What are the motivations of the New Kirk as Starfleet Officer?

[Paradon]

You sound like you've never been lonely. Most serial killers are reclusive and don't really get a long with anybody. You can read about profiling on people in psychology. People who likes to remain reclusive are not very nice and some of them do turn out to be serial killers. I mean you don't have to be married at Picard's age, but have you ever seen Picard on a date? That's weird! And it's weird that he's never been serious with any girls in his youth! [laugh]

By the way, I'm turning 35 this year.

 

[Warped9]

You sound like you've never been lonely. Most serial killers are reclusive and don't really get a long with anybody. You can read about profiling on people in psychology. People who likes to remain reclusive are not very nice and some of them do turn out to be serial killers. I mean you don't have to be married at Picard's age, but have you ever seen Picard on a date? That's weird! And it's weird that he's never been serious with any girls in his youth! [laugh]

By the way, I'm turning 35 this year.

I'm 52 and there have been many times I've been incredibly lonely. Sometimes it hurt so badly I cried.

And I know people who are basically loners yet they're also very pleasant to be around.

You don't know Picard has never been serious. Hell, in a first season episode we meet an old flame of his that apparently he was very serious about ("We'll Always Have Paris").

 

[CaptainStoner]

He does not act like he belives in a higher ideal in the movie.

It seems to be all about himself, he hadnt preached the Federation gospel even once.

What is Kirk's higher ideal in II, III, or IV? He seems pretty self-absorbed going into II.
I think new Kirk comes in as an asshole whelp who shouldn't be Captain in any universe other than a galaxy far, far away, but I think he ascribes to greater things during the mission. He becomes totally focused on the mission, not himself.
As for Starfleet ethics, that moment came when he offered Nero a chance to surrender, much like Kirk to Kruge in STIII.

 

[Paradon]

Both of you go watch "A Beautiful Mind"! I think Picard kindda reminds me of the genius Russel Crow played in that movie. That movie is right on when they are talking about life in general and why people do the things they do. I own that movie... It's one of my all time favorite.

 

[Sci]

The quote function is your friend, Yevetha.

You know, the thing about politicians is, at the end of the day, most of them aren't scumbags -- and most of them aren't saints. Most -- not all, but most -- of them are just people like you and me: neither as good as they ought to be nor as awful as others think.

If they are jsut like you and i why are they almost alway portrayed as scumbags on television.

Because it's television, which is wrong as often as it's right. TV is not reality, and TV tends to pay attention only to that which is sensationalist.

They do everything they can to portray themselves in a positive light yet they never succed.

Depends on the politician. Sure, you have scumbags like John Edwards out there, there's also your neighborhood councilman, or federal-level politicians like John Lewis, who is a veteran of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. And any reasonable definition of politician has to include political leaders who are not elected officials -- people like Dr. King or Gandhi, or Alice Paul, one of the leaders of the American women's suffrage movement, or César Chávez, a union leader and civil rights activist.

No one is as good of a person as they would like to be. And most of us aren't as bad as those we hurt think us to be.

I dont think most people would put trough someone for cheating on his wife through what Clintons had been trough. They would treat both the cheater and the cheated much more respectfully.

I'm not entirely sure I'm following your meaning here. Are you saying that Hillary Clinton's reaction to Bill Clinton's infidelity was unjust? Or are you saying that the media treated them both disrespectfully?

So it is with politicians. They're just people whose flaws get more attention.

I woould not kill half million people with UN sanctions given the oppurtunity.

And neither would most politicians.

Albright said they were necessary casualties.[/QUOTE]

 

[Paradon]

If you ask me, they are egomaniacs. That's no lie! But some of them do help people and set things right.

 

[Yevetha]

The quote function is your friend, Yevetha.

You know, the thing about politicians is, at the end of the day, most of them aren't scumbags -- and most of them aren't saints. Most -- not all, but most -- of them are just people like you and me: neither as good as they ought to be nor as awful as others think.

If they are jsut like you and i why are they almost alway portrayed as scumbags on television.

Because it's television, which is wrong as often as it's right. TV is not reality, and TV tends to pay attention only to that which is sensationalist.

Tv is many ways a reflection on contemporary reality. The only other group they discriminate against are bankers.


Depends on the politician. Sure, you have scumbags like John Edwards out there, there's also your neighborhood councilman, or federal-level politicians like John Lewis, who is a veteran of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. And any reasonable definition of politician has to include political leaders who are not elected officials -- people like Dr. King or Gandhi, or Alice Paul, one of the leaders of the American women's suffrage movement, or César Chávez, a union leader and civil rights activist.

Most people you mention are dead or the time when they could meaningfully change anything has long gone.


I'm not entirely sure I'm following your meaning here. Are you saying that Hillary Clinton's reaction to Bill Clinton's infidelity was unjust? Or are you saying that the media treated them both disrespectfully?

