Kirk and Ruth

[Drone]

I certainly thought Finnegan looked his Academy age and nothing near the much more mature, "filled out" physiognomy of his old nemesis. Similarly, I don't think we have any credible rationale to argue that Kirk's first love would have been more likely to have been someone his age or an older woman. It's interesting to think that the writers might be playing with us to some degree, and simply showing the audience what these characters from bygone days looked like when Kirk knew them, while he's actually seeing them as aged, but clearly recognizable to him. In such a scenario, his comment to Ruth may have been owing to his shock in seeing her and being courtly to someone who obviously meant so much to him. I don't think I believe that conceit, though we saw something similar on Man Trap, but there wouldn't be any logical reason to pull that stunt here. I'm just throwing it out there for people's consideration.

By the way, where does that blond lab technician that he almost married fit in this chronology? Somehow, I don't envision her in my mind's eye, as being Ruth.

 

[FormerLurker]

I still think that lab technician was Carol Marcus. There's nothing in the original chronology to exclude her, not even the idea that she wouldn't have been a student at Starfleet Academy. She could well have been a student, and dropped out for some reason, including getting pregnant with David, or have been studying some courses that had better teachers at the Academy, and got a pass to attend those classes there, or could even have been a graduate student that was merely working at the Academy for some professor. No one ever said Kirk was older than Carol. He may have been younger.

 

[johnnybear]

I thought fans had always assumed Carol Marcus to be the woman mentioned in Where no man?
JB

 

[Timo]

The writers of ST2 originally wanted Kirk's flame to be Janet Wallace ("The Deadly Years"). When they invented Carol Marcus in her stead, some fans nevertheless got tickled by the connection and decided Wallace might have been the "Where No Man" woman (as she was blonde enough, and an egghead who might have seen a lab or two). I don't know if it was a particularly common idea, but it was one of those around at the time.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JonnyQuest037]

It's interesting to think that the writers might be playing with us to some degree, and simply showing the audience what these characters from bygone days looked like when Kirk knew them, while he's actually seeing them as aged, but clearly recognizable to him. In such a scenario, his comment to Ruth may have been owing to his shock in seeing her and being courtly to someone who obviously meant so much to him. I don't think I believe that conceit, though we saw something similar on Man Trap, but there wouldn't be any logical reason to pull that stunt here. I'm just throwing it out there for people's consideration.

That seems to needlessly complicate something that's pretty straightforward and simple. Ruth and Finnegan both look the way that Kirk remembers them. Done.

By the way, where does that blond lab technician that he almost married fit in this chronology? Somehow, I don't envision her in my mind's eye, as being Ruth.

All we know for sure was that Gary Mitchell steered her towards Kirk some time during his Academy days. It could've been Ruth, it could've been Carol Marcus, it could've been the future Janet Wallace, heck, it could've even been Janice Lester. It might've even been someone else we've never heard of. We really don't know for sure without more information.

I think the consensus among fans is that it was likely Carol Marcus, though, as that was obviously a very serious relationship for them both, and she's easily the most popular among those Kirk love interests.

 

[Albertese]

Also Kirk declares that he almost married her, referring to the blonde lab technician. Seeing how serious he was for Carol Marcus (and the fact that they conceived a child together) leads me to assume Carol was the blonde technician. But, it's correct that we have too little information to be overly dogmatic about it.

--Alex

 

[Marsden]

All we know for sure was that Gary Mitchell steered her towards Kirk some time during his Academy days. It could've been Ruth, it could've been Carol Marcus, it could've been the future Janet Wallace, heck, it could've even been Janice Lester. It might've even been someone else we've never heard of. We really don't know for sure without more information.

I even wonder if Janet Wallace and Janice Lester and the blond lab technician were supposed to be the same character. It wouldn't be the first time that either someone got a name wrong or a minor character was written completely different from previous appearances. I mean in tv in general, but still. Maybe the similarity between Janet/Janice was just a coincidence.

 

[TOSalltheway]

I always thought Ruth was that blonde lab assistant that Gary Mitchell aimed at Kirk.

 

[JimZipCode]

Well, too bad. The episode explicitly tells us that's exactly what he was.

