This has probably been answered here 50 times already, but what the hell - I can't remember - was Sam older or younger than J.T.? If he was younger, then he doesn't exist in the new time line, since George Kirk is kaput. Any insights?
Whither Sam Kirk?
- Thread starter siskokid888
- Start date
Sam was older.
As for the new timeline: Sam must exist there as well, since the branch-off doesn't occur until Jim's birth. So Sam must have 1) not been on the Kelvin at all, or 2) one of the survivors and we just never saw him.
FWIW, the hitchhiking kid that Jim meets on the highway in ST XI (while stealing the car) was originally supposed to be Sam. In the novelization, it *is* Sam. But for some unknown reason, in the film they overdubbed Jim yelling somebody else's name.
As for the new timeline: Sam must exist there as well, since the branch-off doesn't occur until Jim's birth. So Sam must have 1) not been on the Kelvin at all, or 2) one of the survivors and we just never saw him.
FWIW, the hitchhiking kid that Jim meets on the highway in ST XI (while stealing the car) was originally supposed to be Sam. In the novelization, it *is* Sam. But for some unknown reason, in the film they overdubbed Jim yelling somebody else's name.
I'm in favor of Sam's existence. Seems wrong to give him the axe for no good reason at all. The poor guy didn't get any respect in the prime universe and ended up face down on the floor. At least in the Abramsverse, we got a glimpse of his face.
We saw his face in the original. It was Shatner with a fake stache. Seriously.
Anyway, yeah, the kid Jim drove by in the movie was supposed to be Sam, but his name was changed to Johnny in the final version for some reason.
Anyway, yeah, the kid Jim drove by in the movie was supposed to be Sam, but his name was changed to Johnny in the final version for some reason.
He definately yells Johnny, someone around here has confirmed it.
Thing is, it wouldn't matter if they kept his name. If Jim yelled George or Sam than the non-fans would know that's his name and that would be that, and the fans would know that's his brother. This matter didn't have to be any more complicated than that.
They might have over thought it.
It makes even less sense as it is. Who the fuck is that kid and why is he there? Actually, that whole sequence could have been omitted with no loss to the plot/film. Had it not been for the Nokia product placement, it probably would've been.
I didn't catch that in the deleted stuff - I'll have to watch again. That make sense - "Sam" was probably his middle name, called that to ease confusion with the old man. And J.T. definetly yells "Hey GEORGIE" when he passes him on the road - I've watched the DVD about 8 times, at full volume.
It would be interesting to revisit Sam in a future movie. Establish Kirk's family ties once for all. Also, he should be played by Chris Pine wearing a fake mustache. That would be awesome. 
As I said, "Who the fuck is that kid and why is he there?"
MirrorNuKirk?
I don't know. Make up whatever the hell you want.
I don't know. Make up whatever the hell you want.
Friend of Jimmys. What more do you really need?
Regardless, there is nothing in the movie that says he DOESN'T exist.
It was dubbed to say Johnny. Even the deleted scene with "Johnny" says Johnny on it.
Very true.
This is all academic, however, as there is nothing to disprove Sam's existence.
For Sam not to exist in the Alternate Reality, there has to be a line of dialogue or portrayed event that establishes Kirk to be an only child.
In the absence to the contrary, Sam obviously still exists.
A reason for being there.
His existence is random and not all explained or explored. Thus, he has no reason for being there. It's the first rule of storytelling.
Similar threads
