Captain Kirk has been my personal idol since childhood. We also share a star sign, Aries, both the character and the actor William Shatner. Recently someone on Facebook wrote this of Kirk, and it perfectly summarizes why I think he is the best character in Star Trek, and indeed one of the best characters in fiction: Captain James Tiberius Kirk. Empathetic, kind, erudite, ferociously intelligent, brave, strategic, extremely charismatic, charming, thoughtful, introspective, funny... he takes risks when he has to, often motivated by flashes of insight and intuition, but he’s not brash. He quotes Melville, DH Lawrence, Shakespeare, Dickens, Peter Pan; knows his Milton, history, Spinoza; uses Latin tags; beats Spock regularly at chess and is a very dab hand at poker (and fizzbin). When a situation calls for diplomacy he's the best talker imaginable, but when he has to get down and dusty he can kick butt. These qualities only scratch the surface. Gene Roddenberry, the writers, and William Shatner, all created an amazing character.
This is by far the finest analysis of Kirk's character I've seen, either in print or on video. I wish I could add more but it simply rings true in every regard. Kirk as written and portrayed is truly a king "from old."
As a fan of your work, this means a lot to me. I'm quite speechless! Everyone should check out David's script reviews: www.orionpressfanzines.com/articles/origins.htm and www.orionpressfanzines.com/articles/unseen.htm They're well worth the read!
This is a terrific analysis. I love how you pick up on little connections between episodes that I've never noticed, even after seeing them multiple times.
I find a strange dichotomy between how interconnected Star Trek is, and yet how different each episode can be from every other episode. It's quite complex, and often leads to unexpected discoveries. Thanks for posting!
Thank you for the video. This shows how the science fiction aspects of Star Trek (and Captain James T. Kirk) can illustrate your analysis beautifully. A shining example, indeed.
Once again, a tip-top-notch analysis. "It's a pity you wasted your life on [Trek]. You would have made a fair [literature teacher]." (McCoy, "Space Seed").
This is a wonderful video; it is my favorite of all the videos you have made. The content you delivered is excellent, and you synced the images and sounds from the show perfectly with your narration for maximum effect: very impressive! The truth of our shared human and instinctual understanding of archetypes is often overlooked in modern entertainment, but I think that really is the challenge of writing: how to present our ancient universal archetypes in a novel way so that an audience can enjoy a show, but can also subconsciously recognize the human truth that a story presents for us and invites us to participate in. Star Trek is a show about the future, but it is also a story that demonstrates the universal truths that we all innately understand as people: it blends our possible technological future with our primeval past perfectly. The King is an archetype we all understand from our early childhoods--in fact usually the only way we can get elementary school students to understand what a president is, is to explain to them that a president is like a king. In addition to the knowledge of archetypes that the writers worked into Star Trek, there were also so many literary and Biblical images and allusions throughout the series. One of my favorites is in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," when Mitchell and Dehner pick an apple-like fruit to eat as they stroll through their new garden--their new world. The symbolism of their gaining the knowledge of good and evil and thus becoming gods is very powerful (and talk about an example of a "tyrant" king and queen as you explained in your video). I also love how you began the video with Kirk's full name being used. That was brilliant making the connection that King=Caesar=Tiberius. David Gerrold (in his novel The Galactic Whirlpool) spends a few pages explaining the significance for Kirk of his imperial name. Worth checking out if you haven't--especially since, I think, Gerrold lays claim to coming up with Tiberius as Kirk's middle name. Also, while I'm on the subject of books, I think I may have recommended this novel to you before, but I strongly recommend reading The Joy Machine by James Gunn if you haven't. Of all the Star Trek novels I have read, it is the most literary (as well as the one that most authentically captures the feel of the original series), and I think it also presents the Kingly aspects of Kirk's character (as you outlined in your video) very clearly as well. Thanks again for your thoughtful videos. My entire family loves watching them! Keep up the great work and Godspeed!
Wow, thank you! It took a lot longer to put together than I'd hoped, but I was determined to make this one as good as I could. I agree 100% with all that you said about archetypes. And a couple of things that you bring up were very interesting, especially what you said about Mitchell and Dehner. I've wondered if that spot might not be an actual "Garden of Eden" on that planet, and that over time a whole ecosystem might evolve from it. I plan to give Mitchell a special archetypal treatment in an upcoming video. I think he acts as a scapegoat for Kirk, which is foreshadowed in their back story . . . I went a lot deeper into Kirk's name, but ended up removing that part. I just put part of it back into the video description if you want to check it out. I also removed talking about how the name Caesar comes from Sargon, as does Czar, which is probably just a shortened version of Caesar. James, however, is the name of several medieval kings, including the one whose name is on the Bible! Tiberius was the second emperor of Rome, and Kirk was the second captain of the Enterprise (on screen at least). Although Gerrold takes the credit for Tiberius, and he was definitely the one who first included it in a script, it is interesting that Roddenberry named Gary Lockwood's character Tiberius in _The_ _Lieutenant_ . Do you know if _The_ _Joy_ _Machine_ has ever been turned into an audiobook? I might have more of a chance to listen to it that to read it. You've definitely piqued my interest, especially when you said it was the most literary Trek book you've read. Thank you for all the support! As always, it really means a lot!!
