Some thoughts and questions about why we like what we like. Oh, and Kirk.
I have things I should probably talk about, that might be interesting, but I keep falling into that cycle of "I'm too tired/busy/braindead to do it justice right now" which is what leads to not posting for months (and it also why I fail at emailing/calling/socializing back
( Read more... )
That's it's withered away in the intervening years is something I'm not sure to be pleased or saddened by. It incorporates a lot of poisonous societal dichotomies, IMO...
This. It's not easy to parse. I think one thing that attracts me so strongly to TOS now is its optimism, and the fact a bunch of guys who had been through war decided that this was the story they wanted to tell. That it's imperialist and quasi-military and falls down hard on gender are issues. But there's a spirit there that I respond to, I think because I lack it in other (more cynical) media. It's a world with big problems, but they're problems I find interesting to examine--and values it's interesting to try to tease out. What's endemic to those harmful social dichotomies? What can we separate from ignorance and poor realization? Is it okay to feel shored up by the show's optimism, when there is so much underlying it that is problematic?
I have been thinking a lot recently about 60s Batman vs. "Dark Knight" Batman, and how the cynical "Batman's basically a terrorist but that's what we need right now" relates to the "fully deputized agent of the law" of Adam West. Because both, oddly, address the same issue of responsibility and lawfulness in different ways--it's not that the camp version ignores it.
Where am I going?
I wasn't as disappointed in Pine as I thought I'd be. I've read fic, too, that manages to map Who He'll Be onto what we see in the movie and show me a progression that heartens. But he didn't have that something--he felt more like a pretty good summation of everything I feel pop culture has decided Kirk is, without whatever it was that I responded to in the show. I'm not uninterested in that person, but he's not my Kirk.
(That's so interesting. I've mostly read K/S, which, when it's not just purple porn, seems to me to be about trying to find a way to let the Enterprise win while giving him the Love Interest. Spock (or McCoy) is the Love Interest he doesn't have to choose over the ship. Which raises all sorts of interesting implications about WOMEN and other things, but at the same time I think you could write the same story with a female Spock--the point is, yes, the Enterprise wins but Spock's part of that.)
Reply
Yes! This, so much. Especially the womanizing thing. Whether one ships K/S or not (and I do) when actually watching TOS Kirk is always (in a 60s way sometimes, but sometimes surprisingly undated) respectful when he's actually interested. And then there's the issue that he usually has an ulterior motive.
AOS Kirk got played for the laughs much more. It's not all spelled out and therefore reclaimable, but his scenes with Uhura and Gaila and some others do create a very different picture as a whole. (Which is why I am so VERY glad that they cut that scene where he mistakes random-Orion-girl for Gaila, because it's just dumb. On the other hand, the fact that this scene made it as far as the DVD extras is extremely telling. Though the whole movie has some issues with shining-through-fanboyishness.) I can totally live with this if I see it in the context of his different childhood and consider it behaviour he uses to protect himself (and assume he grows out of it later), but in the context of what has become popular opinion of Kirk (that very much assumes that this is real and forever) it reinforces some things I never actually say in TOS Kirk.
Which brings me back to the point. I agree with you that (much as I haven't actually watched that many episodes, though i have seen all of the movies) Kirk is much more (different from) that (male)pop-culture gives him credit for.
In favour of making things "gritty and real" it has become unpopular to have genuinely heroic characters. I'm all for being realistic, none of us will ever be Kirk, but I do find value in creating characters that ARE simply good and awesome, because sometimes we need to be inspired in ways that's not "rising above adversity". Can't some people simply be awesome because they are (not that TOS Kirk is without flaws) and noot be too good to be true? It's not like TOS tried to convice us that in the future everybody is that good, just that sometimes there IS somebody extraordinary.
(Which also relates to origin stories. Yes, characters need motivation and sometimes a kick in the ass, but major trauma usually isn't actually suited to that in RL. Awesome people can be traumatized, but they'd still (in most cases) be awesome if it hadn't happened.)
(I hope this stayed understandable.)
Reply
It really does--I feel the character, as a whole, could become something I can get behind. But he's not, yet, which is where good fic comes in! (And by "good" I, in my biased way, means "fic which posits that this really is the same guy as in TOS, under different circumstances.") But because it's in line with the popular opinion of Kirk, I am skeptical that that's what's meant to come through. I feel it's more likely that this *is* how they see TOS Kirk, and how they think the public wants to see him.
