Carol knew what she was up against. Especially, if we take Star Trek Into Darkness into account where she is the daughter of an Admiral.
What are your opinions regarding Star Trek that are, shall we say, unorthodox?
Carol knew what she was up against. Especially, if we take Star Trek Into Darkness into account where she is the daughter of an Admiral.
I'd have much, much less respect for Kirk had we learned he kept poking his nose in and trying to assume custody of David when Carol was terrified of losing her child to a deep space phenomenon, an enemy alien attack or some random first contact that went wrong. Kirk wanted his son to be in his life, but he didn't have the final say, knew that and respected Carol's choices. And that's just how this worked. Not how we'd like it to.
It’s the most important part.
Yeah. If you don't have a functional relationship with that person, it can go downhill fast for a child.
Depending on the society we’re talking about, the law certainly can. But separately from that, if the mother doesn’t want you there, and she’s the child’s guardian, that’s it. That’s all. If you push in on that anyway, you aren’t asserting your rights; you are now a threat.
Once the kid reaches majority, sure, try to establish a relationship if you want — if your child also wants it.
From outside the US?
Sorry, I don’t follow?
(I’m speaking morally, I guess; I have no idea of the legalities. I am from the U.S., if that’s what you’re asking.)
The way you stated things doesn't sound like the law as it is usually applied in the US. Figured you might be from Europe.
I am high, so it is possible I totally misread you.
The way you stated things doesn't sound like the law as it is usually applied in the US. Figured you might be from Europe.
I am high, so it is possible I totally misread you.
Ah. Nope, American — as noted, I’ve no idea what the actual laws are, I’m just stating my own position.
EDIT: I should probably add that I feel in this case that Carol gets to decide because she’s the childhood guardian, not just because she’s the mom. (If it were a Kramer Vs Kramer situation, and she’d left David as a child with Kirk and later came back wanting to take David, then Kirk would be the guardian and she’d be the threat.)
Last edited:
Again you are doing it. "But he didn't have the final say." Why? He is the father. The mother's say is no more relevant than his. You keep coming back to this framing as though she gets to make the call and he doesn't get to object. That's not how it works.
You also keep framing it as Kirk's option being to continue fighting for custody. That's not it either. You don't have to have custody of the child to be involved in his life.
In that movie it was how it worked.
I'll keep doing it, too, because I know this is the correct (if prickly and regrettable for James T. Kirk) interpretation. This is the Star Trek universe, not a real world child custody and visitation battle between estranged parents. These aren't real people, no matter how vivid they are on a screen.
I'll keep doing it, too, because I know this is the correct (if prickly and regrettable for James T. Kirk) interpretation. This is the Star Trek universe, not a real world child custody and visitation battle between estranged parents. These aren't real people, no matter how vivid they are on a screen.
Last edited:
I also said he probably objected and had issues with her decisions. Never did I once say he didn't have the legal right to speak out, disagree and object. I said he conceded to her demands after realizing she made perfectly valid points. Big difference.
Kirk says "why didn't you tell me" to Carol in TWOK. I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't conceding after being told by Carol.
It's also ignoring the potential impact an absent father can have. I see it all to often.
He knew who David was. "Is that David?"
He just didn't get to watch him grow up or know his child had joined his mother in the scientific career field.
He just didn't get to watch him grow up or know his child had joined his mother in the scientific career field.
Oh, how I wish my father had been absent!
The questions I see always revolve around "What did I do to make him not choose me."
I don't think either is ideal but Kirk is not the better person for staying away, I don't care what the film says
I don't think either is ideal but Kirk is not the better person for staying away, I don't care what the film says
The film doesn't judge him one way or the other. What I see is fandom judging him for his actions.
Art inspires feelings and reactions.
Which this thread gloriously proves and I'm enjoying the debate over this issue, it's part of why I love this message board. I encourage it, but yeah, the movie itself takes a neutral stance and makes us feel sympathy for both Kirk and Carol and David. It's up to us to determine our own "right" and "wrong" in our own hearts.
Similar threads