@@MetaTrek Yes I read the description that you updated: excellent information! I did not know that about Lockwood's character in The Lieutenant--I still need to watch that series. I look forward to seeing your future archetype videos...Mitchell as scapegoat sounds very interesting. I have ordered a copy of the book you referenced in the video. After I read that, I will be able to make some more specific comments in response to your videos I'm sure. Another point I have always liked about Mitchell and Dehner is the parallel between Kirk's end-of-episode log entry about their deaths and the end-of-film log entry Kirk makes at the end of The Motion Picture regarding Decker and Ilia's "disappearance." They were similar entries, but different, of course, to match the different destinies of the characters. I'm sure the pairings of Mitchell/Dehner and Decker/Ilia could be compared to reveal some archetypal/symbolic truths as well. I do not think The Joy Machine has an audiobook version. And yes, I found it highly literary with allusions a plenty and some excellent figurative language and imagery used throughout. It has a very Season One feel to it--something reminiscent of "This Side of Paradise" and also of "The Return of the Archons." The novel was based on a script by Theodore Sturgeon too. Here is one line from Kirk in the novel that you might appreciate in light of this video: "I learned a long time ago...that there's no place for democracy in battle or on the bridge of a starship. And usually no time [and] No place to worry about pain, either." That's from a chapter entitled "Journey into Pain." Oh well...I must run now, but thanks again for the epic video and your response to my comment. :)
I've always noticed the parallel between Kirk's last log entries in "WNMHGB" and _The_ _Motion_ _Picture_ . That's funny, it makes me think that a lot of fans have probably noticed the same things, but, like me, never had anyone to discuss it with. There's also similarities between _TMP_ and "The Cage," one being the similar landing party jackets worn in both. Interestingly, _TMP_ would have been the pilot episode for Phase II, but ended up essentially being a pilot for the movies series instead. Unfortunately I too must run, but will pick this back up later on . . .
@thecaptain6730,I never noticed the apple tree and Garden of Eden subtext in "Where no Man has Gone Before " until now! I'm glad channels like this exist I always get a new perspective in my Classic Trek viewings! 😀
@@MetaTrek It's been speculated that TMP was not so much a continuation of ST as much as a reboot, particularly in Roddenberry's novelization where he describes the accountings of Kirk's exploits as overly dramatic, Roddenberry was maybe trying to take back control and start Star Trek again. Paramount didn't like his take of course and relegated him over to Consultant, and Kirk proved to be dramatic again.
Agreed. It's everywhere in modern film and television, but it's most noticeable in modern Trek, in which all the characters are constantly talking about their feelings or blurting out what they're thinking as they think it. There's no subtlety.
Not only is there no subtlety, there's no depth either. TOS is rich in what I like to call "thematic cohesion," which to me means that all (or at least most) of the dialog speaks to the central theme of the narrative. Sometimes even spinning off in mini-versions of the the main topic. "The Man Trap," of all episodes, provides an excellent example of this that I hope to bring out in a future video. So many video ideas, so little time!
I always thought that Spock and McCoy embodied the two primal forces in Kirk. Spock, intellect and logic, McCoy, emotion and humanitarianism. Kirk, the synthesis of both men, but still, like all men, not without flaws. I don't think Jeffrey Hunter would have had the full rsnge of acting chops to bring the depth of Kirk's character to the screen. And then vary it from episode to episode. Thanks for a very interesting analysis.
That's an excellent way of looking at Spock and McCoy. I agree that Hunter wouldn't have been as good as Shatner, and if it hadn't been for the great job Shatner did as Kirk, Star Trek may not have lasted as long as it did.
@@MetaTrek It's a terrible admission but I couldn't see William Shatner in anything after Star Trek. He was always Capt Kirk. There was something about that original series that, for me, is timeless. In their best episodes everything worked. The acting, stories, beautiful women, the coloured lighting, the costumes, it was a world within a world that was totally immersive. As a result, I was never really capable of accepting anything that came later. I know it sounds terrible. It's like being married to the the woman of your dreams and then having to start again. Well, something like that. I've only just found and subscribed to your channel. Perhaps at some stage you could look at the great futuristic 60s styling, the stylised music and in the first series there was some really interesting cinematography. The use of dramatic close ups, lenses and lighting that seemed to become a bit more generic in later episodes. I think the cameraman was Jerry Finnerman, I'm going from memory here, but his framing of shots could be quite dramatic to underline a psychological moment. Anyway, 🖖.
