David Marcus vs. Jack Crusher

[Winter]

I LOVE Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Season 3 of Star Trek: Picard. Both I consider to be Trek at its best and solid finales for their respective Series (keep in mind that Wrath was suppose to be the end of Trek when it was released). Sure Picard finale wasn't as great as All Good Things but it is a HELL of a lot better then Nemesis and made good use of the whole TNG cast who really got screwed over in both the films and the first two seasons of Picard.

Now on the whole I would say that Wrath is a stronger story then Picard's third season with a better villain, a more tense story and overall more solid arc for it's main character. However, I would argue that there are a few things Picard 3 does better then Wrath, like giving more to do for the rest of the cast and giving more of an arc for the next generation (as in the new characters not the TNG crew) in contrast to the cadets in Wrath.

But for me the one thing that Picard did better then Wrath was how it handled the son of the captain. David IMO is, sadly, a really underdeveloped character who in the end is needlessly killed off and his death lacks any real impact throughout the films. It plays a part in The Undiscovered Country but frankly the years of being in-conflict with the Klingons seemed to play more of a role in Kirk's distrust of Klingons then the death of his son, at least to me. But what really hurts David is he and Kirk have, at most, 5 or 7 minutes of screen time together over the course of two movies and most of that time they're barely even talking to one another. In fact David keeps being over shadowed by other characters or events so we never really get a feel for his relationship with his father.

Kirk's relationship with Carol, Khan and Spock along with the death of Spock in Wrath mean that David gets basically nothing. And in The Search for Spock his death is overshadowed by the destruction of the Original Enterprise and the resurrection of Spock. David really didn't get any chance to be a fully fleshed out character and his death matters little to anyone but Kirk. Hell unless you read the tie-in novels we NEVER see how Carol reacted to learning her son was murdered.

Jack is the other side of that coin. He's a main character in the third season of Picard and as such his relationship with Picard is put front and center and the show takes full advantage of this.

One of my favorite moments is when Picard and Crusher talk about why she never told Picard that she had his son. This could have so easily turned Crusher into the one in the wrong but instead the show explains WHY she made the choice that she did, Picard is always in danger and she's lost her husband and her first son left her she couldn't bare the thought of entering into a full relationship with Picard and risk their son. And it doesn't turn Picard into the bad guy in the conversation either because, he's rightly pissed that he was never told that he was a father and he should have had a say in his relationship with his own son.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg as the whole season is basically about the relationship between Picard and Jack and there are SO many great moments as the two slowly bond over the season. I love the scene when we flashback to when the two first met and Picard didn't realize who Jack was only for him to recognize him later and his heartbroken expression as he realized he had hurt his child's feelings.

And how Picard must once again confront his greatest enemy but this time instead of facing his demons to save his friend now he does so for the sake of his child. I also love how both do try to bond with each other and how their relationship changes them over the course of the show.

This season is really great in part because of this relationship. It's everything I wanted with David and Kirk but never got and odds are never will.

[CharlesPhipps]

Winter, are we archenemies?

Friendly archenemies?

Because we seem to be on the opposite sides of every discussion. JK. For me, I think you've really undersold David Marcus and there's a lot of reasons why David is a superior figure to Jack Crusher in terms of storytelling. But if I may suggest the reasons why, it's because they avoid so many plot contrivances.

1. Kirk knows about David: David is a surprise to the audience but he's not a surprise to Kirk. Kirk wasn't a deadbeat dad and his mother didn't hide him from Kirk. They were married, probably, and got a divorce as many people in the audience would by the Eighties. The mother kept custody of their child and Kirk wasn't given shared custody. It is an incredibly mundane story rather than an elaborate, "fifty year old woman gives birth to surprise lady and keeps him a secret from boyfriend because of his Spider-Man-like enemies."

2. David doesn't know about Kirk: Carol has kept him isolated from knowing about his father, which is a shitty thing to do but helps explain why David is so hostile to Starfleet. She's been gaslighting him the entire time. If we take her father as the same sort of person he is in the Kelvin timeline, we can also assume that part of her dislike of Starfleet is the fact her father was a fascist. Albeit, he may not have gotten to the top of Starfleet Command without the Vulcan massacre.

