What was wrong with Kirk?

[DonIago]

Last October a close-but-not-very-close friend of mine passed away from cancer. When he was admitted to the hospice I had a kind friend drive me to see him because I wasn't sure what to expect or how well I'd handle it (my only frame of reference was when my grandmother had passed from cancer decades earlier). I usually rely on humor as one of my coping mechanisms, so during the car ride I was trying to keep things light at least as much for my driver's benefit (though she didn't know him as well as I did) as my own, but there were still moments where in the middle of laughing the reality of the situation would hit me and I'd start to choke up. In the end, I'm glad that happened in the car and in moments when I was alone or talking with my parents on the phone, rather than in front of my friend or people who had enough to deal with as it was.

Last month I was driving past the hospice for the first time since my friend had passed away, and even just doing that rattled me a little bit because of the memories it stirred up.

Just saying, with more words than my earlier post I guess, that I entirely understand how Kirk could appear upbeat at the end of TWoK and seem downbeat at the beginning of TSFS, especially since, as noted, Carol, Saavik and David had been shipped off and Kirk had had more time to process his own grief, which doesn't necessarily make it hurt any less in the relatively short term.

 

[Commishsleer]

Given the destruction wrought I doubt Kirk felt he could risk it.

Thats right.
Its not as if Nero was an innocent
He was armed with a superweapon. He said he wanted to destroy Earth. He'd just committed genocide. He killed Kirk's dad. He wasn't going to stop.
It wasn't Kirk's right to kill Nero. It was his duty.
Its like having a mass murderer jump into a car with his automatic rifle and head to the Canadian border. Would you attempt to stop him by force or let him go?

 

[Poltargyst]

Thats right.
Its not as if Nero was an innocent
He was armed with a superweapon. He said he wanted to destroy Earth. He'd just committed genocide. He killed Kirk's dad. He wasn't going to stop.
It wasn't Kirk's right to kill Nero. It was his duty.
Its like having a mass murderer jump into a car with his automatic rifle and head to the Canadian border. Would you attempt to stop him by force or let him go?

But Nero was helpless. TOS Kirk always used the minimum amount of force necessary to stop the badguy. Was it necessary to blow him away to make sure Nero didn't kill anyone else or were there things short of killing Nero they could have done to stop him?

 

[DonIago]

Kirk offered to beam Nero's crew off Narada and Nero refused. This isn't TOS Kirk, and that he even offered (to which Spock objected) indicates that he was willing to give Nero a chance.

The risk that Nero and/or Narada might time travel again and cause further problems was too high.

 

[Pauln6]

Kirk offered to beam Nero's crew off Narada and Nero refused. This isn't TOS Kirk, and that he even offered (to which Spock objected) indicates that he was willing to give Nero a chance.

The risk that Nero and/or Narada might time travel again and cause further problems was too high.

Nero refused. Nero's crew didn't get a chance to say what they wanted either way.

It's arguable that it was important to make sure that the Narada couldn't time travel. It's not so arguable that Nero and his crew should be summarily executed. Kirk doesn't need their permission to save them. Spock's rebuttal lacked context and Kirk's almost glee at the destruction was pitching to an audience that never quite got the philosophy of early Trek. But there are a whole lot of things wrong with that movie, including that without its warp core to power propulsion and shields, the ship's defenses would have failed in a nanosecond. Gravity doesn't cease to exist ten feet further away and an anti-matter explosion only pushes a ship because it has destructive force. They needed a slingshot manoeuvre instead of trying to break the engines by pulling away directly.

Kirk in Beyond feels so much more like TOS Kirk with unresolved issues beneath the surface.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Nero refused. Nero's crew didn't get a chance to say what they wanted either way.

Little Hans Moleman in the back:

"Ummm...I'll go..."

 

[Noname Given]

But Nero was helpless. TOS Kirk always used the minimum amount of force necessary to stop the badguy. Was it necessary to blow him away to make sure Nero didn't kill anyone else or were there things short of killing Nero they could have done to stop him?