No other Star Trek actor portraying a starship captain came remotely close to Shatner in portraying a command personality. Shatner's was a brilliantly convincing portrayal, and his Kirk was not just an utterly natural leader and commander, but fair, objective, just, and highly intelligent. It was the brilliance of Shatner's portrayal that made convincing when Spock or others would express a kind of unconditional admiration and affection for Kirk as captain. Shatner's portrayal also made plausible those times when we would hear that Kirk was a legendary starship captain. Never felt that way about "Jean Luc Picard." It takes more than a deep voice to inspire respect for a captain. But the PC folk wanted a PC captain, so instead of a captain, we got the diplomat, Picard. As a famous old sci-fi writer said of the Picard Star Trek, "They talk all their problems to death."
It's an interesting study and rings true in many ways - I'd only pick at one detail in interpretation of TMP and the point at which Kirk becomes 'complete' again. Fundamentally, you have two relationship parallels that form the plot of TMP: the story of Decker and Ilia/V'Ger, and Kirk and Spock. This is the core of the film. V'Ger's desire is to physically connect, gain a sense of completion and reason beyond logic. It achieves this through Decker and Ilia. Similarly, Spock is seeking the same answers, and realises the same needs, which are fulfilled by Kirk, who he finally accepts, alongside his inseparable emotional landscape. Kirk is imbalanced until SPOCK returns, and - arguably, if following the film's allegories, it's at the sickbay scene, when they physically join, that Kirk is then symbolically 'whole' again. If it were simply that conversation with McCoy, it would undermine the significance of Spock's return in fulfilling those parallels and the film's core message. But in acknowledging this, one would have to consider Spock's role in the construct of Kirk as King. While The Enemy Within is a microcosm of almost the pure King paradigm, in terms of the broader narrative of the series and movies, Kirk does not function in such a self-contained sense. The idea of Kirk and Spock being a part of each other is firmly established: Kirk makes the implicit explicit in TSFS, describing Spock as the 'noblest part' of himself - which explains his perhaps less noble behaviour in TMP when Spock is absent. Roddenberry himself described them as two parts of a whole. Kirk even suggests they share a soul. Essentially, the default state of the TOS-verse revolves around Kirk and Spock being a central and immutable unit, and everything is 'off' (and conspires to reunite them) until that condition resets. They govern this universe as a pair, who form one singular unit. Everything else rides on top of this. Looking back at episodes like Corbomite, Kirk and Spock very much operate as an almost domestic unit, governing the ship together; Kirk appears to be the main voice of command, but he leans on and reacts to Spock heavily, especially emotionally (he even states his sense of "emotional security" in him). This certainly contextualises TMP, and their separation, which revolves around Spock's rejection of emotion - of his human side; of Kirk. In a way, they are both symbolic of the same missing part of each other; Kirk without Spock is lacking in heart; he is hard-edged and lacks empathy; while Spock is also cold and detached. So I agree, the paradigm fits, but it's very much tied to Spock re-entering the equation and performing a symbolic role. Just more food for thought!
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I completely agree with you that the relationship between Kirk and Spock is the core of the film and their reunion is essential to Kirk becoming "complete" again. You make a great point about how Kirk and Spock are two parts of a whole. It would seem that, true to the series, Kirk relies heavily on both Spock and McCoy to keep him on the straight and narrow. You really illustrated the significance of Spock's return and how it is necessary to restore Kirk’s balance. If you haven’t watched it yet, you might enjoy my symbolic look at Kirk’s broken glasses, which also explores what Spock and McCoy offer to Kirk. Thanks again for your insight!
Thank you so much for your enthusiastic comment! I'm thrilled that you enjoyed the video, and that it help highlight some of the reasons why Kirk is such a beloved character. 🖖
Well done - spot on. Captain James Tiberius Kirk was aways a classic true leader. He was in full control but always tempered this control with the ultimate goal of doing whatever was best for his people. A very interesting irony of this is that William Shatner - as the lead actor of the original series and movies - was by nearly all accounts an archetypical tyrant. He demanded that the camera be focused on him at all times, all of the important lines be delivered by him, and he frequently demanded all of this at the expense of his fellow actors. I promise this isn't anti-Shat - just pointing out how ironic it is how well an archetypical tyrant could portray a true king.
Glad you liked the video, it's probably the one I'm most proud of. Those accounts you mentioned are what I've heard too, and I've often wondered what _Star_ _Trek_ might have been like had Shatner not acted the way he had, and then one day it dawned on me, whatever it would have been, it wouldn't be what we got, and I love what we got! Thanks for posting.
@@MetaTrek I'd always been surprised when people accused Shatner of over-acting. At some point I realized that Kirk seemed perfectly plausible to me because he is so much like my dad. My dad grew up an angry and insecure person who, when he was about 20, met his king, Jesus. Dad worked hard to turn his life around, become an understanding person, sacrificial, generous, yet that old angry insecure nature would still crop up and make him quite tyrannical at times. I imagine Kirk/Shatner the same way -- working at goodness which at times becomes heroic, but working against that seminal root of fear and insecurity.
Interesting. I hadn't heard of Karpman's Drama Triangle before, but it does seem to be similar to the Bi-polar Shadow Triangle. I'll have to look into it further. Thanks for commenting!
The saucer section of the Enterprise represents Kirk's passive side - it nurtures, protects and is feminine. The engineering section of the Enterprise represents Kirks tyrant. It is filled with drive and power but can explode!