Most people treat these things if it happens to someone they know as a private matter. They dont form to different camps and bring this stuf up every time they can.

So it is with politicians. They're just people whose flaws get more attention.

I woould not kill half million people with UN sanctions given the oppurtunity.

And neither would most politicians.

Are You sure. If most congressman are honest and hardworking why was there no otrage about this from Congress.

Albright said they were necessary casualties.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Temis the Vorta]

As far as Trek i want a more or less a functioning government with nonscumbag politicians.

They have that now. The stories work best when they pretty much ignore the Federation and assume it's some generalized kind of utopia, maybe with a few blemishes but nothing that needs to have much screen time devoted to it. Starfleet doesn't dabble with the Federation. It works on the frontiers of the Federation, to explore new territories and fight off threats.

They can go as far as libertarianism in terms of economics, i dont care.

Nope, they're commies, at least as of the 24th C. In the 23rd C, they were still somewhat capitalist, but not so much that it made that much difference.

Trek stories are primarily about Starfleet.

Yeah, but with the assumption that Starfleet is carrying forth the Federation political ethos, which is basically liberal humanism, Roddenberry style. That's the core of Star Trek. You can change anything and everything, but you can't change that.

As far as Trek i want a more or less a functioning government with nonscumbag politicians.

And that's why Trek is pure fantasy. Exceptionally few politicians, in a utopian society or not, will ever be non-scumbags.

Oh definitely. And Earth will never be united, people will never give up nationalism and religions, and the economy will never be communistic. Star Trek is zany fantasy about a lot of stuff, but it's a great what-if scenario. There's no rule that sci fi needs to explore only likely scenarios.

What is Kirk's higher ideal in II, III, or IV? He seems pretty self-absorbed going into II.

By that time, we all knew him from TV, so his character had been established. It doesn't need to be re-established continually. We assume he hasn't changed unless there's something on screen to tell us differently.

I think new Kirk comes in as an asshole whelp who shouldn't be Captain in any universe other than a galaxy far, far away, but I think he ascribes to greater things during the mission. He becomes totally focused on the mission, not himself.

As for Starfleet ethics, that moment came when he offered Nero a chance to surrender, much like Kirk to Kruge in STIII.

There is a subtle arc for him in the movie. It wasn't till his offer to Nero to surrender that I was convinced that an arc was what I was seeing. (I have a tendency to read more into stories than is there, and then am dissappointed when the story turns out to be shallower than I'd hoped.) They need to continue this arc in the next movie, and maybe the movie after that as well.

PS, the quote function is the button to the bottom right of your screen. To quote more than one poster, use multi-quote.

 

[Sci]

The quote function is your friend, Yevetha.

If they are jsut like you and i why are they almost alway portrayed as scumbags on television.

Because it's television, which is wrong as often as it's right. TV is not reality, and TV tends to pay attention only to that which is sensationalist.

Tv is many ways a reflection on contemporary reality.

Bullshit.

The only other group they discriminate against are bankers.

Whose leadership are mostly scumbags, to be fair, but I digress.

Depends on the politician. Sure, you have scumbags like John Edwards out there, there's also your neighborhood councilman, or federal-level politicians like John Lewis, who is a veteran of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. And any reasonable definition of politician has to include political leaders who are not elected officials -- people like Dr. King or Gandhi, or Alice Paul, one of the leaders of the American women's suffrage movement, or César Chávez, a union leader and civil rights activist.

Most people you mention are dead or the time when they could meaningfully change anything has long gone.

The idea that meaningful change is impossible today is absurd. Hell, just within my lifetime, we've gone from seeing the Supreme Court affirm that states have a right to ban homosexuality to laws against homosexuality being overturned, the ban on homosexuality in the military being repealed, and same-sex marriage recognized in several states and continuing to gain traction. We've gone from an era where pictures of scary black men could make people vote against a candidate to an era where the President of the United States is black. Things always change.

I'm not entirely sure I'm following your meaning here. Are you saying that Hillary Clinton's reaction to Bill Clinton's infidelity was unjust? Or are you saying that the media treated them both disrespectfully?

Most people treat these things if it happens to someone they know as a private matter. They dont form to different camps and bring this stuf up every time they can.

Oh, I dunno, I've seen plenty of interpersonal politics relating to fidelity in private life.

I woould not kill half million people with UN sanctions given the oppurtunity.

And neither would most politicians.

Are You sure. If most congressman are honest and hardworking why was there no otrage about this from Congress.

Well, to what are you referring? The sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s?

If most Members of Congress (remember, they're not all men) didn't make a stink about it, it was probably because it's not completely fair to say that the U.N. sanctions killed Iraqis -- it was the Saddam Hussein government taking advantage of those sanctions and preventing aid from going to the Iraqi people that did it. And neither is it reasonable to say that there should therefore have been no sanctions, since Hussein had proven himself a threat to his neighbors. The oil-for-food program was established to try to alleviate this problem.

