Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?

[Christopher]

If you want to get into insanely magical devices let's start with warp drive. Toss in the transporter. There's many others. But, the characters are what matter the most. Kirk from the prime universe was a rule breaker as well but he was also disciplined, charming and open to new ideas and the value of others contributions. NuKirk is none of those. He's a hothead who was told by Pike that he was special and bought into it. The rules don't apply to him. TOS Kirk knew when to follow orders and when to break them. NuKirk doesn't think they apply to him at all. And why should he?

In other words, the new Kirk is exactly what popular mythology assumes the old Kirk was like. The filmmakers are just building on a pre-existing myth arising largely from the events of ST III-IV, which codified the image of Kirk as a renegade and rule-breaker. So if anyone's to blame for this movie's portrayal of Kirk, it's Harve Bennett and his collaborators, not J. J. Abrams and his.

Besides, different generations have different root mythologies and archetypes. Gene Roddenberry gave us Kirk as Horatio Hornblower, inspired by a series of novels that were popular in his generation. J. J. Abrams gave us Kirk as Han Solo.

 

[RookieBatman]

J. J. Abrams gave us Kirk as Han Solo.

Isn't that kind of like saying "J.J. Abrams gave us Star Trek as Star Wars"?

 

[kkozoriz1]

Actually, it would be more like Luke being able to defeat Darth Vader at the end of the first movie, becoming a full fledged Jedi with no training.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

No it only took a year later.

 

[JarodRussell]

In other words, the new Kirk is exactly what popular mythology assumes the old Kirk was like. The filmmakers are just building on a pre-existing myth arising largely from the events of ST III-IV, which codified the image of Kirk as a renegade and rule-breaker. So if anyone's to blame for this movie's portrayal of Kirk, it's Harve Bennett and his collaborators, not J. J. Abrams and his.

LOL, are you serious?

 

[Christopher]

Isn't that kind of like saying "J.J. Abrams gave us Star Trek as Star Wars"?

Well, we already knew that. Abrams' job was to take a franchise in decline and reinvent it in a way that modern audiences would respond to. And for better or worse, the primary influence on modern SF/space fantasy cinema is that little film George Lucas made in 1977.

But that's just style. In terms of character substance and emotional sophistication, ST'09 is far superior to SW:ANH. While the destruction of Leia's entire homeworld was a casual plot point whose emotional impact was completely ignored after Leia's initial reaction so they could get on with the running and shooting and bantering, the emotional impact of the destruction of Spock's and Nero's homeworlds drove the entire story of ST'09. And while the new Kirk may be inspired by the Han Solo class of hero, he has a more developed character backstory than Solo, and we can understand something of why he is the way he is.

A character type or a storytelling style is a trope, and as TV Tropes likes to point out, tropes are not good or bad. They're tools in the creator's kit, and any tool can be used well or poorly.

 

[DimesDan]

In other words, the new Kirk is exactly what popular mythology assumes the old Kirk was like. The filmmakers are just building on a pre-existing myth arising largely from the events of ST III-IV, which codified the image of Kirk as a renegade and rule-breaker. So if anyone's to blame for this movie's portrayal of Kirk, it's Harve Bennett and his collaborators, not J. J. Abrams and his.

LOL, are you serious?

He is and he is also correct.

 

[JarodRussell]

In terms of character substance and emotional sophistication, ST'09 is far superior to SW:ANH. While the destruction of Leia's entire homeworld was a casual plot point whose emotional impact was completely ignored after Leia's initial reaction so they could get on with the running and shooting and bantering, the emotional impact of the destruction of Spock's and Nero's homeworlds drove the entire story of ST'09. And while the new Kirk may be inspired by the Han Solo class of hero, he has a more developed character backstory than Solo, and we can understand something of why he is the way he is.

Only that Han Solo's character has an actual development, while nuKirk is at the end the same kid that crashed the Corvette, only promoted.

