It's funny how in recent years, the character of James T. Kirk is no longer strictly defined by William Shatner - and I don't just mean Chris Pine's interpretation. Thanks to the efforts of Fandom Assembled, your Kirk could just as easily be Vic Mignogna or James Cawley too, depending on how you became a Trekkie.
It's hardly considered unusual anymore. Indiana Jones, Han Solo, Lara Croft, they're all getting re-cast with younger stars in new stories - and of course, the James Bond franchise has carried on this tradition for over half a century.
Maybe that has something to do with the power of modern myths. As the story gets passed down from generation to generation, some changes are inevitable to suit the changing times. The core of the myth, however, remains the same. Kirk: explorer, diplomat, defender. A born leader, ever conscientious of the lives entrusted to him. A man of action, the embodiment of the American self-image during the Kennedy years and his plan for space travel in specific.
People make fun of Shatner's acting on the show, but I think he's just a product of his time. He's not a Brandoesque Method man; he's more of a throwback to the old Hollywood, which was more about the force of one's screen persona. Shatner radiated that force, that magnetism, as Kirk, and if he came across as more... individualistic than most actors, well, there are worse cinematic crimes.
We know now that Shatner may have stepped on the toes of some of his co-stars. We also know Shatner himself felt threatened by Leonard Nimoy's popularity for a time. I don't think knowing these things detracts from the quality of his performances, however much we may wish everyone got along well. Shatner's got an ego, no doubt. At the same time, he's not afraid to have it punctured once in awhile.
Ultimately, if you're a Trekkie, you just have to accept Shatner for who he is, warts and all. He personified one of the greatest fictional characters of the 20th century for almost thirty years. I think he's entitled to strut a little.
-----------------------
Previously:
Chris Pine's Kirk
Jonathan Archer
Kathryn Janeway
Benjamin Sisko
Jean-Luc Picard
He's such a rock of confidence on the surface. He knows he has to appear that way. Whether he's maneuvering against a deceptive Romulan, standing up to a tough-talking Klingon, or even negotiating with a wily Ferengi, no one could doubt the iron will that fuels Jean-Luc Picard's being... at least, when you look at him.
We've seen him at his lowest, too, though. Not to make this a Kirk-versus-Picard thing, but with Kirk, even in his vulnerable moments, he still had an air of stoicism, as if even in private, he felt it was unseemly somehow to let go, to unclench, to release his anguish.
I would argue Picard's vulnerabilities define him as much as his strengths: tearfully admitting to his brother Robert his shame at being unable to overcome the Borg; struggling to resist Gul Madred's attempts to brainwash him (and almost failing); taking his rage and thirst for revenge against the Borg out on Lily Sloane.
They were all shocking moments, but I think we needed to see them in order to help uncover who Picard is as a person. He is an altruistic, noble, principled man, no doubt, but he also has a potential for arrogance and overconfidence that rivals Q. And credit where credit's due: Patrick Stewart sold the role, folks. We have been extremely fortunate to have had him as an actor.
The difference between Picard and Q, though, is that Picard has learned to keep his arrogance in check. He rises above his baser instincts to walk the straight and narrow path. He knows he must, because his crew needs him to: whether it means taking command of the Stargazer in a crisis situation, or defying a Starfleet admiral and leading his Enterprise crew to rescue a people from forced relocation. The better angels of his nature win out in the end because they must. That makes Picard a great captain and a more complete character as well.
----------------------
Previously:
Chris Pine's Kirk
Jonathan Archer
Kathryn Janeway
Benjamin Sisko
If it seems odd that Benjamin Sisko was the only one of the captains to have an on-screen family (seen on a regular basis, that is), then I'm glad he was the one to be defined this way. His relationship with his son Jake felt so real and warm, every time we saw the two of them together, which is probably because Avery Brooks really did take Cirroc Lofton under his wing and was like a mentor to him during the seven-year run of Deep Space Nine.
We had differences of opinion during the latter years of his life, but I like to think my father and I were still close. I miss him. Whenever I saw the Siskos together - including Brock Peters as Joseph Sisko, to make three generations - something they said or did, sooner or later, would remind me of my relationship with my father. I looked on Daddy much the same way Jake looked on Ben, particularly in the early years of the show, the difference being my mother is still around. If Jake seemed slightly clingy to Ben at times, it may be because of the absence of his mom...
