Kirk. James Kirk.

Is James T. Kirk the 23d Century version of James Bond?

A recent article suggests that the new cinematic version of the Star Trek icon should be more in keeping with a "bad boy" image infused with humor. But how faithful would this be to the original Kirk? Does this remind anyone of the perennial Bond debate over Connery versus Moore? Who, exactly, should James Kirk, once described as a stack of books on legs, be?

A valid consideration is to make Kirk more in keeping with cultural mores. Today's action hero isn't devoted to books as much as to street smarts and derring-do. And if you think about it, most action heroes even in the past were two-fisted hell-raisers as much as not.

Let's compare Kirk to the cinematic James Bond, for example. Connery's early James Bond was nothing if not a slightly roguish bar-brawler who, however, had the consummate appearance of polish and intellect. I'm sure Bond was, in fact, quite intelligent, but his exploits were not celebrated for their Sherlockianism. The literary Bond might have even less disinclined toward physical action.

The same might be said for Indiana Jones, who was, in fact, a college professor. Quite the intellect, he, but again, the fun in his movies is expressed other than through implementing strategem through his wit and more toward strafing the villain with his whip.

What we should keep in mind, of course, is that Kirk is a much more complex character than those described above. Kirk is at all times in actual command of a starship and all hands aboard; he is looked up to by hundreds as a leader and must stand as a moral example. At times, he must be a diplomat representing the interests of billions -- an ambassador, or a President.

There is therefore a balance that must be struck between Kirk-as-Bond and Kirk-as-President. The cinematic Bond must never make us lose sight of the fact that Kirk, even in this universe, is far more than just a bad-boy-made-good. He is, in fact, a good-boy-turned-bad-boy-turned-paragon -- something more difficult to convey, but far truer to his original character than anything lesser can service.