What is this "the-episode-tells-us" stuff? Was there some 3rd-person omniscient narration, appearing either as voiceover or in closed-caption/subtitles, that I somehow failed to notice over the last ~45 years of watching the episode? The episode doesn't "explicitly" tell us anything. There are characters in the episode who tell things to other characters. Those things are reliable or unreliable, depending on the character or circumstance.

"Finnegan" tells us (a) that he IS Finnegan and (b) that he is 20 years old. Both of those are bullshit. He is not Finnegan, he's some kind of android replica; and he's not 20 years old, he is something like 20 minutes old, having been created during the episode. So "Finnegan" is an unreliable reporter. I'm not prepared to treat anything he says as Red Letter Gospel Truth. He says he's "still 20 years old", but he's not "still" anything (since he's brand-new), and he looks 35 – hell, he looks 45 – he definitely looks older than Kirk.

And the exact opposite of what the episode tells us multiple times. Again, the dialogue is, "You haven't aged... It's been fifteen years."

Really, Kirk made a gallant compliment to a woman? Wow, that's a rarity. We must be under an obligation to take that as literal truth. Dude, every man in the 60s told a mature woman that she "hasn't aged a day". The comment is worthless as a basis to draw conclusions from.

That's what Ruth looked like during Kirk's Academy days. Deal with it.

Both characters were "aged up" by the planet's mechanism to match Kirk's age, to assure Kirk's subconscious that they were the real deal and still his peers in age, while also hitting all his conscious memory markers of what those characters were REALLY LIKE. Deal with it.


By the way, I don't have a problem with the idea that Kirk has an older woman in his past. I just find zero evidence of it here. The biggest problem with assuming that Ruth is/was the "older woman" is not Ruth, it's Finnegan. If they had cast a 25yo in the role of Finnegan, a young smartass, then we could be expected to believe that the figures we see from Kirk's past look exactly the way they did ~15 years ago. They didn't do that, so instead it seems we are expected to believe that the figures we see from Kirk's past look the way they might if they were aged up ~15 years. And so I do.

 

[JimZipCode]

They tried to get past it by casting an actor that had an apple-cheeked baby-face, but some viewers, like JimZipCode, can't see past the age of the actor to see what the characters are supposed to be seeing.

I was somewhere around 5 yrs old when the Washington DC area stations started showing Star Trek in syndication. I didn't have a lot of practice in the kind of watching that you are describing. :-)

The argument you are making does not support the idea that Ruth was an "older woman" that Kirk dated. It instead is an argument that BOTH actors look older than the characters they are portraying.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

What is this "the-episode-tells-us" stuff?

It's me paying attention to what actually happened in the show instead of manufacturing an explanation completely at odds with the episode and writing multiple paragraphs to try to justify it. It's fun, try it some time.

If they had cast a 25yo in the role of Finnegan, a young smartass, then we could be expected to believe that the figures we see from Kirk's past look exactly the way they did ~15 years ago. They didn't do that, so instead it seems we are expected to believe that the figures we see from Kirk's past look the way they might if they were aged up ~15 years. And so I do.

Sorry I don't buy your convoluted theory just because you don't happen to like the casting. Please point me to any dialogue in the episode that indicates that the people Kirk was remembering were aged up 15 years. You can't, because there wasn't any. If that'd been the case, you'd think the Caretaker would've said something about it when he appeared at the end. But he didn't.

I've pointed to two lines of dialogue that justify my interpretation (heck, there's no interpretation - my understanding) of the episode. You've got nothing to justify your argument except your personal feeling that the actors looked too old for their parts.

 

[JimZipCode]

Please point me to any dialogue in the episode that indicates that the people Kirk was remembering were aged up 15 years. You can't, because there wasn't any.

That cuts both ways. You don't have any dialogue that indicates the two characters looked like they did when Kirk was in the Academy. "Finnegan" makes an assertion, that doesn't explicitly reference his appearance at all; Kirk doesn't say a thing to confirm it. Kirk makes a gallant "you haven't aged a day" comment to a woman, that sounds like every other such comment made to a woman in 60s TV and film; but there's no reinforcing dialogue to tell us that THIS comment is one we should take seriously, or rather literally.

