The New Kirk

[Grom 0]

I read an interesting article over the weekend that explains why the new Kirk only vaguely resembles the Kirk played by Shatner. What do you all think?

 

Click here

 

WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS IN ABOVE LINK

[Cmdr JFarrington 0]

Ok. Weird statement: "He's not just cockey like ShatnerKirk, he's actually irresponsible." Since when was ShatnerKirk not irresponsible? I always considered him one of the most irresponsible captains in Trekdom.

 

Understatement: Time travel is a bit inconsistent in the Trek universe.

No. Really?

 

Interesting comments. Makes me totally not want to see it. Gene Roddenberry must be turning over in . . . space.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

.... I read that article twice and I still don't get it.

 

***SPOILER THOUGHT***

 

I bet "evil smarmy angsty" Kirk gets wiped out by the end of the film by a more upstanding Kirk like ShatnerKirk after the time line or whatever is restored.

[Cmdr JFarrington 0]

.... I read that article twice and I still don't get it.

 

ROFL. I rest my case.

 

Maybe it's not so much the film I object to as the article? One can hope.

[TKAR 0]

Interesting -it might be good who knows-what the movie will be -

[V'Roy 0]

From the article:

 

On the other hand, in the TNG crapfest "Time's Arrow," Data's head turns up in the ground even though Data hasn't yet gone back in time to have his head buried.

 

Something about that never made sense to me. I couldn't identify it at the time but now I know what it was. It was like that scene in one of the Bill and Ted Adventure movies where they simply intend to later go back in time and place a weapon in a strategic spot and the weapon magicly appeared.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

ROFL. I rest my case.

 

Maybe it's not so much the film I object to as the article? One can hope.

 

I object to the article.

 

I get the fact that the author was trying to compare two different Kirk incarnations, but the article reads like a blatant Public Relations stunt. PineKirk might very well be a lecherous idiot, but we have no idea until we see the movie, and rule of thumb - the main hero of any film can never be the full on lech idiot, because an audience (any audience) will never accept him.

 

Case in point - Mel Gibsons character (Porter) in "Payback". The man was dangerous, and a hardcase. But, he had his own principles (he wanted his dang money, period), and the character had what I call dark honor. I don't know what other watchers of the film consider him to be, but I consider Porter to be a hero. Or perhaps a dark hero.

 

IMO, the article is a big time stink.