Where Have All the Kirks Gone?
by Heather SmithDon’t beam me up, Scotty. The Capt. James T. Kirk in the new “Star Trek” film is proof of how much ground men have lost in today’s culture.
Before you tell me it is just a movie, recall the words of series creator Gene Roddenberry: “I have no belief that Star Trek depicts the actual future,” Roddenberry said, “it depicts us, now…” And right now, the latest Star Trek depicts men as insecure, impulsive lechs who need women and aliens to keep them out of trouble.
Consider four attributes of the ideal man: self-control, bravery, confidence and sex appeal.
In the original series, Kirk has supreme self-control. He sacrifices himself for the safety of his crew and, in more than one episode, even chooses duty over true love. In the latest “Star Trek,” Kirk is Peter Pan, an irresponsible, reckless man-boy. (Warning: plot spoilers ahead.) The new Kirk tears down an empty Iowa highway in a stolen hot rod and drives off a cliff, jumping out to save himself, not the car. He gets into bar fights to serve his vanity, not some higher cause like rescuing the crew from aliens.
While the original Kirk used reason, the new one mostly leaves that to Spock. Even when the new Kirk does sometimes get things right, he does so by being impulsive not shrewd. The 1960s Kirk destroyed evil computers with logic problems to save the ship. The new Kirk almost gets thrown out of Starfleet Academy for manipulating the computer program to his advantage.
Even bravery gets a dressing down in the new “Star Trek.” In the film, Captain Pike lectures Kirk about the importance of the peacekeeping and the humanitarian missions of Starfleet to the multi-cultural, multi-world Federation. The original Kirk bluffed aliens, threatened planets, started wars and keenly understood the necessity of maintaining peace through strength. The new “Star Trek” punishes Kirk on an icy planet because of his aggressive desire to take the fight to the enemy rather than consulting with the bureaucracy of the Federation. But then again, what do we expect with the headquarters of Starfleet being based in San Francisco? In the end, Captain Kirk is honored for his correct decision to attack the enemy, but only because, I suspect, the producers do not want an empty box office.
One of the most dramatic differences between 1966, when the “Star Trek” series first aired and today is the diminishing role of the father – and that change is mirrored in the two “Star Treks.” In the 1960s series, Kirk and Spock respect and honor their fathers, who were clearly present in their earlier lives. Today’s Kirk is fatherless. Naturally, he is also reckless, aggressive, impulsive and desperately seeking guidance. While the original Kirk was an authority, the new Kirk is openly insubordinate. The film’s producers consider these behaviors normal tells us how much American society has changed in the past 40 years.
The 1960s Kirk was a skillful seducer of women across the universe, a trait feminists now find unacceptable. So the new Kirk is a lecherous lad who suffers rejection by confident, professional women throughout the film. In fact, Mr. Spock gets more female attention than Kirk. When Kirk first meets Uhura, she immediately dismisses him as an uneducated Iowa farm boy. She later passionately kisses the emotionally distant Spock. Women are a civilizing force in making men accountable for their behavior throughout history. Feminism changed that. It was only in sexual liberation that women unleashed the Kirks from of their cages, transforming the male-female relationship into one of suspicion and cynicism. In Kirk’s old days, men’s adventurous freedom-loving thirst was quenched with a love of women and new landscapes. Today’s Kirk gets the blow off while Uhura throws herself at the emotionally unavailable Spock. (Of course, feminists are still unsatisfied. Melissa Silverstein writing for WomenandHollywood.com summarized the new “Star Trek“: “The three female characters of significance were insignificant – one gave birth, one was a mother, and one was a girlfriend.”)
“Star Trek” might be set in the 23rd century but the emasculation of men affects us today. How are we going to fight war and recession without a country of Kirks?
Heather Smith is a radio and documentary film producer based in Washington, D.C. www.politicaldiva.com
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
162 Comments
I've not seen the new Star Trek yet, and I'm not a fanboy. But isn't the point of a prequel to show Kirk before he exhibited those five attributes of self-control, reason, bravery, confidence and sex appeal? To show how the boy became a man?
