Nowadays,
there’s a second level debate raging: who makes the better Kirk? My stand on
this one is a bit less definite. Like my position in the case of Connery vs.
Craig as the better Bond, it depends. In the 1960s 23rd century,
William Shatner was perfect. He made Kirk smart, sexy and self-assured, laying
solid groundwork for Chris Pine to take over some 40 years later.
In the 21st
century’s 23rd century, Kirk has by necessity become street-smart
and somewhat wild-eyed, prone to decimating Starfleet’s rules rather than
bending them to his purpose. The elements of Shatner’s Kirk are present and
respected, but this kid Pine has propelled our hero to courageously crazy
heights. His Kirk is caught in an alternate reality brilliantly devised by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci that has honoured the history of Trek while opening up a
literal universe of possibilities for the captain and his crew. Tinkering with
a cast of iconic characters could have been a disaster, but it’s proved to be
genius. For me, it was Kirk who would make or break the reboot.
I was sold
from the first moment in 2009. Yesterday, Ter and I saw Star Trek: Into
Darkness. With no idea what to expect, I was blown away again. It
all works so well, as well as or maybe better than the original
series, but whether the vision is Gene Roddenberry’s or JJ Abrams’, it’s all
about the Captain. (Sorry, Spock fans.)
So kudos to
Chris Pine for doing proper homage to a character whom I have loved since I was
a kid. His James Kirk is the perfect hero for our modern future, just as
Shatner’s was perfect for it in the 60s.
Best of
all, the rear view swagger is just as captivating now as it was then.
No comments:
Post a Comment