I like your break down of Kirk's "kingdom," and I agree that the saucer section represents the nurturing feminine. It's the equivalent to the "Earthly" realm, and Earth is also seen as feminine and motherly. I believe the engineering section is also known as the drive section, and is cigar shaped to boot. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but I dare say not in this case! Thanks for sharing your insightful analysis!
In true Homeric fashion Kirk is Odysseus, King of Ithaca. Only he, Kirk, saves his crew while Odysseus loses every last one who sailed with him. (We Greeks have always been great with the tragedies!!) lol
Very interesting, Spock's speech about the evil side, properly controlled gives Kirk the strength of command really mirrors quite precisely what Jordan Peterson says about a man actually becomes a man by being a monster and learning to control it.
I've learned so much form Peterson, who is himself a purveyor of Jungian ideas. He's even gone so far as to say that Jung is the deepest thinker in modern times. That's a pretty powerful idea, thanks for sharing it!
Brilliantly articulated interpretation. Captain James Tiberius Kirk is indeed the only King archetype I can think of in modern entertainment. I think it's a sad commentary on modern toxic feminism that the character has had to be reduced to a jester/child because he represents such a powerful and positive masculinity. (I'm a woman. ) What do you think?
First, thank you for the compliment, and for commenting! I think it is a shame that those who seek "equality" seem to think the only way to achieve that is by promoting the same "inequality" that they claim to be fighting, as if it's some sort of zero-sum game; for women to "win," men must "lose." Ultimately it only perpetuates the precious cycle of injustice and serves to bring about the opposite of their stated goals. Generativity and nurturing is needed on both sides, so together everyone can live long and prosper!
@@MetaTrek You articulate the argument for equality allowing for differences in strengths and weaknesses complimenting and reinforcing, as needed, each other. Also, based on your comment, I'll bet you're an awesome chess player! Peace and Long Life!
Thank you! It's clear that you have put some thought into this topic, and, based on your response to LLAP, that you know a lot about _Star_ _Trek_ as well. If you haven't yet, be sure to check out my video on 3-D chess!
@MetaTrek 3-D Chess?!? I'll search it out. Watching excellent videos about Star Trek makes me really happy. (And, thank you kindly for taking the time to listen and reply. It's really fun interacting with a creative person. LL&P!)
@@afriendlyfaceinthecrowd You certainly live up to your youtube handle! In a truly bizarre coincidence, my wife and I were in the mood for an old movie last night, and we ended up watching the Andy Griffith movie, "A Face in the Crowd!" Just realized the connection when I saw your reply pop up.
Interesting analysis. But I'd argue the use of the interpetation in the case of the Mirror Mirror episode. I would argue that Mirror Universe Kirk would be as much the True King archetype in his own world and in his own way as mainstream Kirk is in his own world. If he were not, he wouldn't have succeeded for as long as he clearly had.
I would agree. The Mirror-Kirk was well suited to the Bizarro world in which he lived. I wonder that kind of a Mirror Universe would support the passive "weakling" Kirk as the True King? Thanks for posting!
@@MetaTrek I think both the passive 'weakling ' Kirk and the Tyrant Kirk would both die rather soon in the Mirror Universe. They were both extremes of a whole person.
Wow. This video was almost about nothing. Does Kirk fit Moore's king archetype? Of course he does. I was hoping for some more detailed analysis or a revelation for one can utilise the example given by Kirk to embody the king in real life, but the video just ended. I'm sorry, if that's a little harsh, but I'm sorely disappointed.
I hope Shatner sees this, of course he didn't write the scripts... But his portrayal is what made us "buy into" into the stories
Couldn't agree more, Shatner is awesome!
@@MetaTrek A real life embodiment of Kirk!
Shatner does claim that he put a lot of himself into his portrayal of Kirk.
Shatner's acting as Kirk is so under appreciated. Its over the top yes but thats why it works. His monologues are so good
Captain Kirk has been my personal idol since childhood. We also share a star sign, Aries, both the character and the actor William Shatner. Recently someone on Facebook wrote this of Kirk, and it perfectly summarizes why I think he is the best character in Star Trek, and indeed one of the best characters in fiction:
Captain James Tiberius Kirk. Empathetic, kind, erudite, ferociously intelligent, brave, strategic, extremely charismatic, charming, thoughtful, introspective, funny... he takes risks when he has to, often motivated by flashes of insight and intuition, but he’s not brash. He quotes Melville, DH Lawrence, Shakespeare, Dickens, Peter Pan; knows his Milton, history, Spinoza; uses Latin tags; beats Spock regularly at chess and is a very dab hand at poker (and fizzbin). When a situation calls for diplomacy he's the best talker imaginable, but when he has to get down and dusty he can kick butt. These qualities only scratch the surface. Gene Roddenberry, the writers, and William Shatner, all created an amazing character.
Well said.
This is by far the finest analysis of Kirk's character I've seen, either in print or on video. I wish I could add more but it simply rings true in every regard. Kirk as written and portrayed is truly a king "from old."