I don't mean to be rude but isn't self-control one word and that would make "self-control, bravery, confidence and sex appeal" four attributes, not five.
I posted a lengthy review of "Star Trek" on my blog cited a lot of the same complaints about Kirk. This is a movie I enjoyed despite myself, knowing it had flaws, because it was fun. But the new Kirk is more fratboy than Captain.
I'm going to agree with Nick, I think a part of the story was a coming-of-age theme.
"Consider five attributes of the ideal man: self-control, bravery, confidence and sex appeal."
Huh. I guess women do suck at math.
And isn't the newKirk an ideal example of the consequences of lack of presence of fathers?
Plus the growth of the character is lionized when he accepts those (snicker) five attributes. Being punished by a mindless bureaucracy is to be expected. To be vindicated by your actions and then praised by those who impugned you previously is not to be expected in this reality.
…Nick kind of has a point, by the way.
But isn't this a young Kirk–he's still, essentially the man in the making, and of course he hasn't grown into the traits that we admire in the older Kirk. The movie still reflects that individual, enterprising spirit defeats collectivism.
Ceroth,
It's not rude to respectfully point out a typo.
Thanks Heather,
I noted at the end of the movie,
" They have just handed the keys to the USS Enterprise to a Teenager with a bottle of whiskey in his other hand".
I, too, prefer the "Manly" Kirk
Thanks. I knew from watching the commercial I watched last night that I probably didn't want to see it. The commercial gave me the impression that the new Star Trek movie was basically a video game put on the big screen. I'm sure if it had the kind of great dialogue as the original TV show had, i.e. Kirk to Spock: "You're a freak.! You belong in the circus; right next to the dog faced boy. And you've got the gall!, to make love to that girl.", that I would have heard about.
A young man is a work in progress — but if he's not showing those attributes by the time he's entering the academy, he's never going to show them.
My husband was a wild-man in his youth, but by the time he entered the military at nineteen, he was all about those manly attributes, especially self-control.
I would agree to a point. The next movie in the series will really define Kirk IMHO. If he continues to be impulsive as opposed to decisive — there is a difference– I'll be disappointed. But if the character shows growth I will have no complaints.
I agree with Nick, it's a similar theme as audiences saw in the new Daniel Craig Bond films. We know the Capt. Kirk character from the original series. Both the new Star Trek and the new Bond films are meant to show a young and reckless man-child that lacks the life experiences to always make the mature decision. An overlying message of the new Star Trek is that we as people have the ability to mature and grow into the "Kirks of old." I like this message because it suggests we can grow-up and become heroes, rather than just having to be born with all the virtues. Plus the movie was pretty sweet too….
Oprah and Dr. Phil are what have made Men, the wussies they are today.
Well said. I think you've very accurately described the difference between how Hollywood viewed heroes in the past and how they view them now.
One of the problems I have with modern Hollywood heroes (in all kinds of films) is that Hollywood no longer understands the concept of courage. Courage, in the moral sense or in any other sense, derives from having the will to do what we know is right despite the personal consequences.
Hollywood doesn't understand this concept. Instead, they substitute a fake courage — where the hero reluctantly takes down the bad guy because the bad guy gives him no choice. It's not heroic to act because you have no other choice.
Moreover, Hollywood often cheats by trying to up the hero factor by telling the audience that this task will likely lead to certain death. But as there is no alternative path given to the characters, this does nothing to make the character more heroic.
I have to disagree. I don't think the Kirk portrayed in the movie is capable of growing up into the Kirk of the old series.
Also, even the movie Kirk is old enough to be beyond the phase of teenage rebellion.
Great, and the posts start disappeaing. I wish they would fix this.
I totally agree with you.
Time was, a man could be sensitive without being a wuss. The problem is that, at some point, manliness and sensitivity became completely polarized — for which we have both the feminist movement and its backlash to thank.
sqt, can you post a link to your blog — I was looking the other day and couldn't find it.
P.S. each of my comments to you above vanished. I said . . .
That I disagreed with the growing into a man thing because I don't think that the movie Kirk can grow into the Kirk from the series — they just don't have the same personality underpinnings. Also, the movie Kirk is beyond his teenage years, but Pine still plays him as going through the whole teenage rebellion phase.