And what makes the comparison between them even worse is the fact that Han Solo is a supporting character while nuKirk is the main character. And yet Solo's character has an actual arc to go through while Kirk just stumbles into a big promotion at end, but doesn't evolve as a character at all.

In other words, the new Kirk is exactly what popular mythology assumes the old Kirk was like. The filmmakers are just building on a pre-existing myth arising largely from the events of ST III-IV, which codified the image of Kirk as a renegade and rule-breaker. So if anyone's to blame for this movie's portrayal of Kirk, it's Harve Bennett and his collaborators, not J. J. Abrams and his.

LOL, are you serious?

He is and he is also correct.

This is ridiculous. It is always the guy to blame who eventually did the deed, not someone who might or might not have inspired him to do it. If I go on a killing spree with a chainsaw, can I blame Michael Bay or Tobe Hooper? Nobody forced them to do the movie the way they did it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In terms of character substance and emotional sophistication, ST'09 is far superior to SW:ANH. While the destruction of Leia's entire homeworld was a casual plot point whose emotional impact was completely ignored after Leia's initial reaction so they could get on with the running and shooting and bantering, the emotional impact of the destruction of Spock's and Nero's homeworlds drove the entire story of ST'09. And while the new Kirk may be inspired by the Han Solo class of hero, he has a more developed character backstory than Solo, and we can understand something of why he is the way he is.

Only that Han Solo's character has an actual development, while nuKirk is at the end the same kid that crashed the Corvette, only promoted.

And what makes the comparison between them even worse is the fact that Han Solo is a supporting character while nuKirk is the main character. And yet Solo's character has an actual arc to go through while Kirk just stumbles into a big promotion at end, but doesn't evolve as a character at all.

LOL, are you serious?

He is and he is also correct.

This is ridiculous. It is always the guy to blame who eventually did the deed, not someone who might or might not have inspired him to do it. If I go on a killing spree with a chainsaw, can I blame Michael Bay or Tobe Hooper? Nobody forced them to do the movie the way they did it.

Hyperbole much?



Yeah, they chose to use the characterization of Kirk as presented in the Bennett films. Doing so is part of what film makers do. Especially those involved in a film frachise. If you make a Batman film you can use Burton, Schumacher, Nolan or Dozier as your source of characterization.

 

[ST-One]

In terms of character substance and emotional sophistication, ST'09 is far superior to SW:ANH. While the destruction of Leia's entire homeworld was a casual plot point whose emotional impact was completely ignored after Leia's initial reaction so they could get on with the running and shooting and bantering, the emotional impact of the destruction of Spock's and Nero's homeworlds drove the entire story of ST'09. And while the new Kirk may be inspired by the Han Solo class of hero, he has a more developed character backstory than Solo, and we can understand something of why he is the way he is.

Only that Han Solo's character has an actual development, while nuKirk is at the end the same kid that crashed the Corvette, only promoted.

No.
Much like Solo, Kirk too hears that 'call of duty' or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Christopher]

Only that Han Solo's character has an actual development, while nuKirk is at the end the same kid that crashed the Corvette, only promoted.

Exactly. And Luke Skywalker at the end of ANH is the same kid that gazed at the double sunset, only promoted to a hero of the Rebellion. It's a myth that every story requires its lead to grow and change. Some stories are about reaffirming the hero's identity rather than changing it. In ANH and in ST'09, the male lead's arc is one of proving himself worthy as who he is, and the second male lead's arc is one of going through growth and change through the catalyst of his interaction with the first lead.

For that matter, look at "Encounter at Farpoint." Does Picard go through any growth or change in that episode? No. Rather, he's put to a test and he proves that the person he was at the start of the story is already the right person to resolve the crisis of the story. Same with "Caretaker" -- Janeway retains her own core identity and principles all the way through and convinces others to come around.

And there are plenty of examples beyond Trek. Look at, say, Ferris Bueller's Day Off. The title character of the film isn't someone who needs to learn a lesson in order to resolve the story; rather, it's his essential personality that inspires other characters to learn and grow.

