• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spock News

I don't see it.

Here is something that might be worth considering:

Kirk is not a self-centered bastard. He doesn't live in a vacuum of his own personal pain; he sees the pain of others. Consider the wedding in TOS that became a funeral.

Consider Kirk's comment in TUC about never trusting Klingons, because they killed his son.

Do you really think that Kirk, or anyone else who had lived through the period of Discovery's Klingon War, would have been as restrained as Kirk was in 'Errand of Mercy' after only 9-10 years?

He was part of the fleet at that time. His ship could easily have been one of those that was destroyed. At the very least, he would have lost a lot of friends.

If he had that to say in TUC, he certainly would have had a lot more to say in EOM, coming just 9-10 years after a war of that magnitude.
 
Season three: Spock has six kids by six different women. The Prime crowd: "Well, there's nothing there that prevents it!!!"
Dude, you're becoming that type of fan. Wild flights of hyperbolic fancy.

Maybe not in the most utterly technical sense, but in terms of plausibility....it sure bends that over backwards.
What's implausible about a war between the Federation and the Klingons?
 
Here is something that might be worth considering:

Kirk is not a self-centered bastard. He doesn't live in a vacuum of his own personal pain; he sees the pain of others. Consider the wedding in TOS that became a funeral.

Consider Kirk's comment in TUC about never trusting Klingons, because they killed his son.

Do you really think that Kirk, or anyone else who had lived through the period of Discovery's Klingon War, would have been as restrained as Kirk was in 'Errand of Mercy' after only 9-10 years?

He was part of the fleet at that time. His ship could easily have been one of those that was destroyed. At the very least, he would have lost a lot of friends.

If he had that to say in TUC, he certainly would have had a lot more to say in EOM, coming just 9-10 years after a war of that magnitude.

I imagine if I had a son that would effect me more than just losing a comrade in arms. Your own flesh-and-blood is not the same as even a friend. You expect a fellow soldier to die in battle. You don't expect your own kid to. And technically a civilian at that. It's inherently different.

I never served but I have several friends who were in Iraq and Afghanistan. One had his face completely scarred (meaning everywhere on his face is scar tissue) and another has severe PTSD episodes. Others, they're not as bad off or bad off at all. The experiences and circumstances vary upon the missions and how close in combat they were. Not to mention how much combat they saw.

Yes, I'm injecting some Real Life into this debate.
 
Last edited:
Obsession said:
MCCOY: Am I? I was speaking of Lieutenant James T. Kirk of the starship Farragut. Eleven years ago, you were the young officer at the phaser station when something attacked. According to the tapes, this young Lieutenant Kirk insisted upon blaming himself.

Eleven years from 2267 would be 2256. We know Kirk had an assignment on the Republic before that as an Ensign.
 
I feel it's magnitude versus not acknowledging that magnitude just 9-10 years later.
Not sure what you mean here. People never seem to expect the next war. They think there's no way that could happen again and blissfully ignore all the warning signs.
 
I imagine if I had a son that would effect me more than just losing a comrade in arms. Your own flesh-and-blood is not the same as even a friend. You expect a fellow soldier to die in battle. You don't expect your own kid to. And technically a civilian at that. It's inherently different.

I never served but I have several friends who were in Iraq and Afghanistan. One had his face completely scarred (meaning everywhere on his face is scar tissue) and another has severe PTSD episodes. Others, they're not as bad off or bad off at all. The experiences and circumstances vary upon the missions and how close in combat they were. Not to mention how much combat they saw.

Yes, I'm injecting some Real Life into this debate.

Sometimes people are a lot closer to friends than they are to blood relatives, especially if those blood relatives were highly judgmental, holier-than-thou, treated them like shit, and their friends didn't do that.

Restrained? He conducted a two-man insurgency against the Klingons!

But did not reference a recent war of large magnitude!
 
Kirk graduated in '57.

The shows don't agree with you.

Court Martial said:
STONE: Let us begin with your relationship with Commander Finney. You knew him for a long time, didn't you?
KIRK: Yes. He was an instructor at the Academy when I was a midshipman, but that didn't stand in the way of our beginning a close friendship. His daughter Jamie, who was here last night, was named after me.
STONE: It's common knowledge that something happened to your friendship.
KIRK: It's no secret. We were assigned to the same ship some years later. I relieved him on watch once and found a circuit open to the atomic matter piles that should've been closed. Another five minutes, it could have blown up the ship.

SHAW: And who was that officer?
ENSIGN: Ensign James T. Kirk.
SHAW: Louder, please, for the court.
ENSIGN: Ensign James T. Kirk.

He was a Lieutenant on the Farragut in '57.
 
Sometimes people are a lot closer to friends than they are to blood relatives, especially if those blood relatives were highly judgmental, holier-than-thou, treated them like shit, and their friends didn't do that.

Again, depends on the circumstances. Kirk literally just made peace with his son.

I don't know about Kirk's fellow shipmates. He might've been close to them. But he was also close to his crew to an extent. He pulled himself together because he had a job to do. His brother died in "Operation -- Annihilate!" He pulled himself together because he had a fucking job to do.

He was stronger than. He wasn't as worn down. His son dying was the straw that broke the camel's back. He couldn't keep it together. Whereas he could still keep it together (that we saw on-screen) when his brother died. He kept it together when Gary Mitchell died. It was painful, it was anguishing, but neither were the same as when his son died.

If my niece died, my brother would be a mess. If I died or my brother died, my father would be a mess. If someone else died, he might be able to pull through it even though it still might be painful in the extreme depending on who it was. I know this because more than 20 years later, he's still not over my mother dying from cancer. Every now and then it catches up to him. Every now and then, it's caught up to me.

Death, and dealing with death, it's hard to debate. There's nothing rationale or any right way of coping with it at all. And there's no right way that Kirk would deal with it. He wouldn't deal with it the same in every circumstance and he wouldn't deal with it the same way in the same circumstance.

Bleh. Anyway, my mind has gone somewhere else now. Sorry.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top