Actually Kirk's use of force was always in approximate response to the 'crime'. There were plenty of situations in TOS where Kirk had no issues with the use of lethal force, if he felt it was deserved.

As others above have stated, in STO9, Kirk did make the offer to beam Nero's crew to safety, but Nero declined. Given that Nero callously and utterly destroyed the planet Vulcan killing billions of innocent Vulcans, I had no problem with Kirk's level of lethal response.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

When the Earth is having a bout of bad weather, real-Kirk time travels to go back and fix things. But when the planet Vulcan is destroyed in JJ-Trek, oh well, that's that— even though time travel is commonplace in the Kelvinverse. There's a reason the franchise isn't called Consistent Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

Spock's rebuttal lacked context and Kirk's almost glee at the destruction was pitching to an audience that never quite got the philosophy of early Trek.

Glee, eh? Must have been in that new anti-Trek cut I missed.

 

[Pauln6]

Glee, eh? Must have been in that new anti-Trek cut I missed.

Enthusiasm might be more appropriate. He wanted to kill Nero. Understandable but think of all the TOS episodes where the right conclusion was NOT to give in to that.

 

[Henoch]

The Captain of a ship speaks for the ship and the crew, even if it means everyone's destruction. The Romulan Commander did it. Nero did it. Kirk did it many times.

 

[Pauln6]

The Captain of a ship speaks for the ship and the crew, even if it means everyone's destruction. The Romulan Commander did it. Nero did it. Kirk did it many times.

On a mining ship though? And did Nero take other prisoners when escaping Klingon space? They only bothered to rescue Pike and assumed there was nobody else.

 

[fireproof78]

Enthusiasm might be more appropriate. He wanted to kill Nero. Understandable but think of all the TOS episodes where the right conclusion was NOT to give in to that.

As opposed to Kirk wanting revenge on Klingons a couple of times?

And I never saw the enthusiasm.

On a mining ship though? And did Nero take other prisoners when escaping Klingon space? They only bothered to rescue Pike and assumed there was nobody else.

He seemed perfectly fine with just destroying ships, including the Enterprise until he recognized the name.

 

[DonIago]

Enthusiasm might be more appropriate. He wanted to kill Nero. Understandable but think of all the TOS episodes where the right conclusion was NOT to give in to that.

This reminds me a bit of a thread on this board where some people were suggesting that Kirk should have made more of an effort to save Kruge's life while the latter was in the middle of trying to kill them both and grabbed for Kirk's boot when Kirk offered a hand.

 

[Pauln6]

As opposed to Kirk wanting revenge on Klingons a couple of times?

And I never saw the enthusiasm.

He seemed perfectly fine with just destroying ships, including the Enterprise until he recognized the name.

The Romulans are as guilty as hell and all the ones we see appear fully complicit but that doesn't mean there aren't others who objected. The assumption is that everyone on the ship deserves death but that is an assumption based on no evidence.

Pine is a good actor; his attitude portrayed satisfaction at the destruction. As far as the writing went it was a dog whistle to rough justice. The ship was being destroyed. The writers chose to put in a moment for the Enterprise to destroy them. Two fingers to left wing idealism I guess?

 

[fireproof78]

The Romulans are as guilty as hell and all the ones we see appear fully complicit but that doesn't mean there aren't others who objected. The assumption is that everyone on the ship deserves death but that is an assumption based on no evidence.

Pine is a good actor; his attitude portrayed satisfaction at the destruction. As far as the writing went it was a dog whistle to rough justice. The ship was being destroyed. The writers chose to put in a moment for the Enterprise to destroy them. Two fingers to left wing idealism I guess?

It felt in line with Kirk in TOS, so those two fingers appear to be index fingers pointing at the film, with the rest of the fingers pointing back at TOS.

And it's not about left or right but what I saw in TOS. Kirk wanted revenge at times. And he justified it sometimes too. I see the arguments that 09 is the "anti-Trek" or "anti-idealism" or "anti-TOS" but I see it as being a 2000s view of what TOS did.

