Another question might be, why did TOS!Kirk do it? Because his motivation, I believe would be different but also the same. We know, by his own admission, that TOS!Kirk was a serious student while in the academy, accepted at a young age and felt indebted to his benefactors thus motivated to not only do well but to exceed expectations. We also know that TOS!Kirk graduated in the top five percent of his class.
Quotes from "The Wrath of Khan" (god I love this movie):
Spock: The Kobayashi Maru scenario frequently wreaks havoc on students and equipment. As I recall you took the test three times yourself. Your final solution was, shall we say, unique? Kirk: It had the virtue of never having been tried.
And later...
Saavik: Admiral, may I ask you a question? Kirk: What's on your mind, Lieutenant? Saavik: The Kobayashi Maru, sir. Kirk: Are you asking me if we're playing out that scenario now? Saavik: On the test, sir... will you tell me what you did? I would really like to know. McCoy: Lieutenant, you are looking at the only Starfleet cadet who ever beat the no-win scenario. Saavik: How? Kirk: I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to rescue the ship. Saavik: What? David Marcus: He cheated. Kirk: I changed the conditions of the test; got a commendation for original thinking. I don't like to lose. Saavik: Then you never faced that situation... faced death. Kirk: I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
In his case I would say a thirst to prove himself, which, essentially, yes, can apply to both Kirks.
I would say TOS Kirk had his reasons less grave. I don't like to lose pretty much covers it. We could go digging (some of us have :D) of course about why he hates losing so much, and what it means for him, but that's like a whole other story.
The thing is, it's a matter of philosiphy from a certain point. What is more difficult: to try and find the solution under impossible conditions or to say that conditions are wrong and change them? Because this is the difference between a test room and the real world. Which sort of makes one wonder -- which position is more defeat -ish?
We could go digging (some of us have :D) of course about why he hates losing so much, and what it means for him, but that's like a whole other story.
...Getting a TOS fic idea. Damnit, I'm supposed to be packing. ;-)
Which sort of makes one wonder -- which position is more defeat -ish?
Good point, I never thought of it that way. I would say, knee-jerk reaction, both. As Jim learned, perhaps for the first time, at the end of tWoK... sometimes winning (Spock saving hundreds of lives with his actions) is also losing and/or paying a price that too dear to ones heart (Jim being forced to confront a world without Spock at his side). You can shape the test, but you can't shape the fallout.
Yeah. Which is why, I'll just say it again, it makes every sense in TOS
Harve Bennett was an amazing writer. I would hazard to say unsurpassed. If I were Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman and assuming Bennett is still alive, I would definitely be consulting his ass. For serious. ST:tWoK is gripping, moving storytelling to this day, almost thirty years after its release (and so is the other ST film Bennett penned, VH). That's saying something.
I'm not dissing Reboot, because I love it. I really do. I thought Orci and Kurtzman did a great job on capturing Star Trek's wittier side. And the character insights were captivating. But little inconsistencies, like the one you're talking about here (and a few others I wont bring up at the risk of starting a wank fest) could be ironed out in the next film to bring more of a balance.
and a few others ... could be ironed out in the next film to bring more of a balance.
Well, amen to that. Personally, I'm not so optimistic about it, in fact, I'm sort of dreading what they might come up with next, but for a while there's still hope, right? ;)
Quotes from "The Wrath of Khan" (god I love this movie):
Spock: The Kobayashi Maru scenario frequently wreaks havoc on students and equipment. As I recall you took the test three times yourself. Your final solution was, shall we say, unique?
Kirk: It had the virtue of never having been tried.
And later...
Saavik: Admiral, may I ask you a question?
Kirk: What's on your mind, Lieutenant?
Saavik: The Kobayashi Maru, sir.
Kirk: Are you asking me if we're playing out that scenario now?
Saavik: On the test, sir... will you tell me what you did? I would really like to know.
McCoy: Lieutenant, you are looking at the only Starfleet cadet who ever beat the no-win scenario.
Saavik: How?
Kirk: I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to rescue the ship.
Saavik: What?
David Marcus: He cheated.
Kirk: I changed the conditions of the test; got a commendation for original thinking. I don't like to lose.
Saavik: Then you never faced that situation... faced death.
Kirk: I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
In his case I would say a thirst to prove himself, which, essentially, yes, can apply to both Kirks.
Reply
The thing is, it's a matter of philosiphy from a certain point. What is more difficult: to try and find the solution under impossible conditions or to say that conditions are wrong and change them? Because this is the difference between a test room and the real world. Which sort of makes one wonder -- which position is more defeat -ish?
Reply
...Getting a TOS fic idea. Damnit, I'm supposed to be packing. ;-)
Which sort of makes one wonder -- which position is more defeat -ish?
Good point, I never thought of it that way. I would say, knee-jerk reaction, both. As Jim learned, perhaps for the first time, at the end of tWoK... sometimes winning (Spock saving hundreds of lives with his actions) is also losing and/or paying a price that too dear to ones heart (Jim being forced to confront a world without Spock at his side). You can shape the test, but you can't shape the fallout.
Reply
Sorry? :D
Yeah. Which is why, I'll just say it again, it makes every sense in TOS, and in nuverse not so much. >.<
Reply
Harve Bennett was an amazing writer. I would hazard to say unsurpassed. If I were Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman and assuming Bennett is still alive, I would definitely be consulting his ass. For serious. ST:tWoK is gripping, moving storytelling to this day, almost thirty years after its release (and so is the other ST film Bennett penned, VH). That's saying something.
I'm not dissing Reboot, because I love it. I really do. I thought Orci and Kurtzman did a great job on capturing Star Trek's wittier side. And the character insights were captivating. But little inconsistencies, like the one you're talking about here (and a few others I wont bring up at the risk of starting a wank fest) could be ironed out in the next film to bring more of a balance.
Reply
Well, amen to that. Personally, I'm not so optimistic about it, in fact, I'm sort of dreading what they might come up with next, but for a while there's still hope, right? ;)
Reply
Leave a comment