• 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!

Were we what was wrong with the movie?

I'd hardly call phasering or not phasering an unknown cloud creature indicative of overall character. Hesitating when facing the unknown is a very typical human trait.

But we're talking about Kirk here. If he were typical of the 23rd Century humans, then the galaxy would have been tamed and corraled long before Picard began his ascendancy.

There is plenty of impulsiveness in the guy during TOS, but it isn't always the case, and it trivializes the character to dismiss him that way. You can think things over before making a wrong call, just like you can make a wrong call impulsively, and Kirk has been guilty on both counts before. But more importantly, he has been right more often in more instances ... and NOT always when acting impulsively. Look how long it took him to realize the only answer to Neural was to just beam away.
Oh, I know he didn't always act impulsively, or without thinking. He usually thought things out pretty well - but his methods were often heavy-handed and quite risky - setting the Enterprise to self-destruct with everyone still on board, giving general order 24, just to name a couple. All big gambles that put a lot of people's lives on the line for a small chance of success. I was simply pointing out that such behavior is well within his character.
 
Kirk was the serious, driven kid who went through a living hell on Tarsus IV, entered the Academy at the age of seventeen, rose up quickly through the ranks, and eventually learned to loosen up.

He was a petulant smart-mouth in many of the tie-in flashback scenes I recall in the novels and comics.
None of which has any serious weight and flys counter to what the TOS writers appeared to have intended. And when it comes down to it what TOS intended matters more than anything that comes later.
 
Comics and novels are unimportant, and we do not hear their words.

(And, like, they ain't canon :))
 
Kirk was the serious, driven kid who went through a living hell on Tarsus IV, entered the Academy at the age of seventeen, rose up quickly through the ranks, and eventually learned to loosen up.

He was a petulant smart-mouth in many of the tie-in flashback scenes I recall in the novels and comics.
None of which has any serious weight and flys counter to what the TOS writers appeared to have intended. And when it comes down to it what TOS intended matters more than anything that comes later.
He was a risk-taker and rather reckless in much of TOS as well, to say nothing about the movies. He COULD be by-the-book, sure, but his greatest successes have usually followed his biggest gambles.
 
Yeah, like lt. Kirk impulsively phasering the cloud creature when he was on FARRAGUT. What, he DIDN'T shoot right away? Hmmm, not impulsive enough yet. No reward yet, either.

Um Kirk was kicking himself for most of that episode BECAUSE he didn't shoot right away. He even chewed Garrovick out for hesitating to fire on the cloud creature.

He was a petulant smart-mouth in many of the tie-in flashback scenes I recall in the novels and comics.
None of which has any serious weight and flys counter to what the TOS writers appeared to have intended. And when it comes down to it what TOS intended matters more than anything that comes later.
He was a risk-taker and rather reckless in much of TOS as well, to say nothing about the movies. He COULD be by-the-book, sure, but his greatest successes have usually followed his biggest gambles.

QFT
 
Kirk was the serious, driven kid who went through a living hell on Tarsus IV, entered the Academy at the age of seventeen, rose up quickly through the ranks, and eventually learned to loosen up.

He was a petulant smart-mouth in many of the tie-in flashback scenes I recall in the novels and comics.
None of which has any serious weight and flys counter to what the TOS writers appeared to have intended. And when it comes down to it what TOS intended matters more than anything that comes later.

One could argue that intentions do not matter, only actions. In that light, whatever wasn't absolutely spelled out in TOS was free for interpretation, even for something that tries to adhere to canon.
 
flys counter to what the TOS writers appeared to have intended. And when it comes down to it what TOS intended matters more than anything that comes later.

How can the novels "fly counter" to what TOS writers said when they clearly said hardly anything about Kirk's childhood? It is totally open to interpretation. Shatner's own interpretation ("Academy: Collision Course") is smart-mouth, impulsive rule-breaker.

"Stack of books on legs" and "positively grim" could be from one six-month period of exam cramming in an otherwise crazy childhood.
 
flys counter to what the TOS writers appeared to have intended. And when it comes down to it what TOS intended matters more than anything that comes later.

How can the novels "fly counter" to what TOS writers said when they clearly said hardly anything about Kirk's childhood? It is totally open to interpretation. Shatner's own interpretation ("Academy: Collision Course") is smart-mouth, impulsive rule-breaker.

"Stack of books on legs" and "positively grim" could be from one six-month period of exam cramming in an otherwise crazy childhood.


It's also possible that Kirk-Prime, or whatever the current hip term is for the original iterations of the characters, did go through a rebellious period in his teens same as nuKirk, only to be snapped back by the influence and guidance of George Kirk, which could have been why he was positively grim in his academy years.

In the altered universe, without George Kirk's presence, nuKirk continued his rebellious streak into his mid-twenties.

Also, why should Kirk, any iteration, be only one kind of person in his youth?

Human beings are seldom consistent in their behavior from moment to moment, let along over a span of years. We only got a snapshot of a single period in Kirk's life through two statements. Go back a few years, maybe even months, and take another snapshot -- is it the same or different? That's plenty of room for speculation.
 
Last edited:
This is what I had to say on that subject over in the "diehard" thread:

Now that we're on the subject of Kirk--thanks to Therin quoting an old post of mine--let me just make the counter-argument myself, without resorting to non-canonical sources: TOS Kirk grew up with a father, Trek XI Kirk without. Instead, he was saddled with a step-father who was, at best, a douche and a mother who was apparently so deranged by the loss of her husband that she became stupid enough to hook-up with said douche and selfish enough--apaprently--that she often skips out and leaves her boys to his mercies. This Kirk has only a little more in common with TOS Kirk than Shinzon had with Jean-Luc Picard.