Compare it to the dialogue in The Man Trap. McCoy says a line to "Nancy" that is pretty indistinguishable from Kirk's line to Ruth; Kirk seems to take it as a commonplace gallantry. But then in follow-up dialogue between Kirk and McCoy it becomes clear (to us) that they are seeing "Nancy" very differently. There's no such follow-up in Shore Leave. Just Kirk's line.

I've pointed to two lines of dialogue that justify my interpretation (heck, there's no interpretation - my understanding) of the episode. You've got nothing to justify your argument except your personal feeling that the actors looked too old for their parts.

You are using two lines in the script as justification for your interpretation. It's not a particularly convincing argument, though you seem oblivious to its weaknesses. (For example, it doesn't seem like you've ever heard of an "unreliable narrator".)

Here, I'll give you an argument that you could be using instead: There's a long, long tradition in theater and film of older actors playing young. Heck, Romeo & Juliet are teenagers, but they're usually played by 30-something actors. (In Shakespeare's day, Juliet would have been played by a man.) (Or a boy.) Roger Moore was 58 when A View To A Kill came out, but the audience is not supposed to infer that James Bond is pushing 60. (Maybe pushing 40.) Etc etc etc. In exactly the same way, we have two characters in Shore Leave who are supposed to look around 20-24, and we should ignore their apparent age the same way we ignore the zippers up the back of aliens and the seam on Spock's ears, etc. It's PRETEND.

I would have been completely unaware of this tradition when I was ~5 or whatever, and the DC stations started showing Star Trek in syndication. So, tell me that I'm stupid to let the way I saw this episode as a child, still dictate my understanding. That might do more for you, then repeating the same 2 lines from the script over and over.

 

[Spock's Barber]

Ruth was a interstellar cougar.

 

[JimZipCode]

Ruth was a interstellar cougar.

Is it true her last name is "Robinson"?

 

[Timo]

Compare it to the dialogue in The Man Trap. McCoy says a line to "Nancy" that is pretty indistinguishable from Kirk's line to Ruth; Kirk seems to take it as a commonplace gallantry.

Here I would argue that Kirk is mightily surprised (and amused) that "commonplace" gallantry is being applied. And he's surprised that McCoy would be applying it! If the show's designated Southern gent can't be assumed to apply it, it really must be the exact opposite of "commonplace" among Kirk's crew...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JimZipCode]

Here I would argue that Kirk is mightily surprised (and amused) that "commonplace" gallantry is being applied.

Oh no, I took it as exact opposite: amused at how intense McCoy is in saying it, observing his friend obviously very smitten. "Love goggles" instead of beer goggles.

 

[Drone]

That cuts both ways. You don't have any dialogue that indicates the two characters looked like they did when Kirk was in the Academy. "Finnegan" makes an assertion, that doesn't explicitly reference his appearance at all; Kirk doesn't say a thing to confirm it. Kirk makes a gallant "you haven't aged a day" comment to a woman, that sounds like every other such comment made to a woman in 60s TV and film; but there's no reinforcing dialogue to tell us that THIS comment is one we should take seriously, or rather literally.

Compare it to the dialogue in The Man Trap. McCoy says a line to "Nancy" that is pretty indistinguishable from Kirk's line to Ruth; Kirk seems to take it as a commonplace gallantry. But then in follow-up dialogue between Kirk and McCoy it becomes clear (to us) that they are seeing "Nancy" very differently. There's no such follow-up in Shore Leave. Just Kirk's line.


You are using two lines in the script as justification for your interpretation. It's not a particularly convincing argument, though you seem oblivious to its weaknesses. (For example, it doesn't seem like you've ever heard of an "unreliable narrator".)

Here, I'll give you an argument that you could be using instead: There's a long, long tradition in theater and film of older actors playing young. Heck, Romeo & Juliet are teenagers, but they're usually played by 30-something actors. (In Shakespeare's day, Juliet would have been played by a man.) (Or a boy.) Roger Moore was 58 when A View To A Kill came out, but the audience is not supposed to infer that James Bond is pushing 60. (Maybe pushing 40.) Etc etc etc. In exactly the same way, we have two characters in Shore Leave who are supposed to look around 20-24, and we should ignore their apparent age the same way we ignore the zippers up the back of aliens and the seam on Spock's ears, etc. It's PRETEND.

