What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[Noname Given]

As for "bad boy Kirk" I think the genesis of that take is in TWOK and it seems to the version that the public knows best.

Kirk was never "bad boy kirk" in TWOK.

No, he was "bad boy Kirk" when he disobeyed direct orders and illegally comandeered the 1701 to go back to the Genesis planet.

 

[Gary7]

STXI - I've never seen a movie this utterly horrible. Never in my entire life have I seen something this bad with his many plotholes and idiocies in this many scenes. And it has got nothing to do with it not being like a TOS episode, the fact that it has got nothing that makes it resemble any good Star Trek story or movie only COMPOUNDS the problem. This movie, even if it didn't carry the name Star Trek, is bad, and horribly written, all on its own. As a Star Trek movie - it's worse, it's FAR worse.

 

[Delta1]

A Boy Scout is not merely someone who follows the rules, but one who respects authority. Scouting is a graduated, if not hierarchical, system with clear delineations between leaders and followers (at least, that's what I remember of it). It's got an internal language rich in symbolism. Superman is the Big Blue Boy Scout because he subordinates himself to authority even though he is more powerful than that authority. He adopts the ideals and language (truth, justice, and the American Way) of that authority. He is frequently seen with the symbols of that authority, even being buried under a statue of himself and a bald eagle. And he doesn't question the appropriateness of any of this. The ultimate expression of the Boy Scuot is in The Dark Knight Returns, in which he will do anything "anybody with a flag" tells him to do. It's not about following the rules or even calling his mother, it's about falling into line and doing what one is told, happily.

Kirk was not the type to be impressed by someone with a flag, and at times put his values--which were probably in line with Starfleet values--ahead of a strict interpretation of orders. The fact that he advanced through the ranks as quickly as he did--and even survived a guilty verdict in a court martial--indicates that his values and decisions were broadly in line with the precepts of Starfleet and the Federation. If he had been a rebel, Starfleet would never have made him a flag officer, they would have ended his rebellion early on or let him stew in a Lt.'s shore billet.

So, not a boy scout, but not a rebel either. (Of course, we never really defined "bad boy" so we might be talking past each other.) Just a competent, get-the-job-done officer who thought highly of himself.

Perhaps, but it is presented with a somewhat gleeful glint in Kirks eye and followed up by the phrase "I don't like to lose."

Self-awareness, or awareness of how he is perceived? Regardless, motivations can be complex, and the older Kirk's analysis of how he made his decision may be flawed by the passage of time or his perspective as an Academy officer vs. student. Or he might just have been encouraging his companions with a bit of bravado. I think my interpretation is consistent with what's onscreen and not unreasonable. And so is the other one.

Not sure how that ties into Kirk being a "bad boy"

It just goes to show that pride in his mind was a core characteristic of Kirk and explains his failings better than archetypal labels like bad boy, rebel, maverick, etc. He wasn't lazy when approaching Reliant because he had disdain for the rules, but because he had evaluated them over the course of his career and considered his own judgment to be better. This is what you get when the walking stack of books grows up, he thinks he is "smarter than the checklist" and free to ignore it in favor of his own judgment. Just like young Kirk thought he was smarter than the Academy's curriculum designers. He's not rebelling against the established systems, he's seeking to work within them and improve them with his superior judgment (and failing).

The way I look at it, the stack of books in the Academy, the burdened commander of TOS, and the smarter-than-the-checklist Kirk of TWOK-TUC are all points on the same long-term character arc, and the younger versions can safely be described as not-Boy Scouts. I guess Trek '09 short circuited the arc by placing the dangerously self-assured Kirk at the beginning without the benefit of experience that made the original Kirk into that character. Not what I would've done, but I guess it worked for enough people.

 

[Hober Mallow]

My dad, who's been a die-hard fan since the very first episode, "The Man Trap," aired in September 1966 absolutely loved the new movie.

 

[Forbin]

Well, that settles THAT, then!