People harping on the bar fight should cut Kirk some slack--he wasn't being particularly rude to Uhura, just persistent (and, with the games women run, oh, 123% of the time, persistence is required) and the Star Fleet guys came up and started trying to intimidate him with no real provocation. Indeed, that's what fans should be concerned with: four cadets took turns beating up a single civililan, one of them seemingly intent on beating that civilian to death, and yet at least two of them are still in Star Fleet, one of them posted to the explicit flag ship. The lot of them should have been dishonarably discharged and served a year or two at the 23rd century equivalent of Leavenworth. That they aren't establishes Star Fleet as little more than a cadre of thugs.

As far as rebellion and straight-arrow stuff co-existing: good point. I often come off as a guy who plays the rules and has a bit of a stick up his ass; in my day job, it's an image I cultivate. Of course, it seems inconsistent with the Chevy Malibu I totalled while taking a dead-man's curve at luducrous speed and the countless illegal trysts I've negotiated with women of low character and high prices and the broad array of mind-altering substances I've sampled. I'm still at it. I'm 39. And I go to work every day (well, I'm on summer vacaion right now) and, to paraphrase Ray Liotta as Henry Hill, salute the flag and teach good government bullshit.
 
Yeah, like lt. Kirk impulsively phasering the cloud creature when he was on FARRAGUT. What, he DIDN'T shoot right away? Hmmm, not impulsive enough yet. No reward yet, either.

Um Kirk was kicking himself for most of that episode BECAUSE he didn't shoot right away. He even chewed Garrovick out for hesitating to fire on the cloud creature.

Yeah, 11 years later. He apparently wasn't trigger-happy gungho all the time younger, THAT is my point.
 
This is what I had to say on that subject over in the "diehard" thread:

Now that we're on the subject of Kirk--thanks to Therin quoting an old post of mine--let me just make the counter-argument myself, without resorting to non-canonical sources: TOS Kirk grew up with a father, Trek XI Kirk without. Instead, he was saddled with a step-father who was, at best, a douche and a mother who was apparently so deranged by the loss of her husband that she became stupid enough to hook-up with said douche and selfish enough--apaprently--that she often skips out and leaves her boys to his mercies. This Kirk has only a little more in common with TOS Kirk than Shinzon had with Jean-Luc Picard.

People harping on the bar fight should cut Kirk some slack--he wasn't being particularly rude to Uhura, just persistent (and, with the games women run, oh, 123% of the time, persistence is required) and the Star Fleet guys came up and started trying to intimidate him with no real provocation. Indeed, that's what fans should be concerned with: four cadets took turns beating up a single civililan, one of them seemingly intent on beating that civilian to death, and yet at least two of them are still in Star Fleet, one of them posted to the explicit flag ship. The lot of them should have been dishonarably discharged and served a year or two at the 23rd century equivalent of Leavenworth. That they aren't establishes Star Fleet as little more than a cadre of thugs.

Environment versus nature at work with nuKirk, fo'sho.

As far as rebellion and straight-arrow stuff co-existing: good point. I often come off as a guy who plays the rules and has a bit of a stick up his ass; in my day job, it's an image I cultivate. Of course, it seems inconsistent with the Chevy Malibu I totalled while taking a dead-man's curve at luducrous speed and the countless illegal trysts I've negotiated with women of low character and high prices and the broad array of mind-altering substances I've sampled. I'm still at it. I'm 39. And I go to work every day (well, I'm on summer vacaion right now) and, to paraphrase Ray Liotta as Henry Hill, salute the flag and teach good government bullshit.

I'm the same way. Straight-laced at work and wild at night; maybe that's why I have a Superman tattoo on one bicep and a Batman tattoo on another.
 
As far as rebellion and straight-arrow stuff co-existing: good point. I often come off as a guy who plays the rules and has a bit of a stick up his ass; in my day job, it's an image I cultivate. Of course, it seems inconsistent with the Chevy Malibu I totalled while taking a dead-man's curve at luducrous speed and the countless illegal trysts I've negotiated with women of low character and high prices and the broad array of mind-altering substances I've sampled. I'm still at it. I'm 39. And I go to work every day (well, I'm on summer vacaion right now) and, to paraphrase Ray Liotta as Henry Hill, salute the flag and teach good government bullshit.

Creed Bratton, is that you?
 
It's true that one can go through a rebellious stage and then straighten up. The essential point here is that Mitchell's reference in WNMHGB and Kirk's reference in "Shoreleave" applies to that very period when Kirk was at the Academy. And that's where TOS and NuTrek part.
 
As far as rebellion and straight-arrow stuff co-existing: good point. I often come off as a guy who plays the rules and has a bit of a stick up his ass; in my day job, it's an image I cultivate. Of course, it seems inconsistent with the Chevy Malibu I totalled while taking a dead-man's curve at luducrous speed and the countless illegal trysts I've negotiated with women of low character and high prices and the broad array of mind-altering substances I've sampled. I'm still at it. I'm 39. And I go to work every day (well, I'm on summer vacaion right now) and, to paraphrase Ray Liotta as Henry Hill, salute the flag and teach good government bullshit.

Creed Bratton, is that you?

I'll never tell. :angel:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top