3. David is part of Kirk's arc in Khan: Kirk realizes that the reason he's so afraid of getting old is because he didn't bother to leave a legacy behind of a family or trying to build a life outside of Starfleet. So when he lost the Enterprise, he lost the only thing he had going for. As Sir Barristan Semly said, "A hall to die in." The fact Kirk is only in his fifties kind of shows how shortsighted his behavior was. He's a second chance for Kirk to make amends and understand growing old is fine because you will leave more to the next generation.

(This was already in TMP but Matt Decker was a substitute son that muddled the conversation)

4. Kirk being more upset about the ENT than his son's death: Is something other people have commented on and is shitty writing of Kirk.

[Winter]

Winter, are we archenemies?

Friendly archenemies?

Because we seem to be on the opposite sides of every discussion. JK. For me, I think you've really undersold David Marcus and there's a lot of reasons why David is a superior figure to Jack Crusher in terms of storytelling. But if I may suggest the reasons why, it's because they avoid so many plot contrivances.

1. Kirk knows about David: David is a surprise to the audience but he's not a surprise to Kirk. Kirk wasn't a deadbeat dad and his mother didn't hide him from Kirk. They were married, probably, and got a divorce as many people in the audience would by the Eighties. The mother kept custody of their child and Kirk wasn't given shared custody. It is an incredibly mundane story rather than an elaborate, "fifty year old woman gives birth to surprise lady and keeps him a secret from boyfriend because of his Spider-Man-like enemies."

2. David doesn't know about Kirk: Carol has kept him isolated from knowing about his father, which is a shitty thing to do but helps explain why David is so hostile to Starfleet. She's been gaslighting him the entire time. If we take her father as the same sort of person he is in the Kelvin timeline, we can also assume that part of her dislike of Starfleet is the fact her father was a fascist. Albeit, he may not have gotten to the top of Starfleet Command without the Vulcan massacre.

3. David is part of Kirk's arc in Khan: Kirk realizes that the reason he's so afraid of getting old is because he didn't bother to leave a legacy behind of a family or trying to build a life outside of Starfleet. So when he lost the Enterprise, he lost the only thing he had going for. As Sir Barristan Semly said, "A hall to die in." The fact Kirk is only in his fifties kind of shows how shortsighted his behavior was. He's a second chance for Kirk to make amends and understand growing old is fine because you will leave more to the next generation.

(This was already in TMP but Matt Decker was a substitute son that muddled the conversation)

4. Kirk being more upset about the ENT than his son's death: Is something other people have commented on and is shitty writing of Kirk.

We've agreed on plenty of things (for example we both like Dreadnought and I'm pretty sure we both enjoyed The Marvels among other things) just not a lot. But on the whole I'd say we're frenemies. And honestly these are the kinda counterargument that I prefer to have because even if we don't agree at least I know I'll be getting a reasonable argument instead of dreading dealing with an idiot who's only reason for disliking something is because it has characters who are not white straight men. Which thankfully I haven't ran into on this forum.

Now to address your points.

There is no evidence in universe that Kirk and Carol were married. Odds are she was one of many women Kirk hooked up with and she got pregnant. Kirk stated that he did as Carol asked and kept out of David's life. There's also no evidence that her Carol was gaslighting her son into distrusting Starfleet in fact from what we see in the film the opposite is true.

When David suggests that Starfleet is coming to take the Genesis device Carol responds, quote, "Starfleet has kept the peace for 1000 years! I cannot and Will Not Subscribe to your interpretative." And she's working with Starfleet and is shown to be on good terms with Captain Terrell and Chekov.

But besides that, yeah it's regular and mundane and for me, in this instance, I find that boring. Again what I like about the scene between Picard and Crusher is how both sides are able to present their arguments so we can see both sides.

But my main issue is has been done with David over the entire franchise's history. More was done with Jack in his first two episodes that what was done with David throughout both films he appeared in.

I like what David could have added but he is a side dish on a otherwise Master Piece Meal.

Jack is, for me, a more fleshed out character and while he has an unfair advantage of being the second main character I can't help but wonder if the reasons the film's killed off David was because of his lack of development in Khan?

[Nealithi]

4. Kirk being more upset about the ENT than his son's death: Is something other people have commented on and is shitty writing of Kirk.