I don't agree with the sanctions, either, because I think they ended up not doing what they were intended to do, but neither do I think the people who supported them are bad people because of them. They were an honest attempt to use nonviolent tactics to counter a country that had engaged in aggressive warfare against its neighbors.

In other words, that situation wasn't black-and-white, and plenty of Members of Congress recognized that. That doesn't make them bad people. And, frankly, I promise you that plenty of other Members of Congress didn't care because their constituents didn't care. Which may not make their constituents very good people, but, again, that just means that politicians are no different than the people they lead, and their flaws tend to reflect the common man's flaws.

 

[Paradon]

The sanction the U.S. put on Iraq was the dumbest thing I have ever heard. They punished the people for not rising up against the dictator that they hate because they were afraid of being killed and tortured. That made the people of Iraq hate the U.S. more and turn to Saddam for help. They should have punished Saddam not the people.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What is Kirk's higher ideal in II, III, or IV? He seems pretty self-absorbed going into II.

By that time, we all knew him from TV, so his character had been established. It doesn't need to be re-established continually. We assume he hasn't changed unless there's something on screen to tell us differently.

I'm of the opinion that Kirk went under a shift in characterization when Trek hit the big screen. He became much more of a larger than life action hero. His intellectual side was down played. I think Kirk in the new movie draws from that.

While "we" might know Kirk's characterization from the series, the majority of people veiwing the films did not.

Kirks motivation in TMP is pretty selfish. Its all about him getting the ship back and pushing aside anyone in his way. ( and screwing up in the process). I guess the "Star Trek Gospel" shows up towards the end. Though I believe Spock and McCoy do the "preaching".

 

[CaptainStoner]

There is a subtle arc for him in the movie. It wasn't till his offer to Nero to surrender that I was convinced that an arc was what I was seeing. (I have a tendency to read more into stories than is there, and then am dissappointed when the story turns out to be shallower than I'd hoped.) They need to continue this arc in the next movie, and maybe the movie after that as well.

Yes, though I also have a feeling that Abrams distilled Kirk into his own version, but in which Kirk is still essentially the same. A bit amplified or distorted here and there, but the same character. So I think we'll see more of the sort of maverick nobility.

PS, the quote function is the button to the bottom right of your screen. To quote more than one poster, use multi-quote.

PS, it helps to know who you're responding to.

I'm of the opinion that Kirk went under a shift in characterization when Trek hit the big screen. He became much more of a larger than life action hero. His intellectual side was down played. I think Kirk in the new movie draws from that.

I can see some of that point. It's harder to picture film era Kirk playing 3D chess with Spock, much less winning. I think they were drawing more on STII-III Kirk for STXI. There are parallels between STII and III with XI. In STII, Kirk bites in to an apple in satisfaction when he's successfully fooled Khan. In XI he does that when beating the KM. Then in III, we have Kruge hanging off a cliff. Kirk offers his hand, and Kruge tries to pull him in, then Kirk kicks him in the face. Very similar to how it went down with Nero, substituting a black hole for a cliff and the Enterprise's weapons for kicking.
Although as I think of it, they should have had Nero's ship try to throw a tractor beam on the Enterprise to complete the parallel.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

What is Kirk's higher ideal in II, III, or IV? He seems pretty self-absorbed going into II.

By that time, we all knew him from TV, so his character had been established. It doesn't need to be re-established continually. We assume he hasn't changed unless there's something on screen to tell us differently.

I'm of the opinion that Kirk went under a shift in characterization when Trek hit the big screen. He became much more of a larger than life action hero. His intellectual side was down played. I think Kirk in the new movie draws from that.

While "we" might know Kirk's characterization from the series, the majority of people veiwing the films did not.

Kirks motivation in TMP is pretty selfish. Its all about him getting the ship back and pushing aside anyone in his way. ( and screwing up in the process). I guess the "Star Trek Gospel" shows up towards the end. Though I believe Spock and McCoy do the "preaching".

The jury's out on what they're doing with Kirk, but I'm hoping for the best. If you're right, I'm going to have to start siding with the haters, at least where Kirk is concerned.

 

[Paradon]

I think impulsive people aren't that smart compared to someone who are always in control and organized. I don't know why movies and television always portray serial killers as being geniuses, but in most cases that's not the case. Most serial killers can't keep their job and not very successful in life. Crimes are mostly committed by impulsive people. However being smart does not necessary make a person nice or warm and personable.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I think impulsive people aren't that smart compared to someone who are always in control and organized.

My observations are that impulsiveness and intelligence are separate qualities. Impulsiveness can cause a smart person to do dumber things than they "should," but it doesn't diminish their intelligence directly.