...which is why the addition of Kasidy Yates was such a welcome breath of fresh air. Ben and Kasidy had a mature, loving relationship that grew over time. It had its share of growing pains, but it was such a refreshing change from the cliche of bringing in a love interest for an episode whom you know Our Hero will never have a long-term affair with, but is there strictly for the sake of having a love story. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing; it's just that having someone to stick around was nice for a change.
The Starfleet officer/Emissary to the Prophets dichotomy may not have always been that interesting to watch, but it was a very original wrinkle that gave Sisko additional depth. I liked how it colored the way he got along with Kira. I can't imagine how I would work with a boss I'm not that fond of to begin with who's also the embodiment of a major figure in my religion. To wrestle with that makes for a tough conflict.
I admire Sisko for so many reasons: as a family man, as a Starfleet officer who tried his best to do the right thing while fighting a war against an implacable foe (whether or not he succeeded is entirely up to you), as a friend and confidant to three incarnations of Dax, as a baseball fan, and yes, as a black man too. Avery Brooks invested so much humanity, so much passion, conviction and love into the character, and I'll be forever grateful to him for creating a role model for all kinds of people to admire.
--------------------------
Previously:
Chris Pine's Kirk
Jonathan Archer
Kathryn Janeway
During the first season of Voyager, I remember wishing Kate Mulgrew had Jennifer Lien's voice. It's so deep and rich and velvety - and while I didn't hate Mulgrew's voice, it struck me at the time as thin and reedy and not very "captain-like," whatever that means. Plus, I was totally crushing on Lien back then. Still kinda mad she had to leave the show. But this isn't about her...
Kathryn Janeway, like many prominent female action-adventure characters, had to walk the tightrope between being distinctly feminine while not being a man with ovaries. I remember the articles written around the time of Voyager's debut that, to paraphrase Ninotchka, made an issue of her womanhood.
It was understandable. To that point, we didn't see very many women captains in Trek history, and while he was already dead by this time, Gene Roddenberry's ideas about ladies in general had already left their mark on the franchise. He was progressive enough to originally have a woman first officer, but he was still the same guy who also wanted the female guest stars to show as much skin as the censors would allow.
I think they did right by Janeway - to a point. The nature of Voyager's situation - lost, millions of miles from home, with only themselves to rely on - necessitated her to act as a surrogate parent to the crew, in a more overt manner than her predecessors, and everyone knows not to mess with a mama bear protecting her young.
They tried to give Janeway layers: her background as a science officer, her Midwest upbringing, her interest in art - but they didn't strike me as being all that well-developed. She was given moments where she was badass, wise, or funny, and they tended to be good, but my waning interest in the show overall during the latter years made me not get to know her as well. I don't have strong feelings for her the way I do for Picard and Sisko.
Janeway was a good character, and Mulgrew did a fine job in the part. I'm glad the success she had on Voyager has led to even greater success with Orange is the New Black. I just wish Janeway had a stronger show built around her. If it had been made today, I've a feeling it would be.
-------------------------
Previously:
Chris Pine's Kirk
Jonathan Archer
This will be the shortest post about the Trek captains (and maybe the shortest this month) because I bailed on Enterprise after the first season. My knowledge of Jonathan Archer is severely limited. I'll give you what few impressions I have: I remember thinking at first that Archer seemed like Kirk-lite, which struck me as an odd fit for Scott Bakula. To me, he was too nice to be a badass - Bakula, not Archer. I wasn't a huge Quantum Leap fan, but I watched the show now and then, and I liked Bakula. Still do. I never really gave Enterprise much of a chance because I didn't like the idea of a pre-Kirk show, but I'm sure Bakula grew into the role of Archer over time. I wouldn't know for sure. That's really all I can say.
-------------------------
Previously:
Chris Pine's Kirk
I had no idea who Chris Pine was prior to Star Trek '09. I knew he had been in a few films, but nothing I had seen or remembered. When he was announced as the new Captain Kirk, I couldn't help feeling a bit disappointed. I mean, I remember rumors that Matt Damon was being considered for Kirk, and he even said he was open to the possibility. The point is, I had expected a "name" actor for the part.
It was the only way I could get behind re-casting the Original Series characters in a new series of movies. At the time, I had thought the magnificent seven were irreplaceable, and I'm sure other Trekkies thought the same. Now, thanks to the rise of Trek fan films which re-cast the TOS crew and other familiar Trek characters, it's not so sacrilegious an idea anymore.