I would have been completely unaware of this tradition when I was ~5 or whatever, and the DC stations started showing Star Trek in syndication. So, tell me that I'm stupid to let the way I saw this episode as a child, still dictate my understanding. That might do more for you, then repeating the same 2 lines from the script over and over.

All your verbal perambulations here are quite interesting and compelling to follow up on I'm sure. However, I'm stuck on the simple fact, that for Finnegan at least, you maintain that his on-screen appearance is that of a 35 or even 45 year old and that he clearly looks older than Kirk. I won't suggest that a poll be taken on such ephemera, but it would definitely be of interest to see how many people agree with that assessment. I certainly don't. The actor portraying him was 31 at the time and my impression is that, its a very youthful looking 31 to boot. In fact, I have no trouble at all now, or ever have, doubted that this is exactly how the early 20's version of the character appeared. Older than Kirk, please!!!!

 

[johnnybear]

That cuts both ways. You don't have any dialogue that indicates the two characters looked like they did when Kirk was in the Academy. "Finnegan" makes an assertion, that doesn't explicitly reference his appearance at all; Kirk doesn't say a thing to confirm it. Kirk makes a gallant "you haven't aged a day" comment to a woman, that sounds like every other such comment made to a woman in 60s TV and film; but there's no reinforcing dialogue to tell us that THIS comment is one we should take seriously, or rather literally.

Compare it to the dialogue in The Man Trap. McCoy says a line to "Nancy" that is pretty indistinguishable from Kirk's line to Ruth; Kirk seems to take it as a commonplace gallantry. But then in follow-up dialogue between Kirk and McCoy it becomes clear (to us) that they are seeing "Nancy" very differently. There's no such follow-up in Shore Leave. Just Kirk's line.


You are using two lines in the script as justification for your interpretation. It's not a particularly convincing argument, though you seem oblivious to its weaknesses. (For example, it doesn't seem like you've ever heard of an "unreliable narrator".)

Here, I'll give you an argument that you could be using instead: There's a long, long tradition in theater and film of older actors playing young. Heck, Romeo & Juliet are teenagers, but they're usually played by 30-something actors. (In Shakespeare's day, Juliet would have been played by a man.) (Or a boy.) Roger Moore was 58 when A View To A Kill came out, but the audience is not supposed to infer that James Bond is pushing 60. (Maybe pushing 40.) Etc etc etc. In exactly the same way, we have two characters in Shore Leave who are supposed to look around 20-24, and we should ignore their apparent age the same way we ignore the zippers up the back of aliens and the seam on Spock's ears, etc. It's PRETEND.

I would have been completely unaware of this tradition when I was ~5 or whatever, and the DC stations started showing Star Trek in syndication. So, tell me that I'm stupid to let the way I saw this episode as a child, still dictate my understanding. That might do more for you, then repeating the same 2 lines from the script over and over.

Strange how no one made any fuss about Finnegan's great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather who used to be a beat policeman in New York circa 1968 as well isn't it! "Officer Finnegan just saw two men disappear before his very eyes he did!"
JB

 

[johnnybear]

All your verbal perambulations here are quite interesting and compelling to follow up on I'm sure. However, I'm stuck on the simple fact, that for Finnegan at least, you maintain that his on-screen appearance is that of a 35 or even 45 year old and that he clearly looks older than Kirk. I won't suggest that a poll be taken on such ephemera, but it would definitely be of interest to see how many people agree with that assessment. I certainly don't. The actor portraying him was 31 at the time and my impression is that, its a very youthful looking 31 to boot. In fact, I have no trouble at all now, or ever have, doubted that this is exactly how the early 20's version of the character appeared. Older than Kirk, please!!!!

I thought Finnegan could have passed for a twenty four or twenty five year old myself and wouldn't that be the correct age for a man at Starfleet academy? I mean I doubt everyone had to be in their teens surely?
JB

 

[Redfern]

Ruth was a interstellar cougar.

I thought that was M'Ress.

Sincerely,

Bill