This is not "wrong." This is not bad writing. Some stories are about heroes who need to learn and change, others are about heroes who need to reaffirm the worth of who they already are, to prove themselves or inspire learning in others. The journey of change and the journey of reaffirmation are both hero tropes, and no tropes are intrinsically or universally bad.

 

[JarodRussell]

In terms of character substance and emotional sophistication, ST'09 is far superior to SW:ANH. While the destruction of Leia's entire homeworld was a casual plot point whose emotional impact was completely ignored after Leia's initial reaction so they could get on with the running and shooting and bantering, the emotional impact of the destruction of Spock's and Nero's homeworlds drove the entire story of ST'09. And while the new Kirk may be inspired by the Han Solo class of hero, he has a more developed character backstory than Solo, and we can understand something of why he is the way he is.

Only that Han Solo's character has an actual development, while nuKirk is at the end the same kid that crashed the Corvette, only promoted.

No.
Much like Solo, Kirk too hears that 'call of duty' or whatever you want to call it.

Let's see. He destroys a car because of an authority problem. He gets into a bar brawl because of a girl and then gets lectured by Pike. I guess this is where you think the hears the call of duty. And then he joins Starfleet because Pike told him to, and 3 years later, we see him again destroying something (figuratively, the Kobayashi Maru simulation) because he still has the authority problem. He then tricks himself aboard a starship, gets promoted to First Officer (again by Pike), has yet another clash with a superior officer which gets him exiled. Then he meets Old Spock who tells him he is the best Captain in the universe and has to return, and yeah well, one things leads to another and he stops having a problem with superior officers because he ends up being the highest ranking officer on the ship.

I don't see no development there. Yes, he rises in ranks, but he doesn't evolve. At the end he is still the same being as he was in the beginning.

Same goes for various other characters. Spock, Old Spock, Nero, Uhura. They all rise in ranks and switch positions, but they don't have an actual arc in which their characters develop. There is nothing they overcome. Not even young Spock. When we see him the first time, he beats up kids because he can't control himself, when we see him again, he beats up Kirk, because he still can't control himself, and when we see him in the end, he is still the same person only that there is no reason for him to explode. But the character he is at the very end of the movie would explode again if Kirk for example called his mother a whore.

 

[JD]

I always amazes me how people have to say that something is bad just because they didn't like. There is a big difference between I didn't like it, and that was bad. Sure, you generally don't like something if it's bad (unless it's so bad it's good), but that doesn't automatically make everything you don't like bad. There are plenty of movies, shows, and books that I don't like that I am more than willing to admit are still good stories, they just happen to be the type of story that I don't like.

 

[JarodRussell]

Only that Han Solo's character has an actual development, while nuKirk is at the end the same kid that crashed the Corvette, only promoted.

Exactly. And Luke Skywalker at the end of ANH is the same kid that gazed at the double sunset, only promoted to a hero of the Rebellion. It's a myth that every story requires its lead to grow and change. Some stories are about reaffirming the hero's identity rather than changing it. In ANH and in ST'09, the male lead's arc is one of proving himself worthy as who he is, and the second male lead's arc is one of going through growth and change through the catalyst of his interaction with the first lead.

For that matter, look at "Encounter at Farpoint." Does Picard go through any growth or change in that episode? No. Rather, he's put to a test and he proves that the person he was at the start of the story is already the right person to resolve the crisis of the story. Same with "Caretaker" -- Janeway retains her own core identity and principles all the way through and convinces others to come around.

And there are plenty of examples beyond Trek. Look at, say, Ferris Bueller's Day Off. The title character of the film isn't someone who needs to learn a lesson in order to resolve the story; rather, it's his essential personality that inspires other characters to learn and grow. I found Picard rather dull in early TNG, he started to get interesting when he started to develop. And maybe I'm used to TOS and TNG movies, where the main characters were constantly growing and overcoming their own flaws and misconceptions.