I agree, that Pine is a good actor. He did a lot with his facial expression and body language that communicated a lot. However, the idea that he was satisfied by destruction wasn't something I took away from his language. Perhaps that's my misreading it, but even if so, I don't see it out of line with TOS.

 

[Pauln6]

It felt in line with Kirk in TOS, so those two fingers appear to be index fingers pointing at the film, with the rest of the fingers pointing back at TOS.

And it's not about left or right but what I saw in TOS. Kirk wanted revenge at times. And he justified it sometimes too. I see the arguments that 09 is the "anti-Trek" or "anti-idealism" or "anti-TOS" but I see it as being a 2000s view of what TOS did.

I agree, that Pine is a good actor. He did a lot with his facial expression and body language that communicated a lot. However, the idea that he was satisfied by destruction wasn't something I took away from his language. Perhaps that's my misreading it, but even if so, I don't see it out of line with TOS.

Kirk admitted that he wanted to kill in TOS but chose not to. I can't think of a time that Kirk took revenge on a helpless opponent in TOS though.

I'm surprised that you think the movies were looking back at TOS. McCoy and maybe Sulu were harking back to TOS but not really the other characters. Amanda, Uhura, and Chekov lacked their characteristic humour, while Scotty had the humour dialled up far too high.

I enjoyed them as dumb rollercoaster bubblegum movies but not as movies channelling the spirit of TOS. Well, I suppose they were sexist, so there's that.

Now credit to Pine, there were moments when he absolutely channelled Shatner and he did an amazing job of portraying a man using bravado to mask vulnerability, much like Shatner (although Shatner used commanding presence rather than bravado). The difference was that Pine's Kirk lacked any discipline and the other characters applauded him for it. It gets resolved over the three movie arc but there wasn't nearly enough emphasis on NuKirk being about as fit for command at 25 as Janice Lester. ;-p

 

[fireproof78]

I'm surprised that you think the movies were looking back at TOS. McCoy and maybe Sulu were harking back to TOS but not really the other characters. Amanda, Uhura, and Chekov lacked their characteristic humour, while Scotty had the humour dialled up far too high.

Not sure why that is surprising. It's not just the characters, but how the themes of the film. Identifying individual strengths to work together, rather than in conflict. Using personal abilities to help the whole. Chekov does that quite well, as well as Uhura. Not as a pale imitation of TOS counterpart, but a reflection of a 2000s view of the character.

I enjoyed them as dumb rollercoaster bubblegum movies but not as movies channelling the spirit of TOS. Well, I suppose they were sexist, so there's that.

If that's all you want from it then that is all people will get. I suppose after 13 years I would accept that. It's not a dumb movie for me.

The difference was that Pine's Kirk lacked any discipline and the other characters applauded him for it. It gets resolved over the three movie arc but there wasn't nearly enough emphasis on NuKirk being about as fit for command at 25 as Janice Lester. ;-p

Exactly the point of the character. Would TOS Kirk kill a helpless opponent? Well, maybe Gary Mitchell when he went powerless. But, is the potential there? Oh, definitely. Kirk wanted revenge on the Klingon in "Friday's Child." He was planning it, regardless of who got the shot someone had to get him.

It's not the idea of one to one exact ideas, but the attitudes that are present. You are quite right that TOS Kirk has that trait tempered. NuKirk lacked that discipline and had to grow in to it, which is proven over the three films. To me, that's why these films are so valuable. The idea that because he is Kirk he must be great; well no. Greatness must be cultivated.

 

[Pauln6]

Not sure why that is surprising. It's not just the characters, but how the themes of the film. Identifying individual strengths to work together, rather than in conflict. Using personal abilities to help the whole. Chekov does that quite well, as well as Uhura. Not as a pale imitation of TOS counterpart, but a reflection of a 2000s view of the character.

It's not the idea of one to one exact ideas, but the attitudes that are present. You are quite right that TOS Kirk has that trait tempered. NuKirk lacked that discipline and had to grow in to it, which is proven over the three films. To me, that's why these films are so valuable. The idea that because he is Kirk he must be great; well no. Greatness must be cultivated.