As a fan of your work, this means a lot to me. I'm quite speechless! Everyone should check out David's script reviews: www.orionpressfanzines.com/articles/origins.htm and
www.orionpressfanzines.com/articles/unseen.htm They're well worth the read!
This is a terrific analysis. I love how you pick up on little connections between episodes that I've never noticed, even after seeing them multiple times.
I find a strange dichotomy between how interconnected Star Trek is, and yet how different each episode can be from every other episode. It's quite complex, and often leads to unexpected discoveries. Thanks for posting!
Thank you for the video. This shows how the science fiction aspects of Star Trek (and Captain James T. Kirk) can illustrate your analysis beautifully. A shining example, indeed.
Well said! Glad you enjoyed it!
@@MetaTrek Yes 👍 I enjoyed your video. Keep up the great work.
Once again, a tip-top-notch analysis. "It's a pity you wasted your life on [Trek]. You would have made a fair [literature teacher]." (McCoy, "Space Seed").
"Fair?!" (Kirk, "Space Seed") Thank you, this is the video I'm most proud of!
@@MetaTrek As well you should be, my friend!
And Shatner portrayed the King archetype perfectly.
Indeed.
This is a wonderful video; it is my favorite of all the videos you have made. The content you delivered is excellent, and you synced the images and sounds from the show perfectly with your narration for maximum effect: very impressive!
The truth of our shared human and instinctual understanding of archetypes is often overlooked in modern entertainment, but I think that really is the challenge of writing: how to present our ancient universal archetypes in a novel way so that an audience can enjoy a show, but can also subconsciously recognize the human truth that a story presents for us and invites us to participate in. Star Trek is a show about the future, but it is also a story that demonstrates the universal truths that we all innately understand as people: it blends our possible technological future with our primeval past perfectly.
The King is an archetype we all understand from our early childhoods--in fact usually the only way we can get elementary school students to understand what a president is, is to explain to them that a president is like a king.
In addition to the knowledge of archetypes that the writers worked into Star Trek, there were also so many literary and Biblical images and allusions throughout the series. One of my favorites is in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," when Mitchell and Dehner pick an apple-like fruit to eat as they stroll through their new garden--their new world. The symbolism of their gaining the knowledge of good and evil and thus becoming gods is very powerful (and talk about an example of a "tyrant" king and queen as you explained in your video).
I also love how you began the video with Kirk's full name being used. That was brilliant making the connection that King=Caesar=Tiberius. David Gerrold (in his novel The Galactic Whirlpool) spends a few pages explaining the significance for Kirk of his imperial name. Worth checking out if you haven't--especially since, I think, Gerrold lays claim to coming up with Tiberius as Kirk's middle name. Also, while I'm on the subject of books, I think I may have recommended this novel to you before, but I strongly recommend reading The Joy Machine by James Gunn if you haven't. Of all the Star Trek novels I have read, it is the most literary (as well as the one that most authentically captures the feel of the original series), and I think it also presents the Kingly aspects of Kirk's character (as you outlined in your video) very clearly as well.
Thanks again for your thoughtful videos. My entire family loves watching them! Keep up the great work and Godspeed!
Wow, thank you! It took a lot longer to put together than I'd hoped, but I was determined to make this one as good as I could. I agree 100% with all that you said about archetypes. And a couple of things that you bring up were very interesting, especially what you said about Mitchell and Dehner. I've wondered if that spot might not be an actual "Garden of Eden" on that planet, and that over time a whole ecosystem might evolve from it. I plan to give Mitchell a special archetypal treatment in an upcoming video. I think he acts as a scapegoat for Kirk, which is foreshadowed in their back story . . .
I went a lot deeper into Kirk's name, but ended up removing that part. I just put part of it back into the video description if you want to check it out. I also removed talking about how the name Caesar comes from Sargon, as does Czar, which is probably just a shortened version of Caesar. James, however, is the name of several medieval kings, including the one whose name is on the Bible! Tiberius was the second emperor of Rome, and Kirk was the second captain of the Enterprise (on screen at least). Although Gerrold takes the credit for Tiberius, and he was definitely the one who first included it in a script, it is interesting that Roddenberry named Gary Lockwood's character Tiberius in _The_ _Lieutenant_ .
Do you know if _The_ _Joy_ _Machine_ has ever been turned into an audiobook? I might have more of a chance to listen to it that to read it. You've definitely piqued my interest, especially when you said it was the most literary Trek book you've read.
Thank you for all the support! As always, it really means a lot!!
@@MetaTrek Yes I read the description that you updated: excellent information! I did not know that about Lockwood's character in The Lieutenant--I still need to watch that series. I look forward to seeing your future archetype videos...Mitchell as scapegoat sounds very interesting. I have ordered a copy of the book you referenced in the video. After I read that, I will be able to make some more specific comments in response to your videos I'm sure.