It goes back further. In the early 1980s (late 1970s) they talked about the Alan Alda-ing of men. It didn't take then and it won't take now. Yes, there are many metrosexuals — particularly in films, but not in flyover country.
I got your comment via email, though it isn't showing up on the thread. Irritating as heck isn't it?
I don't totally buy into the whole Kirk-is-just-growing-into-a-man thing. But I'm cynical enough to believe that the producers of the movie may (though it's by no means certain) listen to the various critics who have protested that the new Kirk is too immature and change the writing to reflect a more credible Kirk. As it stands now, his character isn't written with enough depth to be convincing.
what the heck, all my responses to you are vanishing today
HERE is a link to my blog.
[...] Where Have All the Kirks Gone? by Heather Smith [...]
I haven't seen the new one yet. However, I can't imagine him being more wussified than Picard. The new Kirk sounds like any number of fighter pilots out today. We need that kind of testosterone. I also think it's natural for sons to disagree with their fathers. It's kind of a testing phase for young men. I'm sure young women wouldn't understand that since they adore their fathers. You don't really find out how smart your dad was until you grow up.
Besides, there are a large number of red shirts that would disagree with you on the old Kirk's abilities as captain.
Very very very irritating.
I agree that it's difficult to put too much depth into one two hour movie. Still, I'm concerned that the personality they have given him lacks the things that made Kirk the guy we all admire (and that modern liberals hate). I hope Pine grows into that character, but I have my doubts because modern Hollywood does not recognize many of those traits anymore.
I posted a link on another comment — since this one didn't show up right away. (Comments are disappearing something awful today). HERE'S the link again.
Heather, by the way, welcome to Big Hollywood. We're happy to have you.
I agree 100% I travel all over the U.S. and Latin America. You do not see the "Metro's" any place except on the two coast of America. Go to Mexico City and pull that Alan Alda crap! Ha! I was in South Beach with some Mexican customers, they were actually on the sidewalk rolling around and laughing at "the inhabitant's"
It didn't work.
I'm pretty sure Kirk mentioned sometime in the original that the only way he beat the Kobayashi Maru test was by secretly reprogramming the computer.
Other than that, great analysis! I'm sure they didn't consciously plan to have the differences between new kirk and old kirk show the advantages there is to men for growing up with a father, but they did.
That is so annoying. I even tested the link after I posted it. See if this works.
http://sqt-fantasy-sci-fi-girl.blogspot.com//
I don't totally disagree with the author's point of view as I had some similar feelings toward Kirk throughout the movie. I did think that the Kirk who stepped onto the bridge in the last scene was much closer to the 'real' Kirk than during the rest of it. For that reason I also agree with those who feel that it was a coming of age story.
My problem is that the events that caused the coming of age just seemed to unfold too quickly for everybody to go from being the strangers at the beginning to the Enterprise crew we know from the original series at the end. I agree that the next installment will be critical and may make the story in this one better or worse as a part of the two-story narrative.
I still thought it was a pretty great movie.
Yep. Thanks.
"The new Kirk tears down an empty Iowa highway in a stolen hot rod and drives off a cliff, jumping out to save himself, not the car." – when he's still young teenager.
"He gets into bar fights to serve his vanity, not some higher cause like rescuing the crew from aliens." – before Pike challenged him to join Starfleet and follow his dead father's example.
"In the film, Captain Pike lectures Kirk about the importance of the peacekeeping and the humanitarian missions of Starfleet to the multi-cultural, multi-world Federation. The original Kirk bluffed aliens, threatened planets, started wars and keenly understood the necessity of maintaining peace through strength." – did you miss the bit about this not being the time for diplomacy? Did you miss him killing the Romulans?
-
I really am not convinced that you saw the film, or that if you actually did you understood it!
Don't recall where I came across it, but the oddest comment I've seen about the film is someone's observation that there seemed to a lot of scenes of Kirk putting on his boots.