 

[3D Master]

Agreed [with 3D Master]. TWOK Kirk wasn't a bad boy at all, he was a stubborn intellectual.

* He was "never a Boy Scout," but that doesn't make him a "bad boy." To me, it suggests a certain individuality, disdain for group think and doctrine, and lack of interest in merit badges. (No offense to Scouts.) When he knew Carol Marcus as a cadet and young officer, he was probably the first to find a way around the Starfleet way of doing things, maybe didn't fit in at the officer's mess, and shunned the "careerist" mindset that's more concerned about evaluations than effectiveness.

"Boy Scout" is usually code for a good boy. Superman is called "The Big Blue Boy Scout" because he's a straight arrow who follows the rules, calls his mom every night and helps old ladies cross the street.

If Kirk was what you describe, he was a "bad boy", a rebel, someone swimming against the stream

Nope. Someone swimming against the stream and a rebel doesn't equal a bad boy. A bad boy is something rather specific; a bad boy not only doesn't care about rules and regulations, he's also a guy who doesn't really care that much about others. He's selfish and unthinking, and simply charges in wherever he wishes to go, and to hell with everyone else.

Or in other words: Trek XI Kirk.

The real Kirk was never like that.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

My grandmother, who is senile, blind, deaf, and has been dead for fifteen years, loved the movie.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

A classic example of Kirk's individuality and determinedness not to conform is apparent in the episode Court Martial. It's the one where Ben Finney apparently dies in an ion storm. years previously, Kirk had reported him for a life-endangering error on the Republic, and Finney resented him ever since. When the 'death' occurs, Starfleet's first impulse is to brush it under the carpet, promote Kirk to a desk job, and when Kirk demands a Court Martial, it's as if his chickens have come home to roost. The scene where he walks into a bar is telling, all his fellow Starfleet Captains and Commanders give him the silent treatment, as if he has betrayed the old boys' network. That episode showed Starfleet to be a somewhat corrupt organisation, and Kirk the rebel for defying that.

That's what I always took to mean Kirk was a rebel. Not getting drunk and engaging in a bar brawl, although I don't deny that could have happened as well.

 

[number6]

Agreed [with 3D Master]. TWOK Kirk wasn't a bad boy at all, he was a stubborn intellectual.

* He was "never a Boy Scout," but that doesn't make him a "bad boy." To me, it suggests a certain individuality, disdain for group think and doctrine, and lack of interest in merit badges. (No offense to Scouts.) When he knew Carol Marcus as a cadet and young officer, he was probably the first to find a way around the Starfleet way of doing things, maybe didn't fit in at the officer's mess, and shunned the "careerist" mindset that's more concerned about evaluations than effectiveness.

"Boy Scout" is usually code for a good boy. Superman is called "The Big Blue Boy Scout" because he's a straight arrow who follows the rules, calls his mom every night and helps old ladies cross the street.

If Kirk was what you describe, he was a "bad boy", a rebel, someone swimming against the stream

Nope. Someone swimming against the stream and a rebel doesn't equal a bad boy. A bad boy is something rather specific; a bad boy not only doesn't care about rules and regulations, he's also a guy who doesn't really care that much about others. He's selfish and unthinking, and simply charges in wherever he wishes to go, and to hell with everyone else.

Or in other words: Trek XI Kirk.

The real Kirk was never like that.

We never saw the "real Kirk" as a 20 year old.

Now we have.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

^No, we saw another Kirk who grew up under very different circumstances than the man we fell in love with during TOS. This Kirk is no more that Kirk than (forgive me, but I must) Shinzon is Jean-Luc Picard.