Another point I have always liked about Mitchell and Dehner is the parallel between Kirk's end-of-episode log entry about their deaths and the end-of-film log entry Kirk makes at the end of The Motion Picture regarding Decker and Ilia's "disappearance." They were similar entries, but different, of course, to match the different destinies of the characters. I'm sure the pairings of Mitchell/Dehner and Decker/Ilia could be compared to reveal some archetypal/symbolic truths as well.
I do not think The Joy Machine has an audiobook version. And yes, I found it highly literary with allusions a plenty and some excellent figurative language and imagery used throughout. It has a very Season One feel to it--something reminiscent of "This Side of Paradise" and also of "The Return of the Archons." The novel was based on a script by Theodore Sturgeon too. Here is one line from Kirk in the novel that you might appreciate in light of this video: "I learned a long time ago...that there's no place for democracy in battle or on the bridge of a starship. And usually no time [and] No place to worry about pain, either." That's from a chapter entitled "Journey into Pain."
Oh well...I must run now, but thanks again for the epic video and your response to my comment. :)
I've always noticed the parallel between Kirk's last log entries in "WNMHGB" and _The_ _Motion_ _Picture_ . That's funny, it makes me think that a lot of fans have probably noticed the same things, but, like me, never had anyone to discuss it with. There's also similarities between _TMP_ and "The Cage," one being the similar landing party jackets worn in both. Interestingly, _TMP_ would have been the pilot episode for Phase II, but ended up essentially being a pilot for the movies series instead.
Unfortunately I too must run, but will pick this back up later on . . .
@thecaptain6730,I never noticed the apple tree and Garden of Eden subtext in "Where no Man has Gone Before " until now!
I'm glad channels like this exist I always get a new perspective in my Classic Trek viewings! 😀
@@MetaTrek It's been speculated that TMP was not so much a continuation of ST as much as a reboot, particularly in Roddenberry's novelization where he describes the accountings of Kirk's exploits as overly dramatic, Roddenberry was maybe trying to take back control and start Star Trek again. Paramount didn't like his take of course and relegated him over to Consultant, and Kirk proved to be dramatic again.
I really miss this type of subtext in modern entertainment
Agreed. It's everywhere in modern film and television, but it's most noticeable in modern Trek, in which all the characters are constantly talking about their feelings or blurting out what they're thinking as they think it. There's no subtlety.
Not only is there no subtlety, there's no depth either. TOS is rich in what I like to call "thematic cohesion," which to me means that all (or at least most) of the dialog speaks to the central theme of the narrative. Sometimes even spinning off in mini-versions of the the main topic. "The Man Trap," of all episodes, provides an excellent example of this that I hope to bring out in a future video. So many video ideas, so little time!
I always thought that Spock and McCoy embodied the two primal forces in Kirk.
Spock, intellect and logic, McCoy, emotion and humanitarianism.
Kirk, the synthesis of both men, but still, like all men, not without flaws.
I don't think Jeffrey Hunter would have had the full rsnge of acting chops to bring the depth of Kirk's character to the screen. And then vary it from episode to episode.
Thanks for a very interesting analysis.
That's an excellent way of looking at Spock and McCoy. I agree that Hunter wouldn't have been as good as Shatner, and if it hadn't been for the great job Shatner did as Kirk, Star Trek may not have lasted as long as it did.
@@MetaTrek
It's a terrible admission but I couldn't see William Shatner in anything after Star Trek. He was always Capt Kirk.
There was something about that original series that, for me, is timeless. In their best episodes everything worked. The acting, stories, beautiful women, the coloured lighting, the costumes, it was a world within a world that was totally immersive. As a result, I was never really capable of accepting anything that came later. I know it sounds terrible. It's like being married to the the woman of your dreams and then having to start again. Well, something like that.
I've only just found and subscribed to your channel. Perhaps at some stage you could look at the great futuristic 60s styling, the stylised music and in the first series there was some really interesting cinematography. The use of dramatic close ups, lenses and lighting that seemed to become a bit more generic in later episodes. I think the cameraman was Jerry Finnerman, I'm going from memory here, but his framing of shots could be quite dramatic to underline a psychological moment. Anyway, 🖖.
A Captain is the King of His Ship. The ultimate responsible Person.
+1 for the clip of Becket. What a terrific movie.
And +1 to you for recognizing where that clip came from! Indeed a terrific (and tragic) movie.
@@MetaTrek Can you imagine a TOS Trek episode with O'Toole as Finnegan?
That would have been awesome! I would have loved to see O'Toole as any TOS guest character.
Great analysis and a fun trek through Kirk's life to boot!
Thanks! There are several more facets of Kirk's life waiting to be explored.
No other Star Trek actor portraying a starship captain came remotely close to Shatner in portraying a command personality. Shatner's was a brilliantly convincing portrayal, and his Kirk was not just an utterly natural leader and commander, but fair, objective, just, and highly intelligent. It was the brilliance of Shatner's portrayal that made convincing when Spock or others would express a kind of unconditional admiration and affection for Kirk as captain. Shatner's portrayal also made plausible those times when we would hear that Kirk was a legendary starship captain. Never felt that way about "Jean Luc Picard." It takes more than a deep voice to inspire respect for a captain. But the PC folk wanted a PC captain, so instead of a captain, we got the diplomat, Picard. As a famous old sci-fi writer said of the Picard Star Trek, "They talk all their problems to death."