I agree with these points. Uhura was allowed to become as competent as an officer should have been but at the same time, her sass levels got dialled down a lot, which was a shame. I enjoy Kirk's arc overall so the issue for me is more that in the first movie it was so obvious that greatness must be cultivated that promoting Kirk to captain was a terrible idea. If not for Spock reigning him in, Kirk's dumspter fire, knee-jerk ideas would have doomed them all. He was not a good officer, let alone a good leader (albeit that TOS is full of Starship captains who are terrible leaders). I felt that promoting him felt like a disservice to TOS Kirk who had to strive, and be a stack of books on legs, suffer tragedies, and overcome them, compared to hot-wiring a car, driving into a Romulan space ship while playing loud music, thus confusing them so much that they forgot how to use shields, transporters, tactics, weapons, scanners and common sense (stoopid Romulans). Actually, a few minor tweaks to the movie would have assuaged most of my gripes (such as moving on the timeline a couple of years before promoting him).

Gary Mitchell was only very temporarily helpless and still potentially very dangerous, unlike Nero. A more fitting end for Nero would have been if he had tried to blast the Enterprise from within the anomaly and his own weapons detonated so that his hatred literally consumed him.

In the context of this thread though, I do think that you can see elements of TOS Kirk in NuKirk in the way he papers over the cracks to put on a performance, despite the trauma.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree with these points. Uhura was allowed to become as competent as an officer should have been but at the same time, her sass levels got dialled down a lot, which was a shame. I enjoy Kirk's arc overall so the issue for me is more that in the first movie it was so obvious that greatness must be cultivated that promoting Kirk to captain was a terrible idea. If not for Spock reigning him in, Kirk's dumspter fire, knee-jerk ideas would have doomed them all. He was not a good officer, let alone a good leader (albeit that TOS is full of Starship captains who are terrible leaders). I felt that promoting him felt like a disservice to TOS Kirk who had to strive, and be a stack of books on legs, suffer tragedies, and overcome them, compared to hot-wiring a car, driving into a Romulan space ship while playing loud music, thus confusing them so much that they forgot how to use shields, transporters, tactics, weapons, scanners and common sense (stoopid Romulans). Actually, a few minor tweaks to the movie would have assuaged most of my gripes (such as moving on the timeline a couple of years before promoting him).

Gary Mitchell was only very temporarily helpless and still potentially very dangerous, unlike Nero. A more fitting end for Nero would have been if he had tried to blast the Enterprise from within the anomaly and his own weapons detonated so that his hatred literally consumed him.

In the context of this thread though, I do think that you can see elements of TOS Kirk in NuKirk in the way he papers over the cracks to put on a performance, despite the trauma.

I agree to a certain point about Kirk. Was he ready to be a leader? No. Did he show traits of being a leader? Yes, the biggest one being he inspired loyalty and had compassion for his crew. He was not willing to be silent, and to speak up even in the face of overwhelming odds. Did he have a lot to learn? Yup, and he had to do so quickly and very painfully.

I agree that very minor tweaks to the film, including a better ending scene, would have done wonders. But, then, I would also prefer no writers strike while the film was being made.

As far as "stoopid Romulans" I have no idea what you are saying? Kirk, with the support of Chekov, Sulu and Scotty, worked up a plan, developed it, and they all executed it. He inspired others to collaborate and become better for it. If that isn't leadership then I would recommend you rewrite all those leadership training modules I just spent the last 6 months doing.

As for Nero, I still don't see the glee or satisfaction. You have a Kirk who acknowledges the last wish and ensures the threat is ended. People say "Nero was helpless!" And Kirk has no way of knowing that for certain. The ship has demonstrated the ability to go through the black hole and time travel, potentially causing more damage. Kirk has a responsibility to stop the threat by any means necessary. That's not rough justice or anti-leftist or whatever. That's him doing his duty to the best of his ability with the information he had at the time.