For the umpteenth time, he's a kid! He's _not_ man-Kirk yet! How many of as college freshmen had all the skills and confidence that we have as adults? How many boot camp attendees on day one are the same as they are when they graduate? You have to be tempered by experience. The crew is coalescing into the adults we came to know when they were already a seasoned crew. This is the origin of an iconic crew. It continues to astound me how many people don't seem to get the concept of character development.
In the TV seres, Kirk's already in his mid-thirties. And from your description of the young Kirk, sounds just like what TV Kirk probably was in his younger, more reckless days. Have you forgotten the Kobayashi Maru story?
I think the movie is a reverse play on the "Build 'em up just to knock 'em down" strategy. It makes for an easily produced sequel. It almost writes itself. How Hollywood handles Kirk in the next movie will be a better picture of what they think an alpha male is. IMHO. I still can't believe Kirk did the green chick. Come to think of it, wouldn't bringing back the green chick be a great paean to the enviro-nazis? Imagine the metaphorical possibilities!
http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com
There's a huge elephant in the room here… and that's Kirk's father.
The film opens up with Daddy Kirk sacrificing himself for the survival of his crew and his son. That's pretty courageous if you ask me.
Even the behavior of other Starfleet commanders when dealing with Nero is pretty "manly" – standing up against torture and all.
Anyhow, the sacrifices of Daddy Kirk leave Kirk fatherless for his childhood… raised by a relative… an uncle if I remember the voice left for Kirk as he steals his relative's car. Still fatherless and probably constantly reminded of the shadow Kirk has to live under… it makes sense that he turns into this brash headstrong kid.
Can he turn into Kirk as he was in the 60s… probably not. But the Kirk in the 60s had a father. Contemporary Kirk, due to a rewriting of the events of history as a consequence of time travel, does not.
We decided to skip the movie even though I am a Trekker because the theme of the film is contrary to the original. And frankly, I am so tired of metro-men that I have started watching cowboys on the western movie channel. I never thought that would happen but it is satisfying to see men, real men, stand up for principle and be willing to do what it takes to win.
Ah, for the good old days of white vs black hats. Loved it.
I'm not sure I saw the same movie she did. She mentions that Kirk drove a car off a cliff but didn't mention that Kirk was a boy around 10 or 11 who was angry with his uncle. The bar fight was by a cocky jerk who thought he was better than everyone else. That same scene Captain Pike gave Kirk something to think about. I'll give you the points on his womanizing in this one but he is also just getting out of the gate. As far as his decisions they seem to have been better than Spock's. Fact is Pike thought more of Kirks's opinions that Spock's. I saw the movie as portraying an angry young man growing up and becoming the man that so many fans enjoy. He still has a long way to go but he also just got out of Star Fleet. Give him a break
I'm curious as to what type of woman is actually attracted to a metrosexual "man".
exactly, sarge…. I dont' have a problem with the recklessness of Kirk in this one… as long as he _starts_ to become the Kirk we all know by the end of the movie… and then finalize the transformation in the follow-up movie.
Heather, I'm in agreement. I found the young Kirk uncompelling and unappealing. I expected him to be somewhat impetuous and reckless in his youth, but not for those to be his defining qualities.
Or the modern Hollywood makes the hero some type of silly comedic character that accidentally stumbles upon bravery, or a form of heroic acts.
As our kids grew up we had them watch as many black and white movies as possible. In doing so, it is amazing how much the movies from about 1929 until the 1950's are their favorites versus those movies more flashy, and more contemporary. They think Betty Davis' movie "The Letter" is one of the creepiest movies they have ever seen, and there is no blood squirting out of anyone's appendages!
Many of their movie heroes also come from the same eras, and while they are teenagers, they can very much recognize what you have asserted here about Hollywoods concepts of courage and heroes. One movie the kids have discussed at great length is "They Were Expendable". There is a scene where two very young men dash off to say a silent prayer at the graves of their friends before they have to move out. The scene is beyond moving, and for us, demonstrates a type of courage or at the very least principle and character on the party of the two youngsters. They were not going to leave the outpost until they had paid a visit to the graves. Not one word is said by either of the boys, and no huge demonstrative actions either. They could have chosen to stay with their unit, and begin the process are arming themselves. At this point of the movie things are looking rather bleak for the Navy! The result of this scene gives the movie a flavor of complete free will by those fighting, and makes the slightest gesture of the characters extremely heroic and courageous. These incredible small moments in movies are indeed discarded by modern Hollywood, and it is a sad and less palatable move made which deprives the audience of what could be a great movie. Simplicity is and can be absolutely beautiful.