Shatner's portrayal of Kirk certainly set a high standard for those who followed in his footsteps. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
It's an interesting study and rings true in many ways - I'd only pick at one detail in interpretation of TMP and the point at which Kirk becomes 'complete' again.
Fundamentally, you have two relationship parallels that form the plot of TMP: the story of Decker and Ilia/V'Ger, and Kirk and Spock. This is the core of the film. V'Ger's desire is to physically connect, gain a sense of completion and reason beyond logic. It achieves this through Decker and Ilia. Similarly, Spock is seeking the same answers, and realises the same needs, which are fulfilled by Kirk, who he finally accepts, alongside his inseparable emotional landscape. Kirk is imbalanced until SPOCK returns, and - arguably, if following the film's allegories, it's at the sickbay scene, when they physically join, that Kirk is then symbolically 'whole' again.
If it were simply that conversation with McCoy, it would undermine the significance of Spock's return in fulfilling those parallels and the film's core message. But in acknowledging this, one would have to consider Spock's role in the construct of Kirk as King. While The Enemy Within is a microcosm of almost the pure King paradigm, in terms of the broader narrative of the series and movies, Kirk does not function in such a self-contained sense. The idea of Kirk and Spock being a part of each other is firmly established: Kirk makes the implicit explicit in TSFS, describing Spock as the 'noblest part' of himself - which explains his perhaps less noble behaviour in TMP when Spock is absent. Roddenberry himself described them as two parts of a whole. Kirk even suggests they share a soul. Essentially, the default state of the TOS-verse revolves around Kirk and Spock being a central and immutable unit, and everything is 'off' (and conspires to reunite them) until that condition resets. They govern this universe as a pair, who form one singular unit. Everything else rides on top of this. Looking back at episodes like Corbomite, Kirk and Spock very much operate as an almost domestic unit, governing the ship together; Kirk appears to be the main voice of command, but he leans on and reacts to Spock heavily, especially emotionally (he even states his sense of "emotional security" in him). This certainly contextualises TMP, and their separation, which revolves around Spock's rejection of emotion - of his human side; of Kirk. In a way, they are both symbolic of the same missing part of each other; Kirk without Spock is lacking in heart; he is hard-edged and lacks empathy; while Spock is also cold and detached. So I agree, the paradigm fits, but it's very much tied to Spock re-entering the equation and performing a symbolic role.
Just more food for thought!
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I completely agree with you that the relationship between Kirk and Spock is the core of the film and their reunion is essential to Kirk becoming "complete" again. You make a great point about how Kirk and Spock are two parts of a whole. It would seem that, true to the series, Kirk relies heavily on both Spock and McCoy to keep him on the straight and narrow. You really illustrated the significance of Spock's return and how it is necessary to restore Kirk’s balance.
If you haven’t watched it yet, you might enjoy my symbolic look at Kirk’s broken glasses, which also explores what Spock and McCoy offer to Kirk. Thanks again for your insight!
Just BRILLIANT!!! It doesn’t hurt that I’m a TOS Trekkie from the get go and I love Kirk!!!! Thanks for showing me why!
Thank you so much for your enthusiastic comment! I'm thrilled that you enjoyed the video, and that it help highlight some of the reasons why Kirk is such a beloved character. 🖖
That's magnificient, thank you! Looking forward for more Kirk videos like this.
Glad you enjoyed it! More to come . . .
@@MetaTrek Yay!
This is a great video on one of my fav characters in fiction. Thank you!
You're very welcome! And thank you for the compliment.
Very interesting, may have to check out that book.
It's a great book, highly recommended. Here's a link to in on Amazon: amzn.to/3SeMYgq
Well done - spot on. Captain James Tiberius Kirk was aways a classic true leader. He was in full control but always tempered this control with the ultimate goal of doing whatever was best for his people. A very interesting irony of this is that William Shatner - as the lead actor of the original series and movies - was by nearly all accounts an archetypical tyrant. He demanded that the camera be focused on him at all times, all of the important lines be delivered by him, and he frequently demanded all of this at the expense of his fellow actors. I promise this isn't anti-Shat - just pointing out how ironic it is how well an archetypical tyrant could portray a true king.
Glad you liked the video, it's probably the one I'm most proud of. Those accounts you mentioned are what I've heard too, and I've often wondered what _Star_ _Trek_ might have been like had Shatner not acted the way he had, and then one day it dawned on me, whatever it would have been, it wouldn't be what we got, and I love what we got! Thanks for posting.
@@MetaTrek I'd always been surprised when people accused Shatner of over-acting. At some point I realized that Kirk seemed perfectly plausible to me because he is so much like my dad. My dad grew up an angry and insecure person who, when he was about 20, met his king, Jesus. Dad worked hard to turn his life around, become an understanding person, sacrificial, generous, yet that old angry insecure nature would still crop up and make him quite tyrannical at times. I imagine Kirk/Shatner the same way -- working at goodness which at times becomes heroic, but working against that seminal root of fear and insecurity.
