|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 8, 2013 9:38:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 8, 2013 10:24:30 GMT -5
Very simple answer.
NOT AT ALL.
Captain Kirk is a fictional icon. His death need not be shown. A writer even thinking that Kirk should die shouldn't even be working in Star Trek.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 8, 2013 15:03:49 GMT -5
Very simple answer. NOT AT ALL. Captain Kirk is a fictional icon. His death need not be shown. A writer even thinking that Kirk should die shouldn't even be working in Star Trek. Those of us here know full well how you feel on the matter. I linked to it, primarily with you in mind of course, because it was a new thread over there that was gaining some traction, and I thought maybe you'd like to read it. I posted quite a few messages and mixed it up with a few people, but they were also giving their opinions of how they would have liked to see the character go out, any number of outlooks being better than what we were left stuck with. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 8, 2013 15:41:53 GMT -5
I read a bunch of the replies. While having a bridge fall on him wasn't great, I suppose it was better than shooting him in the back. The whole way the story was structured and scripted was wrong for the character.
I'm not one to say we should never have seen his death; I'd prefer a character like this go out a hero, especially since he came very close time and again in the series. I'd rather a blaze of glory where he just couldn't manage to cheat death anymore than him slowly aging in retirement somewhere and just passing out in a chair like Michael Corleone.
As to Generations, if he HAD to die in the movie, I think it would have been nice to put him on the Enterprise saucer. Let's say that originally the ship goes down in a fantastic explosion and everyone dies because Troi can't pilot for beans. So Picard goes back to beat Soren now with the advantage of time and perspective while Kirk goes back to the bridge of the Enterprise and saves the saucer section and all the lives of the kids onboard, but he in the crash, thus going down with the ship. Or even better, in the original timeline the saucer couldn't separate for some reason, and he has to go into the stardrive section during the warp core breach to free up the saucer and then maybe maneuver the ship out of the way to help push the saucer to the planet's surface. He dies spectacularly as the last man on the exploding ship. This would not only mirror his "death" at the start of the film, but allow him to truly go down with the ship and save an entire crew, thus making a difference.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 8, 2013 18:17:27 GMT -5
I read a bunch of the replies. While having a bridge fall on him wasn't great, I suppose it was better than shooting him in the back. The whole way the story was structured and scripted was wrong for the character. I'm not one to say we should never have seen his death; I'd prefer a character like this go out a hero, especially since he came very close time and again in the series. I'd rather a blaze of glory where he just couldn't manage to cheat death anymore than him slowly aging in retirement somewhere and just passing out in a chair like Michael Corleone. LMAO. What great imagery in rounding that out! Nice touch. However, Kirk would not die like a dog the way Corleone did in the third and final installment to the Godfather saga I wouldn't be opposed to Kirk going out in a blaze of glory in theory, for a good and worthy cause, but at the same time, it wasn't imperative that we knew about or saw his demise on screen. As an iconic character of his stature, he had also earned the right to an open-ended happy ending. However, the people responsible for his being buried unceremoniously under a pile of rocks had no respect and were just looking to get him out of the way. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 9, 2013 6:37:14 GMT -5
Kirk died worse. He died like a redshirt.
They made a bigger deal about Data finding his cat than Kirk dying. And yes, his iconic status did earn him an open ended happy ending.
What's interesting is that GEORGE Kirk, in the 2009 movie had a much better death than James Kirk in Generations.
In those first few minutes of the 2009 movie, we had a much better written scene, and far more impactful on the movie.
Dying for millions of faceless people no one knows or cares about v. dying for 800 people, including two people you do care about, and the one with the lesser number of people kicked the crap out of the other one.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 9, 2013 8:36:30 GMT -5
Kirk died worse. He died like a redshirt. Someone said the same thing over in that thread. TK also makes a good point about the character's luck simply running out and his risk-taking finally catching up with him. I can see that too under the right circumstances, but the way he was done away with in " Generations" was just cavalier disregard from people just looking to sweep him aside and get him out of the way, and Moore is an asshole if he didn't think fans would see through that and call him on it. Having said that, it's too late to bring him back anyway, and his fate is what it is. The sad thing is that there were a few people who described better ways he could have gone out versus what we got and are stuck with instead. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 9, 2013 12:26:33 GMT -5
The thing is though, it's not really too late.
The character's luck running out is weak. Star Trek isn't reality. Berman and Braga, who owe their bank accounts to Shatner and Kirk, had no right to kill the character off, and even less right to not bring him back when Shatner wanted it.
They could bring him back in a number of ways.
They could have Shatner de-aged. They could use creative editing to make it so Kirk doesn't die on the bridge, and use an older Shatner later.
In fact, if you look on youtube, that's been done.
You could even use the footage from both death scenes to create a version of the movie where Kirk lives.
Use that footage and an older Shatner.
Hell, you could even use Chris Pine in aged Kirk makeup.
The only thing that ever prevented Kirk from returning are idiots running the show at Paramount.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Jul 12, 2013 10:37:18 GMT -5
"He's dead, Cram."
It is too late.
But it's endearing how hopeful you remain.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 12, 2013 14:12:01 GMT -5
Death is not permanent in the Star Trek universe. Hell, get some magic Khan blood and revive him.
|
|
