How Can That Be James T. Kirk? He Doesn’t Have a Toupee And Isn’t Canadian


So what do you think of the new trailer for the Star Trek movie from J.J. Abrams and his posse (writers Orci and Kurzman, producer Lindelof, composer Giacchino — you can’t say the guy doesn’t provide job security)?

It really does look like Star Trek as produced by the cast and crew of Felicity (and I’m being generous here; I could have said Smallville), but, after all, it’s only a trailer. And anything that re-establishes Kirk as a cool character is OK with me. It’s been diluted by the movies and the reruns, but Kirk was much cooler than most TV heroes, and still is. He managed to combine several types that are usually kept separate on TV: the socially-conscious sensitive guy, the ladies’ man, and the action hero. (I guess you could say that The Fonz was the same combination, but did you ever believe him as a socially-conscious voice of morality? I didn’t.) Today’s heroes tend to be either sensitive nice guys or macho sexist pigs, but never both at the same time, and action heroes like Jack Bauer don’t have much time for romance. Kirk is what you’d get if you took James Bond, the most popular fictional hero at the time, and added a dose of political correctness. (’60s political correctness, I mean. What was PC then isn’t always PC now.) And while it’s easy to make fun of Shatner, you have to be a good actor to pull that off.

If the new movie can come close to that combination, it’ll be fun. If it just gives us another broody smirky whiny hero, then we can worry.

Filed under:

How Can That Be James T. Kirk? He Doesn’t Have a Toupee And Isn’t Canadian

  1. I’m torn- I also think that Kirk is awesome, but have been less than enthused by the stills and trailers with Chris Pine. I am not sure that anyone from “Princess Diaries 2” can be the requisite sort of badass that we expect from Kirk, and this doesn’t make me feel much better.

    But, I paid to see Nemsis, which was a terrible remake of Star Trek 2; and I paid to see Insurrection, when I could watch a mid-series two parter for free and get a better show; and I’ll pay to see this, even if it is Star Trek: Felicity.

  2. The villain looks straight out of the last four movies. Random Vaguely Romulan-looking Guy with an ’80s disco getup. Big problem. What were they thinking? If they’d even got Philip Seymour Hoffman from MI:III it would have been far better.

  3. spock punching kirk, kirk hooking up with uhuru, scotty saying something funny…

    i think it looks AWESOME!

    and even if it’s not awesome, i’d prefer to spend the next six months thinking it will be awesome rather than fearing it will be as bad as the last couple star trek movies… or tv series…

  4. This is why I watched the Cloverfield trailer 50 times and then didn’t go see Cloverfield in the theatres. I didn’t want to face the inevitable let-down.

    Once I rented it, it was actually quite clever.

  5. … or conventions where this annoying stupid trekker and i showed up in the same uhuru dress…

    having completed my earlier thought, let me just add that i too enjoyed cloverfield, paul. there was a huge monster in it. and it destroyed EVERYTHING. and a piece of entertainment cannnot be bad if it features a huge monster that destroys everything. (does not apply to music videos featuring ann wilson of heart)

  6. Far be it from me to interrupt, but I suspect I might be the only one who neither knows, nor cares, who Chris Pine is.

    And why focus on Kirk? Pine could be the most brooding, boring action star in history, but when you’ve got “Sylar, Harold, Eomer and Tim Bisley’s adventures in space” to look forward to, I’m having a hard time seeing it not work.

    The only thing I want Pine to do is stay out of Pegg’s way.

Sign in to comment.