HaHaha Karpman's Drama Triangle. Good interpretation !!!
Interesting. I hadn't heard of Karpman's Drama Triangle before, but it does seem to be similar to the Bi-polar Shadow Triangle. I'll have to look into it further. Thanks for commenting!
The saucer section of the Enterprise represents Kirk's passive side - it nurtures, protects and is feminine. The engineering section of the Enterprise represents Kirks tyrant. It is filled with drive and power but can explode!
I like your break down of Kirk's "kingdom," and I agree that the saucer section represents the nurturing feminine. It's the equivalent to the "Earthly" realm, and Earth is also seen as feminine and motherly. I believe the engineering section is also known as the drive section, and is cigar shaped to boot. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but I dare say not in this case! Thanks for sharing your insightful analysis!
Hail to the king 🤴
In true Homeric fashion Kirk is Odysseus, King of Ithaca. Only he, Kirk, saves his crew while Odysseus loses every last one who sailed with him. (We Greeks have always been great with the tragedies!!) lol
Yeah, you were pretty safe under Kirk's command, as long as you didn't wear a red shirt!
Great analysis!
Thank you!
Kirk is so misunderstood, and you can really tell who has actually seen TOS and the movies by what they think of Kirk
Indeed. It's a real shame what Paramount is trying to do, and it's inexplicable.
@@MetaTrek I dont really mind Strange New Worlds, I am at least glad he is not doing an imitation of Shatner like what Chris Pine did
Loved this
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Was a good one - enjoyed it
Thank you!
Very interesting, Spock's speech about the evil side, properly controlled gives Kirk the strength of command really
mirrors quite precisely what Jordan Peterson says about a man actually becomes a man by being a monster and learning to control it.
I've learned so much form Peterson, who is himself a purveyor of Jungian ideas. He's even gone so far as to say that Jung is the deepest thinker in modern times. That's a pretty powerful idea, thanks for sharing it!
Awesome!
Thanks!
Brilliantly articulated interpretation. Captain James Tiberius Kirk is indeed the only King archetype I can think of in modern entertainment.
I think it's a sad commentary on modern toxic feminism that the character has had to be reduced to a jester/child because he represents such a powerful and positive masculinity. (I'm a woman. )
What do you think?
First, thank you for the compliment, and for commenting! I think it is a shame that those who seek "equality" seem to think the only way to achieve that is by promoting the same "inequality" that they claim to be fighting, as if it's some sort of zero-sum game; for women to "win," men must "lose." Ultimately it only perpetuates the precious cycle of injustice and serves to bring about the opposite of their stated goals. Generativity and nurturing is needed on both sides, so together everyone can live long and prosper!
@@MetaTrek You articulate the argument for equality allowing for differences in strengths and weaknesses complimenting and reinforcing, as needed, each other. Also, based on your comment, I'll bet you're an awesome chess player! Peace and Long Life!
Thank you! It's clear that you have put some thought into this topic, and, based on your response to LLAP, that you know a lot about _Star_ _Trek_ as well. If you haven't yet, be sure to check out my video on 3-D chess!
@MetaTrek 3-D Chess?!? I'll search it out. Watching excellent videos about Star Trek makes me really happy. (And, thank you kindly for taking the time to listen and reply. It's really fun interacting with a creative person. LL&P!)
@@afriendlyfaceinthecrowd You certainly live up to your youtube handle! In a truly bizarre coincidence, my wife and I were in the mood for an old movie last night, and we ended up watching the Andy Griffith movie, "A Face in the Crowd!" Just realized the connection when I saw your reply pop up.
This is AMAZING, just when I was getting bored i find some mental meat to chew on
Glad you enjoyed it!
Interesting analysis. But I'd argue the use of the interpetation in the case of the Mirror Mirror episode. I would argue that Mirror Universe Kirk would be as much the True King archetype in his own world and in his own way as mainstream Kirk is in his own world. If he were not, he wouldn't have succeeded for as long as he clearly had.
I would agree. The Mirror-Kirk was well suited to the Bizarro world in which he lived. I wonder that kind of a Mirror Universe would support the passive "weakling" Kirk as the True King? Thanks for posting!
@@MetaTrek I think both the passive 'weakling ' Kirk and the Tyrant Kirk would both die rather soon in the Mirror Universe. They were both extremes of a whole person.
William Shatner's Kirk, at his best, is the Alpha Male all good men aspire to be...
Well said.
Wow. This video was almost about nothing. Does Kirk fit Moore's king archetype? Of course he does. I was hoping for some more detailed analysis or a revelation for one can utilise the example given by Kirk to embody the king in real life, but the video just ended. I'm sorry, if that's a little harsh, but I'm sorely disappointed.
Although beyond the scope of what I intended for this video, your suggestion would make for an interesting follow up.
KIRK FOR PRIME MINISTER!