Do you not also think some of this is because the movie makers of today forget they are making movies for the audience to enjoy? The agenda or ideology of the movie maker trumps everything. Sad!
As to the sissyfication of the males on planet Earth; it is a tragedy for sure! Real men should be placed on the endangered species list! These so called strong women are creating man bra wearing mani-peti males who quite frankly resemble some of the aliens in the old Star Trek episodes. Yuck! But I refuse to give up hope that things cannot return to some form of sanity. I have to keep positive because our yutes must be able to find some decent husbands! You know the type, "men, manly men!"
"The new Kirk tears down an empty Iowa highway in a stolen hot rod and drives off a cliff…"
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Iowa has cliffs?
I totally agree. No way they could develop Kirk completely in one movie. But now that they've set the tone, the next one will give a clearer picture.
And green or not, she was a hottie, I'da thrown her one!!
Both Bond and Kirk's character had been written in a time when being 20 something yrs old meant you where a man already. You went to war, got married, had children, took a job you did not want so you could support your family, and "stayed" around to raise your children. If you acted the fool at that age, in that era, you where a fool. We now accept stupid behavoir from 30 yr olds and blame it on youth.
My point is that,through Hollywood, all the traits that made up real men (see John Wayne) are now second to being in touch with your "feminine side" and being a "good listener". Hollywood has made our "tough guys" into twit's.
If people actually read some of Ian Flemings original Bond books I think they would be suprised by the fact that Bond was a ruthless, borderline, nasty guy. This is far from the touchy feely Bond we get nowadays and I fear, from what I have heard, that Captain Kirk has now suffered the same fate!
In real life the "new" Kirk would be back on the farm growing turnips!
Spock wanted to do the confab with the rest of the fleet. Kirk wanted to attack. Kirk lost his temper (childish yes). Spock, the representative of the bueraucracy, exiles Kirk. Kirk escapes, and captures his ship back. He then attacks. Good guys win.In other words….go to the UN and talk it out OR kick down the door and take on the bad guys….I agree that this Kirk was less manly. I don't say the producers totally thought this a good thing.Pike, in his pitch to Kirk, says that the Fleet has gotten too much one way, and they need Kirk to take it back the other way.This Kirk has gumption. He has not refined it yet. And this Kirk does not have enough gumption, but this experience of victory may mend that problem (Nothing like saving the universe to give you a bit more self-confidence.)He's flawed, but I wonder if the producers did that on purpose.
As someone who grew up on the star trek. I enjoyed the show. I was still confused with the story line of the movie. It seems that the writers had to go back in time to make the changes in Kirk and even Spock to"fit in" with today's standard of manhood. I missed the old Kirk. But I enjoyed the new Spock. go figure. I was always a sucker for pointed ears. The changes the movie made (because of the time travel) does that make all of the tv shows false? like they did not happen? NO TRIBBLES? I gotta have my tribbles! Maybe they will be in the next movie,
thank you
You make a very good point. Interestingly, in "They Were Expendable", as in most older war movies, the good-guy soliders were always made out as volunteers, even though most soldiers of the era were draftees. Today, even though the military consists entirely of volunteers, the movie makers always have to imply that the soldiers are there against their will.
On the other point, I wouldn't put real men on the endangered species list yet. Hollywood may want to sell the idea that modern man is a effeminate, but that doesn't seem to be taking hold in the general population.
I'm more troubled by the message that it doesn't take virtue to be a "true man." Much of our current culture tells kids to eschew responsibility, to act on impulse over reason, and to abandon ideas of independence — but those are the very qualities that make a boy into a man.
I've met a few — mainly lawyers. You wouldn't like them.
