it at least now and then.
Most importantly, did he grow over the series? No, he didn't.
And to me, all that made him less human. And therefore less interesting, frankly. It's an interesting irony that a pointy-eared person from the planet Vulcan was more interesting, more human, than the one who was supposed to be human.
And BTW, it is heresy for someone of my generation to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway: I agree with those who pointed out that the interactions between Kirk, McCoy and Spock were not always the perfect character moments that so many people try to say they were. They varied, you know? Sometimes they were great, sometimes they were OK, sometimes they were forgettable, sometimes they were just there, and sometimes they were downright hokey and embarassing.
Most of my favorite characters aren't people I want to emulate. But many of them are people I relate to/identify with: with some characters I most strongly relate to, it's not "I want to be her" (or him), it's more like "she (or he) reminds me of me in some ways"... which includes flaws and mistakes. Maybe there is always a little bit of an urge to also emulate the people we like in some aspects, but as for role models for the overall personality (wanting to "be" someone, rather than just being inspired by their success in some particular field), I think these are only needed in childhood and adolescence. So, while as a teenager I might have wanted to be like someone, nowadays I can identify with someone - feel empathy, imagine myself in their shoes, maybe write a fanfic from their POV (well, I haven't yet. But I might); but I wouldn't actually want to act like them in real life.I'm pretty sure we have a gender difference here (note to self: add the etymology of gender to your little list). Women who admire Kirk, and there are lots of these though as I noted earlier I am not among them, don't usually want to be Kirk (as far as I know. But I probably shouldn't generalize about that, either.
Last edited:
Similar threads