This is not "wrong." This is not bad writing. Some stories are about heroes who need to learn and change, others are about heroes who need to reaffirm the worth of who they already are, to prove themselves or inspire learning in others. The journey of change and the journey of reaffirmation are both hero tropes, and no tropes are intrinsically or universally bad.

Alright, that's another way to look at it, and now that you've said it, I agree with it. Although I'd say that a character that grows and changes is deeper (and in my opinion "better") than a character that stays the same, no matter what happens.

I find it terrible what they did to the Kirk character. He is a disobedient spoiled brat that stumbles into the Captain's chair without doing anything to deserve that. I mean yeah, it's everything a nerd can dream about, and maybe the writers did it because of that, but come on.

It's like I'd just stumble into writing a Star Trek novel, without changing my attitude about the sorta ridiculous submission guidelines. How likely is that?

 

[kkozoriz1]

It also struck me how it seems like (not necessarily IS, mind you) a shot at TOS Kirk. He didn't make Captain until he was 32. NuKirk didn't even finish at the Academy and even then he enrolled late and he made Captain at 25. LOOK! Our Kirk is even MORE impressive.

I'd hardly say that Harve Bennett made Kirk into a superman. He made mistakes. (I simply got caught with my britches down). The difference is, he learned from them.

 

[JarodRussell]

I'd hardly say that Harve Bennett made Kirk into a superman. He made mistakes. (I simply got caught with my britches down). The difference is, he learned from them.

The point was more that in TSFS and TVH Kirk was disobedient, and that apparently this image of Kirk has been burned into the people's memories. But I don't agree with that. And I also don't agree with the idea that Abrams & Co were "forced" to portray Kirk like this.

Abrams said in a couple of interviews that he was never able to identify with TOS-Kirk, and didn't think the kids of today could relate to him, so they changed him into a kid having family trouble, no idea where to go in the future, etc...

 

[kkozoriz1]

What about taking peoples expectations and turning them upside down? Show people that there's more to Kirk than a bad boy with an eye for the babes. Instead we have a two dimensional parody of Kirk.

 

[JD]

I'd hardly say that Harve Bennett made Kirk into a superman. He made mistakes. (I simply got caught with my britches down). The difference is, he learned from them.

The point was more that in TSFS and TVH Kirk was disobedient, and that apparently this image of Kirk has been burned into the people's memories. But I don't agree with that. And I also don't agree with the idea that Abrams & Co were "forced" to portray Kirk like this.

Abrams said in a couple of interviews that he was never able to identify with TOS-Kirk, and didn't think the kids of today could relate to him, so they changed him into a kid having family trouble, no idea where to go in the future, etc...

So they changed him into the kind of hero that is more popular right now, what a big surprise!

 

[Turtletrekker]

In other words, the new Kirk is exactly what popular mythology assumes the old Kirk was like. The filmmakers are just building on a pre-existing myth arising largely from the events of ST III-IV, which codified the image of Kirk as a renegade and rule-breaker. So if anyone's to blame for this movie's portrayal of Kirk, it's Harve Bennett and his collaborators, not J. J. Abrams and his.

LOL, are you serious?

He is and he is also correct.

Yup.

 

[Christopher]

For years, I (and KRAD, and no doubt others) have been lamenting the fact that the general public's perception of Jim Kirk as a hotheaded renegade is a myth based more on a couple of '80s movies than on the original 79 episodes in which Kirk appeared. As soon as it was announced several years ago that J. J. Abrams's movie would recast and revisit the original series characters, I fully expected that we'd end up with a Kirk who was more like the maverick Lothario of popular myth than the serious, scholarly, disciplined soldier and frustrated romantic of the actual episodes. And that prediction turned out to be absolutely correct. Although I can live with it because the alternate history presented in the film offers a satisfactory explanation for the change in his character.