Outside of that small group though, I rarely meet women who profess to liking effeminate men.
You have no idea how much work I've put into making your comments disappear.
XOXOXO, LawhawkSF
I wouldn't try to generalize from my own experience, but by the time I was fifteen, I was "the man in the family" by virtue of my father's premature death. The breaks. So I was probably overjudgmental with my son. By the time he was in his early twenties, I had despaired of him ever growing up, but he was sure a lot of fun to be around. He still is, but now he's married, raising a family, and extremely successful. In fact, I sometimes wish I were as mature as he is. We all grow up at different paces. Maybe Kirk will grow up too.
“The three female characters of significance were insignificant – one gave birth, one was a mother, and one was a girlfriend.”)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
OMG HOW HORRIBLE! HOW TERRIBLE! These feminists are not human women. They have to be a lower life form or developmentally challenged idiots to actually think BEING A WOMAN IS BAD? What the hell? Up is down to them and down is up!
My problem is more that I don't see written within his character the building blocks for him to grow up into the guy that tv-Kirk became. This Kirk strikes me as a guy who is going to grow up to be Ashton Kutcher.
I hope it gets better, but I'm not holding out hope.
I knew it was you, you evil, evil plutocrat.
And as far as the new Kirk is concerned? Rolling my eyes…..yeah because military men are metrosexual little boys? Give me a break.
Arg, stop making my posts disappear Lawhawk!
I will bow to your insight as to not placing real men on the endangered species list just yet. FYI, the kids love BigHollywood, and think you in particular are exceptionally bright. They like reading what you have to say.
The "true man" message is troubling, and this could be why I have seen more families choosing non-traditional forms of education, and censoring what their children watch on tv and the movies. I also live in a region vastly different from Hollywood and so my observances might be only regional.
I believe that the popular culture has – since the 1970s – emasculated men – but there are still plenty of "real men" out there.
I think you're looking for a reason to attack this movie based on your personal ideaology than any actual dislike of it. Of course Kirk is going to be much different as a young man than the more adult version. You think he just came out of the womb like that? He's a person not a robot.
I cano go on and on about how lazy your take on this film is but I think I'll just criticize the silliest point: Kirk doesn't save the car. Why would he? He was destroying his stepdads prized possession. Why would he give a crap what happens to it as oppossed to falling to his own death? Now if Kirk is the same man in later films you might have some validitiy but I doubt Abrams and his team are that creatively bankrupt.
Thanks for the kind words — always happy to hear that people like what I say.
On the issue of regionalism, I don't think you are alone by any stretch. I know people all across the country who have taken that route. Even in a place as "metro" as Washington, D.C., I know a LOT of people who took the non-traditional approach with their kids: home schooling, private schools, limited television, etc. And their kids are turning out great.
If society at large isn't going to teach kids what they need to know or is sending the wrong messages, then parents have to step up and take care of the issue themselves.
Are you making fun of my son Ashton?
If this post sticks, the problem is at Intense Debate. I logged out, and entered my name manually. Using my regular post name and avatar on ID seems to make posts disappear immediately. So here goes.
"The 1960s Kirk destroyed evil computers with logic problems to save the ship. The new Kirk almost gets thrown out of Starfleet Academy for manipulating the computer program to his advantage. "
Are we really being lectured on Star Trek by someone who's never seen "The Wrath of Khan"?
This article was a howler. Keep it up, Big Hollywood!
Heather, you obviously missed the part in Star Trek II where they referred to Kirk's reprogramming the computer in his Academy days, which is what this movie portrays.
You also obviously missed the part of this movie that is a PRE-quel. Meaning the Kirk we saw here is NOT YET the Kirk we knew in the Original Series. Characters need room to GROW. Makes for good drama. And satisfied audiences.
Excellent. Welcome. Now could you please tell the idiots at BH admin how to fix this ridiculous problem with disappearing posts?
There are too many social conservatives complaining about how hollywood movies and TV shows are too sexed up!
How can we expect Captain Kirk to get his interstellar (and interracial) jiggy on with all of the flack from the right?!
Women with penis envy!