You stayed totally understandable. I think that along with the pull for "realistic" characters, we've gotten really cynical. In a way. (Though at the same time I can't watch romantic comedies.) And you can see it in fandom, too, where any OC can be seen as a Mary Sue. Kirk is too good to be true, I think, in many peoples' minds. And while I want to see that taken down--I want to see how he's not--I don't think it follows that he and others like him shouldn't be posited as viable characters. He's full of awesome as well as flaws and one doesn't deny the other. I'd say that's not considered deep anymore, but goodness I wouldn't call modern action movies or superhero films "deep." Maybe it's just not considered interesting. The thing about Kirk is that, for me, he manages to be upstanding and fabulous without being boring--and a lot of straight-ahead heroes really are boring.
(Which also relates to origin stories. Yes, characters need motivation and sometimes a kick in the ass, but major trauma usually isn't actually suited to that in RL. Awesome people can be traumatized, but they'd still (in most cases) be awesome if it hadn't happened.)
This. This is an excellent point. It's a good narrative motivator and a good way to establish our sympathy but it's not very realistic, and it goes along (I think) with the fact that we also must SAVE THE EARTH EVERY SINGLE TIME or it's not BIG enough. The stakes--personal or global--have to be EVERYTHING.
Reply
This! Totally and that's what I find depressing about it. And it's not jut Kirk. They seem to be very proud of themselves for the little shoutouts to TOS and yes guys, those things are fun, but having Sulu swing around a sword doesn't mean you've captured the spirit of Trek. (Where the point of Sulu with a fencing foil (NOT a Katana) was that the Asian kid (George) grew up pretending to be Robin Hood, and not being an Asian stereotype.) Not to say that the swordfighting wasn't awesome, but it also wasn't especially meaningful.
It's a very fun movie, and I'm definitely not saying that they totally missed the mark on everything, or that the change in pace from the old movies wasn't necessary. I'm not against making it appealing to non fans. I just think that there were possibilities to create something more IN ADDITION to what they already managed.
I haven't totally given up hope for the next movie(s) because they do seem to care, but their perspective on some things could use a little widening/trying to look at it from a differnet POV.
Personally, I had gotten so used to loving characters that are awesome but flawed and that I liked but that I never really admired as people, that the idea of a character that I might actually want to get to know in RL, that could be a real mentor and generally admirable person was kind of a revelation. Not to say that we shouldn't be able to see that the people we admire are poeple and have flaws, but there ARE some people (in RL and fiction) that are truly awesome people and they do not come along often, but that should only make them worth more. (This might be one of those things that goes in cycles? From the one extreme, where authority figures/heroes are awesome and flawless and the other extreme where we concentrate on their flaws and failings. Because too much from one side means we want the other perspective and currently we are in a more cynical phase?)
"must SAVE THE EARTH EVERY SINGLE TIME or it's not BIG enough. The stakes--personal or global--have to be EVERYTHING."
Like how they blew up Vulcan? I'm totally reserving judgement on that. They could do awesome things with portraying the consequenses, but if they did it JUST to change things around a bit so they'd be able to tell the story their way, I'll not like them for that.
But I guess that's one of the perils of having a movie series instead of a tv one. Much less chances to explore the day to day stuff.
Reply
Yes, totally. I felt the same about the Holmes movie, frankly: proof that you're familiar with canon =/= truthfulness to canon. (It doesn't NOT equal it, either, of course.) It's all fine and fun and everything, and I don't hate the movie, but I don't think the sword/tribble/dropped lines have much to do with what makes TOS TOS.
I'd have to know more about the history of heroic archetypes to be sure--I don't know how much cycle there is through that. Though maybe, yeah, we'll get tired of the current one!
Like how they blew up Vulcan? I'm totally reserving judgement on that. They could do awesome things with portraying the consequenses, but if they did it JUST to change things around a bit so they'd be able to tell the story their way, I'll not like them for that.
And then saving Earth. If you blow up Vulcan/save Earth in the first film... where do you do next? Now, maybe they will explore the consequences or maybe it'll be Khan or maybe it'll be something totally different, but it just feels like blockbuster films need to up the ante so far that there's no room for, "Hey, guys, this planet is really interesting!" Of course, that is a tv vs. movie issue, I recognize that. I think I'm just over Earth being in peril.
Reply
Leave a comment