There are people that think Kirk was more upset about losing the Enterprise over the loss of his son?
He collapsed on the floor in shock. He was practically sobbing. "You klingon bastard. You killed my son!"
But he deliberately set the Enterprise to self destruct, and while he was not happy about it. He snapped to action pretty quick.
The death of his son was still important years later when Praxis blewup. But he was more upset losing the Enterprise than David?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

So like most things TOS, the show is about Kirk. David isn't a fleshed out character as much as an extension of Kirk. CharlesPhipps gets it right that Kirk/David/Carol are a very easy fit for an 80's family legacy. Picard does this well too, just differently. What they're both doing is introducing new facets to a character to flesh out the narrative. Kirk's family serves to describe Kirk's context while Picard utilizes the relationship to propel the story and his arc forward, which is what I feel I agree with for Winter's point.

Personally I feel that The Undiscovered Country though using David's death efficiently does so validly. Kirk is exhibiting racist feelings both because of the war and because of his son, but the latter is so much more personally understandable in spite of power dynamics between cultures. Again, this makes David a classic MacGuffin while Jack Crusher is the updated R2-D2 MacGuffin that you care for because his story's so cute.

Which leads to the bitter argument segment:

1: Kirk knowing about David doesn't make David a better character, it makes Kirk a better character and the story better. What's going on with David is more a matter of supplementing Kirk rather than either complementing an untouched character arc (like Picard) or establishing his character (like Crusher). Carol isn't keeping David in the dark for political outlook, it's just a matter of Kirk being a complicated figure and she's trying to keep her life simple with a white picket fence. (In the Kelvin timeline, Nero's ship has the same influence of military persuasion that the Dominion War and Wolf 359 does.

2: David not knowing about Kirk is actually a fine surface for a character arc. I can't really decide if this is better or worse than Jack Crusher's dilemma, so fair point. All and all though I think David is a supplemental character while Jack is a complementary figure. He enhances the narrative, but that is what's going on more than him being a good character.

...

re: Death of the Enterprise. Both David and The Enterprise are what Kirk has left and they are both gone in the blink of an eye. It's only after losing David though that Kirk decides to live as a pirate and forget about the Enterprise. His legacy as a captain doesn't mean anything when Kruge killed his son just to take his honor from him. Kirk must find his own honor again, and ST3 is actually propelling Kirk forward just like Picard 3 is, but at the cost of the Admiral's son.

[Madner Kami]

What exactly is "Picard's arc"?

[stryke]

The death of his son was still important years later when Praxis blewup. But he was more upset losing the Enterprise than David?

You're right, that's a legit mad take to think that.

I'm not sure Marcus and Crusher are all that comparable. Marcus exists purely to service Kirk's character arc and in that he does great, but he's never really a character in his own right. We care when Marcus dies because of what it does to Kirk not because Marcus is in anyway compelling in his own right.

Crusher though has a lot more work done to make him a character in his own right. He's not just there to put Picard through the wringer and give him an arc to go through. He forms his own relationships and it's fun to watch him do so. That he works as well as he does even with the overplayed Borg reveal is rather impressive, and it's credit to the actor and writing for him. Even more so as I initially was not at all sold on the guy, and thought he was probably going to be insufferable.

[CharlesPhipps]

What exactly is "Picard's arc"?

Picard basically reconnects with his family and realizes life beyond Starfleet because of the Borg.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

What exactly is "Picard's arc"?

Most notably his ambition of fatherhood. His trauma from the Borg is another component that ties into it.

Edit: Season 1 did try to touch upon his role as a diplomat, but it was heavily overweighed by the Lost in Space adventure format.

Arc's probably a bit of a strong word to describe his ambition of fatherhood considering seasons 1-6 of TNG, though if you consider his emotional plot in Generations and consider where he'd be at at this part in his life, it's a pretty enduring one.

[CharlesPhipps]

4. Kirk being more upset about the ENT than his son's death: Is something other people have commented on and is shitty writing of Kirk.

There are people that think Kirk was more upset about losing the Enterprise over the loss of his son?
He collapsed on the floor in shock. He was practically sobbing. "You klingon bastard. You killed my son!"
But he deliberately set the Enterprise to self destruct, and while he was not happy about it. He snapped to action pretty quick.
The death of his son was still important years later when Praxis blewup. But he was more upset losing the Enterprise than David?

Of all people, Chris Claremont held this view and made it something people brought up in the comic "Debt of Honor."

https://i.imgur.com/Iafa7JA.jpeg

But plenty of people brought it up in forums over the years.