I was going to say the same thing. The whole point of the bar-room brawl scene was that this was not at all the sort of thing Original Kirk would have done, because Original Kirk had his dad to teach him honour and respect and all that, and New Kirk didn't.
If anything, the movie's real message is about the importance of fathers in raising responsible young men.
Like others have said, the real test will be the next movie, to see if Kirk grows up at all.
For the characters in this movie your correct. The old stories don't exist. For spectators of the Star Trek universe the stories are still valid. So give your Tribble a hug.
Wow, so far the cutest girl on Big Hollywood! (I say that with manly respect).
only if you leave out reason…
You mised the Tribbles? There was one on Scotty's desk at the station!
Getting back to the original post, I don't agree at all. This was a brash young Kirk who still has to develop his sense of duty. He is smart but unrefined. You say he is honored at the end only to protect the box office. That is insane. It is Kirk that is being developed here. Insecure?? Where was he insecure? He was always confident in himself. Even if it had consequences for him. He stood up to Spock when he knew he was right and fought for the issue. An insecure Kirk would not have been able to break Spock.
Yeah, the old Kirk had more style. It takes a while to develop style. He doesn't get Uhura. So what? She is more interested in Spock and apparently had been for some time. It is easy to see how a young Kirk could be like this.
Kirk was not insubordinate before??? I don't know what show you were watching. The old Captain Kirk would violate orders of superior officers all the time if he thought it was the right thing to do. The main difference is that they were always a day away via subspace and not there on the bridge. Even the few times they were, he would do everything to get around them.
Impulsive and not shrewd? I will give some of this; but he did have the ability to recognize that Vulcan was being attacked. He will likely have more impulsive actions until he grows into his responsibility. Lets not forget that the Captain Kirk we knew had already had years of experience on a starship before we see him. This Kirk is still raw.
This Kirk is far from the emasculated insecure man you seem to see. He is exactly what a young and unseasoned Kirk would be. Truthfully, this Kirk is thrown into more difficult situations than the old Kirk because he does not have time to act as a junior officer on another starship as the original Kirk did. SO I would not expect him to be as refined as the old Kirk for sometime.
Heck, I'm more surprised that more people have not complained about how emotional the new Spock is compared to the old one.
Wonderful commentary ! The new movie may be an action adventure movie but it is NOT Star Trek.
OH, I forgot the biggest insubordination ever. Stealing the Enterprise in Start Trek III: The Search for Spock. He violated the direct order of the Admiral of the Fleet. You can''t get more insubordinate than that!
He did. I didn't like the way the scene was portrayed though. I didn't imagine that Kirk would be playing the cocky kid through it. Also, it was mentioned that Kirk was commended for original thinking or something.
Uhura was the epitome of the strong woman.
Geez. Not only do feminists see the glass as half-empty, they think men pissed in it too. Lighten up, Frances!
Actually, I thought the role-model alpha males of the movie, pretty obviously, were Kirk's father, and Captain Pike. If you compared them to "Old Kirk" they might even be more manly, less metro/emasculated. They are the two archetypes of the man who "new Kirk" is to become. Have to admit, he did mature significantly in 2 hours' screentime.
Yes, exactly. I would cut this film some slack as an intro to these new characters. Here's to hoping future installments focus on their growth into leaders.
===There are too many social conservatives complaining about how hollywood movies and TV shows are too sexed up!===
Do you just make this up as you go?
The original Kirk was written by a guy who had served on a B-24 Liberator bombing Occupied Europe, and was later an LAPD cop. At the time he wrote it, his WWII experiences were as distant to him as Miami Vice and Reagan is to us. Roddenberry (then, not later) understood the world and men's places in it.
Today, characters like Kirk MUST pass muster with WOMEN. Who want, mainly, "controllable" man-boys or angsty distant guys like Spock who are cool outsiders. Kirk being an Iowa farm-boy is a downer, Spock being an "exotic" is plus. The difference is that Roddenberry wrote of his own experiences, and JJ Abrams wrote to please women of today. Shrug. This is what most women want.
Ah yes, the Alan Alda Perm™. I also remember Time magazine having a cover story about this sort of thing, good times.