A classic example of Kirk's individuality and determinedness not to conform is apparent in the episode Court Martial. It's the one where Ben Finney apparently dies in an ion storm. years previously, Kirk had reported him for a life-endangering error on the Republic, and Finney resented him ever since. When the 'death' occurs, Starfleet's first impulse is to brush it under the carpet, promote Kirk to a desk job, and when Kirk demands a Court Martial, it's as if his chickens have come home to roost. The scene where he walks into a bar is telling, all his fellow Starfleet Captains and Commanders give him the silent treatment, as if he has betrayed the old boys' network. That episode showed Starfleet to be a somewhat corrupt organisation, and Kirk the rebel for defying that.

That's what I always took to mean Kirk was a rebel. Not getting drunk and engaging in a bar brawl, although I don't deny that could have happened as well.

Notice something: that shipyard was dedicated to George Kirk--that's the reason it was in his hometown and the bar salt shakers looked like the Kelvin. Notice also how Kirk introduces himself as "Jim Kirk" rather than just Jim. I get the sneaking suspicion that this Jim Kirk is not above trading on his father's legend for some wide-eyed cadet poon-tang from time to time.

 

[Basil]

It's not a bad film at all, but juvenile in its sensibilities and definitely a step or two back from what early TOS presented in this regard: Youth trumps experience, impulsive acts will be rewarded, think minimally/act maximally, hard work and paying dues is a sucker's path to success, etc. It's a fun but vapid ride, as expensive but cheesy as anything else made in the past 20 years and enjoyable mostly because of its absolute determination to be a loud summer movie, and therefore appeals to the 14-year-old in all of us. I enjoyed it for what it was, which was enough Star Trek to keep me interested, but I wouldn't see it as much of a representation of what our heroes were like in the early days. It feels as off in this regard to Star Trek as a Marvel universe version of a DC comic book, but, hey, I still recognize Batman's costume, even if he is now a gay alcoholic who drives a tricked-out Escalade.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

A classic example of Kirk's individuality and determinedness not to conform is apparent in the episode Court Martial. It's the one where Ben Finney apparently dies in an ion storm. years previously, Kirk had reported him for a life-endangering error on the Republic, and Finney resented him ever since. When the 'death' occurs, Starfleet's first impulse is to brush it under the carpet, promote Kirk to a desk job, and when Kirk demands a Court Martial, it's as if his chickens have come home to roost. The scene where he walks into a bar is telling, all his fellow Starfleet Captains and Commanders give him the silent treatment, as if he has betrayed the old boys' network. That episode showed Starfleet to be a somewhat corrupt organisation, and Kirk the rebel for defying that.

That's what I always took to mean Kirk was a rebel. Not getting drunk and engaging in a bar brawl, although I don't deny that could have happened as well.

For me, that's probably the best feature of the new movie. We get to see the young Kirk who is wasting his life geting drunk and into bar-fights devlop towards the Kirk you describe in Court Martial. It may be a cliche story, but I liked it.

 

[trevanian]

Notice also how Kirk introduces himself as "Jim Kirk" rather than just Jim. I get the sneaking suspicion that this Jim Kirk is not above trading on his father's legend for some wide-eyed cadet poon-tang from time to time.

That by itself, when I read it, was enough to reinforce every negative preconception I've had about the movie.

And it reminds me of something bad from another series when it kinda started over ... when Roger Moore did his first Bond flick. They had him trick a virgin into sleeping with him by loading the tarot deck with 'the lovers' card ... when I was a kid and saw that, it was like, 'Bond wouldn't HAVE to pull that crap.'

 

[Nerys Myk]

Agreed [with 3D Master]. TWOK Kirk wasn't a bad boy at all, he was a stubborn intellectual.

* He was "never a Boy Scout," but that doesn't make him a "bad boy." To me, it suggests a certain individuality, disdain for group think and doctrine, and lack of interest in merit badges. (No offense to Scouts.) When he knew Carol Marcus as a cadet and young officer, he was probably the first to find a way around the Starfleet way of doing things, maybe didn't fit in at the officer's mess, and shunned the "careerist" mindset that's more concerned about evaluations than effectiveness.

"Boy Scout" is usually code for a good boy. Superman is called "The Big Blue Boy Scout" because he's a straight arrow who follows the rules, calls his mom every night and helps old ladies cross the street.

