Plot hole city: Part 3!
- Thread starter William Wallace
- Start date
- Status
They're all quite Kirkian, nonetheless, and I'd imagine that it would take very little time and effort to identify parallels to all of those situations in episodes of the original series. For example, Number 1 might be like Kirk driving the Constellation into the mouth of the planet-killer; Number 7 echoes Kirk dangling by his fingertips above a bottomless pit on planet Exo III before being pulled to safety by the gigantic android who'd up to then been pursuing him.Lol. Early TOS Kirk was indeed very good. I think later on, inlcuding many aspects of the movies, he gets praise for results and everybody overlooks the fact that half the problems were caused by his dodgy decision-making in the first place. The characters succeed because the plot requires them to succeed rather than through monumental tactics or sound decision-making.
It always reminds me of Team America 'saving' Paris from terrorists.
That's another problem I have with the movie. Kirk is heralded is this great hero, but let's look at the things Kirk does:
1) Almost killed himself by driving a stolen car off a cliff
2) Gotten beaten half to death by picking a fight against 4 guys, only to be rescued by Pike
3) Nearly gotten killed on the drilling platform, only to be saved by Sulu
4) Nearly fallen to death "skydiving" on Vulcan, only to be saved by Chekov.
5) Nearly been eaten by the snow monster after foolishly leaving his escape pod, only to be miraculously saved by oldSpock
5) Insisting on chasing after Nero's ship despite the Enterprise clearly being no match for it
6) Beamed aboard the Narada and miraculously survived a firefight despite being outnumbered
7) Luckily survived a fight with Nero's crew member, who conveniently decided to pick Kirk up by the throat (thus bringing him within reach of his gun), instead of simply kicking him off the ledge while he was dangling.
Call me crazy, but I don't see any leadership or heroism in Kirk. All I see is recklessness, stupidity, and a miraculous amount of dumb luck.
See? It's easy.
Now you try a few.
I'll tackle #5b: risking Enterprise to try to save Earth.
I think Ruk only haved Kirk up because Christine ordered him to do so... or was that a different scene.
It's true that writers often make our heroes perform stupid things in order to crank up the 'excitement'. The trick is not to do it too often.
Well of course they do. However, they don't usually get promoted as a result... except in satires.
No, that's the right scene. Christine did order Ruk not to harm Kirk, and I've got no reason for thinking that might not have been a contributing factor, but it's never been my impression that Ruk was simply obeying an order, but rather that he reached a decision on his own, and for his own reasons. His reasons for lifting Kirk up are, no doubt, different than Ayel's, but I think the two situations have enough in common to be seen as parallel, at least as far as William Wallace's list is concerned.
They're all quite Kirkian, nonetheless, and I'd imagine that it would take very little time and effort to identify parallels to all of those situations in episodes of the original series. For example, Number 1 might be like Kirk driving the Constellation into the mouth of the planet-killer; Number 7 echoes Kirk dangling by his fingertips above a bottomless pit on planet Exo III before being pulled to safety by the gigantic android who'd up to then been pursuing him.William Wallace;5307039[/QUOTE said:
See? It's easy.
Now you try a few.
Yeah, well, that makes it that much less believable that Spock would bet the ranch on Kirk's "leadership skills" to save the Federation.
Hey, be thankful I'm bringing it up here, and not in Plot Hole City Part 4
Hey, be thankful I'm bringing it up here, and not in Plot Hole City Part 4
Yes, we'll be patiently waiting to read what straws you grasp for for your next list.
Maybe for Quinto Spock (and even then that's questionable, seeing as how Spock kept grudgingly finding Kirk coming to the right conclusions -- logic =/= stubbornness), but Nimoy Spock, while usually noting the dangers, usually saw Shatner-Kirk do the same stuff and succeed. And in Unification, Spock references Kirk's "cowboy diplomacy" when he, Picard, and Data save the day with a rather cavalier plan.
So shooting down those Kirkisms as inconsistent seems to say that it's okay for TOS/TNG, but not okay for this film in particular.
But the series didn't make such a big deal about what an "amazing leader" Kirk was. Wasn't that the reason oldSpock insisted that Kirk beam back to the Enterprise without him, and take control of the ship by himself? Logically, there was no reason to assume Kirk was any more capable of taking on Nero than anyone else, but since the film equates "dumb luck" with "extraordinary heroism", they think it all works out, but it doesn't. At least, not for me.
I guess I just have higher standards than you
I guess I just have higher standards than you
And if that were remotely true, that'd be fine. But we all know it's not.
number6
Vice Admiral
Either you're joking or you never watched an episode of Star Trek.
I think both of our standards speak for themselves.
Yeah, let's go down the list--
TOS:
-one of the youngest captains in Starfleet history at age 31
-made first contact with the First Federation, the Gorn, the Metrons, to name a few
-discovered the first silicon lifeform
-had the largest file of temporal prime directive violations by the 2370s, usually in the line of duty
TOS movies:
-At 36-37, became admiral (which is pretty darn young)
-prevented Genesis from being used as an offensive weapon of mass destruction
-saved the Earth from the Whale Probe
-prevented interstellar war with the Klingons, ushering decades of peace
Really, even going only by the fact that he was one of the youngest captains ever and then very soon after became one of the youngest admirals ever says plenty about his leadership skills. For a show that supposedly doesn't talk about his abilities, the writers gave Kirk an extraordinary amount of feats that made him a living legend. You might be confusing Kirk with the Enterprise -- the show hyped up Kirk, but nothing was ever said about the Enterprise being the flagship or a ship of exceptional importance. Advanced yes, but not the kind of hero status that the NX-01, Enterprise-D, or even the Defiant had.
And lastly, if Kirk wasn't considered an extraordinary leader by TOS standards, just why would Old Spock ever take such a huge gamble on New Kirk? Because of more "dumb luck?" There's a difference between plot contrivance and the actual actions of the main characters here. Old Spock didn't predict New Kirk would get beamed into Nero's bridge or would be held over a ledge, but Old Spock predicted how New Spock would act under the circumstances. He knew Kirk would be capable of manipulating Quinto Spock; let's remember that Old Spock knows full well that his best friend manipulated the Kobayashi Maru, outwitted advanced AIs on several occasions, and has gotten the better of Spock and McCoy plenty of times in the Prime Universe. And Shatner Kirk also had his string of luck too: the Gary Mitchell fight, the Tholian Web, any given guard who just happened to look the other way, thereby allowing Kirk to judo chop him for a quick escape, and heck, the entire escape from Planet Genesis (arguably the biggest example of sheer luck in the entire franchise -- and completely and extraordinarily heroic given the epic scale and saving Spock).
Also of note, Nimoy Spock's faith in Shatner-Kirk's dashing heroism was humorously lampshaded in TUC, when Spock said that if he knew Kirk well enough, Kirk would already be successfully carrying out an escape plan from Rura Penthe. Cut to Kirk getting his butt kicked in a jail fight, but the point is: such a joke would only work IF Kirk had the kind of heroic reputation that you say Shatner-Kirk doesn't have.
It's almost as if Pine-Kirk is being held on a different, and probably tougher standard than Shatner Kirk; seeing as how one is in his twenties and out of the academy, and the other in his 30s and beyond with a longer and more impressive resume of feats, that doesn't seem rather fair (unless it is, of course, to bash the movie in any way shape or form imaginable). Believable for TOS/TNG, but somehow not okay for this movie in particular.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