Pine doesn't try to imitate Shatner, which I appreciate, though I do think he captures a portion of his spirit. His Kirk is somewhat broader in places; both Into Darkness and Beyond begin with Kirk on missions to alien planets that go comically awry. It's hard to imagine Shatner's Kirk in moments like that, but then, Pine is playing exclusively to a movie audience, not a television one. Expectations are different.
I think Pine is freer as Kirk to let his hair down, so to speak, which in itself is not so bad. Shatner's Kirk, by comparison, was wound a tad tighter. By that same token, though, he also had a weight and a gravitas that Pine has yet to fully achieve. Pine's Kirk still seems cut from the Indiana Jones cloth - again, not that that's bad. Just different.
Yes, it was a mistake to have nu-Kirk go from cadet to captain in one jump, one they more or less admitted in Darkness. If they had treated his story as more of an epic journey, perhaps over the course of three movies, we could've gotten a better handle on him not only as a character, but a heroic figure, similar to Original Kirk but slightly different. In fact, the idea of devoting a trilogy of films strictly to Kirk and his progression from Iowa farm boy to Starfleet officer to Enterprise captain might not have been a bad idea in retrospect. Unfortunately, we'll never know what that would've been like.
Pine is not Shatner. I think I've finally forgiven him for that fact. If Trek '09 had been a better movie, I probably would've accepted him more easily from the get-go - not that it was terrible. Indeed, I would rank it as sixth best of the films, after Khan, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact and Beyond (though not necessarily in that order). Hopefully, nu-Kirk will continue to grow in subsequent films and Pine will stick around, for as long as he enjoys the part, anyway.
Why has Star Trek lasted fifty years? Even a non-fan can probably come up with a few reasons: the iconic characters, the unforgettable stories, the influence it has had on the real world. Of the TV class of 1966-67, a few shows are still remembered fondly today, like The Monkees and That Girl, and others whose popularity was revived thanks to movie reboots, such as Mission: Impossible and The Green Hornet.
Trek was different. Though it only lasted three seasons, it was kept alive in the hearts and minds of its small but passionate audience, leading to not only a revival through the movies, but a multi-generational, multimedia franchise worth millions annually to its corporate masters and exponentially more to its fans. Why?
Speaking as someone who has been one of those fans for over half my life, I think what it comes down to is, people want to believe a better world is possible, and Trek offers hope. It was born during a period of great social and political strife. Sadly, little has changed since.
You don't need me to tell you that. For all the baby steps we've taken forward towards progress and equality, we continue to be held back by our basest instincts and our unfettered self-interest. I freely admit I'm no different. There are some who think it'll always be this way, and that salvation will only come through divine intervention. Maybe that's what you believe.
Gene Roddenberry thought otherwise. No matter how canonized he has become by historians, and especially fans, he was no guru; he was no holy man nor saint. He was a man, with a man's imperfections, but he dared to present on television an ideal of a better future for all of us, one where we face new challenges through exploring space, putting aside our petty differences and working as a team. It wasn't very commercial. It wasn't always understood. But it was there, for anyone who was receptive.
My inclination is to expect the worst from humanity. The more I see, the less I believe we're capable of cleaning up our act in time to save ourselves and our planet. But then I'll watch one of the episodes or films, or I'll read one of the books, or I'll see an article describing an imaginary piece of Trek tech becoming one step closer to reality, or how Trek inspired someone to pursue a career in science or medicine, or I'll simply talk to another fan... and I'll find a reason to go on hoping. I think - no, I know - we need that. We needed it in 1966, and boy, do we need it now.
I don't love all of Trek equally. As you'll discover during this month-long celebration, I have my biases and blind spots, and they'll make themselves apparent. I strongly encourage you to share your preferences with me. Maybe we'll change each other's minds about something in Trek, maybe we won't. Either way, I hope it'll be fun.
(This was written before the big Trek con in Las Vegas, and I subsequently found out via Twitter that Whoopi Goldberg said basically the same thing about hope on a panel discussion. Nice to know.)
--------------------------
Previously:
Axanar and fan fiction
William Shatner's 'Leonard'
Two Nimoy docs
Lin brokers Axanar settlement
action Trek vs. mental Trek
the new fan film rules
Discovery to break the Trek mold