Heather Smith is obviously single and aaaaalooooonnnne.
Hey Dave, it's an honor to see you here…as a displaced Iowan I thought the same thing, but it appears to be a VERY deep quarry used to build the massive Starfleet complex in the background.
The bottom line on this new Star Trek film is this:
This is what Hollywood 2009 will give us (pandering to a young demographic).
So either enjoy the new series for whatever you can enjoy (and it might get much better as it goes along),
or else the original characters are forever relegated to being seen only in the old shows/films – ie, they're done – finished – forever frozen in time — like a museum piece.
The hysterical shrieking about this new film "destroying" the old stuff may be just the tiresome trend of misusing words and indulging in hyperbole… Actually, the old stuff will continue existing for anyone who wants to watch it … again and again and again…
Some sympathetic interviewer once lamented to James M. Cain about how Hollywood "destroyed" his novels.
Cain calmly said "No they didn't. My books are still right here on the shelf."
(Pt. 2 of 2)
FYI, I'm no fan of the metrosexual trend or perpetual adolescence, nor of films aiming to seduce a young audience by flattery ('You're so special – capable of doing extraordinary stuff – if only the world will give you a chance' etc).
However, I am a big fan of ALIVENESS, vitality, passion, brio, renewal, etc.
So I view the new Star Trek film as a mix of good & bad, but it's not a big deal to me.
There's a whole big world of other good stuff out there.
Participation, initiation, creation, etc will always be more fulfilling than being a spectator/consumer.
But an endless barrage of advertising strives to make us forget that.
Like the song says, it's better if you 'Grow some funk of your own.'
Hmm, the first part of "Live long and prosper" is "Live", not "watch" or "collect" or "complain"…
You win the avatar award for today! Dammit Jim, I'm a male, not an Alda.
(SPOILER – SPOILER – SPOILER)
What you all are missing is that THIS IS NOT the same James T Kirk! The movie is not trying to explain how the original Kirk became the original Kirk. Key to the movie (and the reboot) is that time travel has interrupted the previous timeline, and this Kirk and this Enterprise are on a DIFFERENT timeline. First Kirk had a father – this one doesn't. First Kirk had a male role model – this one didn't. Everything is different. It is perfectly understandable if First Kirk had the great male attributes, and this one was a wastrel who barely made it into Star Fleet – they aren't the same people, only the same genetically. Not experientially.
Heather: That was the funniest parody of an actual review I've ever read!
The part where you compare old Kirk to new kirk, and forget to identify the flaws as the SAME ones described or alluded to in the original series and movies: brilliant!
Fortunately, none of the fans of either have ever been known to pay very close attention to little plot details like that, so I think you're onto some serious comedy gold here.
Maybe next, you can explain to people how Darth Vader of the first-released Star Wars flick was a more manly character than the wussified Annakin Skywalker of the last one.
That should be a howler.
I didn't like Chris Pine's Kirk. He was a smart alec kid who didn't earn those Captain's stripes. If you want to see the REAL James T. Kirk, head on over the Star Trek: Phase 2. James Cawley who plays Kirk in that series has done a fantastic job with putting together a damn good set of stories with great special effects, and sometimes rocky but passable acting. He also shows up in the new movie. Even Abrams understood that he couldn't make this movie work without Cawley's silence at least.
Danny
pretty much.
Wondering what about this young Kirk rules out him growing into the old Kirk.
Also: maybe that's okay? In the same sense that, we would eventually get an "updated" old Kirk, one more fit for the times (the audience's time, not fictional). In the same sense that Roger Moore, et all, represented "updates" to the James Bond character all along (and not just with Daniel Craig's "young" James Bond)?
oh wow. well that changes things, doesn't it? Is that because the Romunan baddie blew up the ship that elder Kirk was captain of for 8 minutes?
oh man, I just went over to check out Phase II. That's some interesting casting…probably all from a pool of fanboys, something tells me.
I know right? What would Star Trek be if not always in the spirit of defeating collectivism? Like that time when they defeated those evil collectivist tribbles?
You must be logged in to post a comment.