If Kirk was what you describe, he was a "bad boy", a rebel, someone swimming against the stream

Nope. Someone swimming against the stream and a rebel doesn't equal a bad boy. A bad boy is something rather specific; a bad boy not only doesn't care about rules and regulations, he's also a guy who doesn't really care that much about others. He's selfish and unthinking, and simply charges in wherever he wishes to go, and to hell with everyone else.

Or in other words: Trek XI Kirk.

The real Kirk was never like that.

Hmmmm, I dont think so. A "bad boy" is many things. He's the guy your parents don't want you to date. He's Fonzi from Happy Days. He's Maverick from Top Gun. He's Dirty Harry. He's the young John McCain. He Riggs from Lethal Weapon. He's Will Smith in almost every movie he's in. He's Sawyer on Lost

The Jim Kirk in TMP charged on to the Enterprise took over and pushed Decker out of the way to feed his own selfish ego and needs. So yeah, Kirk has that aspect down too.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

It's not a bad film at all, but juvenile in its sensibilities and definitely a step or two back from what early TOS presented in this regard: Youth trumps experience, impulsive acts will be rewarded, think minimally/act maximally, hard work and paying dues is a sucker's path to success, etc. It's a fun but vapid ride, as expensive but cheesy as anything else made in the past 20 years and enjoyable mostly because of its absolute determination to be a loud summer movie, and therefore appeals to the 14-year-old in all of us. I enjoyed it for what it was, which was enough Star Trek to keep me interested, but I wouldn't see it as much of a representation of what our heroes were like in the early days. It feels as off in this regard to Star Trek as a Marvel universe version of a DC comic book, but, hey, I still recognize Batman's costume, even if he is now a gay alcoholic who drives a tricked-out Escalade.

That's pretty much how I see it. It's a funhouse mirror of Trek in the same way Gold Key Comics and Peter Pan Records were. I like that about it.

 

[Omega_Glory]

It's not a bad film at all, but juvenile in its sensibilities and definitely a step or two back from what early TOS presented in this regard: Youth trumps experience, impulsive acts will be rewarded, think minimally/act maximally, hard work and paying dues is a sucker's path to success, etc. It's a fun but vapid ride, as expensive but cheesy as anything else made in the past 20 years and enjoyable mostly because of its absolute determination to be a loud summer movie, and therefore appeals to the 14-year-old in all of us. I enjoyed it for what it was, which was enough Star Trek to keep me interested, but I wouldn't see it as much of a representation of what our heroes were like in the early days. It feels as off in this regard to Star Trek as a Marvel universe version of a DC comic book, but, hey, I still recognize Batman's costume, even if he is now a gay alcoholic who drives a tricked-out Escalade.

I would agree. Its a great kids flick and thats what JJ and crew were after.

 

[Neopeius]

I would agree. Its a great kids flick and thats what JJ and crew were after.

Fainting with damned praise.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

My stars, I just caught the vapors!

 

[Chrisisall]

I loved it, in the way I WANTED to love Superman Returns, but couldn't, in the way I DID love Batman Begins, but WAY moreso, it was my dream of how they could POSSIBLY do it without Shatner, and they pulled it off IMO!

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Post Script: Posterity has given the temporary edge to SF. Philip K. Dick, who was just as aware of the stigma attached to being a writer of SF but never escaped its generic clutches, has two--count 'em--two volumes in the prestigious Library of America to Vonnegut's none. More of his work as been adapted to the big screen, some--A Scanner Darkly, Blade Runner and, to a lesser extent, Total Recall, Minority Report and the French film Barjo (based on one of his mainstream efforts)--quite successfully. He's influenced several others, most notably eXistenz, The Matrix and the films of Charlie Kaufman. Score one for SF. Score one for the ghetto.

PKD's got a third volume coming out later this month. (Already placed my order.) Woo-hoo!