What if... ETERNAL TIDE SPOILERS

[Judith Sisko]

Death is death. Period. There is no "better" death. Death is painful for those left behind, regardless of beliefs.

Period.

[Christopher]

Enterpriserules wrote:

---

I say that I want it to be grander, because I feel that it would have been more meaningful to see Kirk dying to protect the Federation or something of that nature. Something that has more meaning to the character, I think that makes for better story-telling. It is why Khan was a great villain, it was personal to Kirk and that made the story all the richer.

But Jim Kirk was not the kind of person who would care less for the lives of strangers than for the lives of people he cared about. It's the sheer selflessness of the sacrifice, the fact that he had nothing personal at stake but still chose to give his all for the greater good, that makes it more meaningful to me.

Now Chris, you have been on the boards a long time. I think you have a problem trying to be right all the time and not respecting people's opinions.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not my intent. I thought that was what people did when they had differing opinions: they shared them with each other, debated with each other so they could both have something to think about -- and, in a public forum like this, so that its audience will be able to hear all sides of a given issue. Respecting someone's right to their opinion doesn't mean you can't offer a differing opinion. All I'm trying to do is contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative perspective.

When I write a book, I often find it quite interesting to write debates between characters who have opposing viewpoints, and it can be fascinating to get into the heads of characters whose opinions I would personally disagree with. In fact, I sometimes find that the characters whose views are most alien to me are the ones who turn out the richest and most intriguing -- perhaps because I don't take their points of view for granted and make an extra effort to figure out how they could sincerely believe as they do. So it's the debate itself, the airing of multiple points of view, that's of worth to me. So in a BBS context, that often leads me to respond to the airing of one point of view by offering an opposing point of view, just so both sides will be in play.

But I have to admit, I can see how that could be frustrating to others. I think I picked up the tendency from my father, who was always quick to offer an opposing viewpoint to an opinion I expressed -- not out of hostility, but simply because it was his nature, perhaps our family's nature, to think critically and question everything. And I know I often got tired of that and wished he could just agree with me every once in a while. But if he had, maybe he wouldn't have challenged me to think as much.

[Enterpriserules]

Christopher wrote:

---

But Jim Kirk was not the kind of person who would care less for the lives of strangers than for the lives of people he cared about. It's the sheer selflessness of the sacrifice, the fact that he had nothing personal at stake but still chose to give his all for the greater good, that makes it more meaningful to me.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not my intent. I thought that was what people did when they had differing opinions: they shared them with each other, debated with each other so they could both have something to think about -- and, in a public forum like this, so that its audience will be able to hear all sides of a given issue. Respecting someone's right to their opinion doesn't mean you can't offer a differing opinion. All I'm trying to do is contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative perspective.

When I write a book, I often find it quite interesting to write debates between characters who have opposing viewpoints, and it can be fascinating to get into the heads of characters whose opinions I would personally disagree with. In fact, I sometimes find that the characters whose views are most alien to me are the ones who turn out the richest and most intriguing -- perhaps because I don't take their points of view for granted and make an extra effort to figure out how they could sincerely believe as they do. So it's the debate itself, the airing of multiple points of view, that's of worth to me. So in a BBS context, that often leads me to respond to the airing of one point of view by offering an opposing point of view, just so both sides will be in play.

But I have to admit, I can see how that could be frustrating to others. I think I picked up the tendency from my father, who was always quick to offer an opposing viewpoint to an opinion I expressed -- not out of hostility, but simply because it was his nature, perhaps our family's nature, to think critically and question everything. And I know I often got tired of that and wished he could just agree with me every once in a while. But if he had, maybe he wouldn't have challenged me to think as much.

I love your books and you have my respect for your opinion, even if we don't see eye to eye here.

[rahullak]

Christopher wrote:

---

<SNIP>
Pardon me for being harsh, but having suffered the death of my father only a couple of years ago, I feel quite strongly about this: I'm frankly repulsed by the concept that death should be portrayed as "grand" or good in any way. Death is an ugly, painful, frustrating thing. It hurts. It's supposed to. Glamorizing death is an idea that disgusts me. We should be angry when the characters we care about are taken from us. We should feel that it's a waste and a lost opportunity. Because that's an honest portrayal of what death is. Painting it as some noble, grand, triumphant thing that we can feel good about is simply a lie. We should celebrate the lives of the people we care about. That's the part that can be grand and noble and worthy of our admiration.

Christopher, I am sorry to hear of your loss.

I have a question here. We humans might not see death as a grand, triumphant thing but don't Klingons see it that way? They celebrate death, especially if the death was a result of a "glorious battle".

[Enterpriserules]

rahullak wrote:

---

Christopher, I am sorry to hear of your loss.

I have a question here. We humans might not see death as a grand, triumphant thing but don't Klingons see it that way? They celebrate death, especially if the death was a result of a "glorious battle".

Klingons do since they believe that by a glorious death in battle they will be ushered into Sto-vo-kor. Although there are many humans, like me, that even though I see death as sad, because of my faith I do not see it as an end, so to die is not the worst thing that can happen. Death is only a new beginning and therefore a glorious passing.

[Hartzilla2007]

My major problem with Kirk's death in generations was that it seems to be the main reason he was even in the movie to begin with. I would have been happier if they had just left Kirk's story as finished in TUC and had just done a TNG movie instead of a halfassed attempt at torch passing despite already having done that in their pilot episode.

[Enterpriserules]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

My major problem with Kirk's death in generations was that it seems to be the main reason he was even in the movie to begin with. I would have been happier if they had just left Kirk's story as finished in TUC and had just done a TNG movie instead of a halfassed attempt at torch passing despite already having done that in their pilot episode.

I agree with this as well. TUC was a fitting good-bye to the Original cast

[JD]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

My major problem with Kirk's death in generations was that it seems to be the main reason he was even in the movie to begin with. I would have been happier if they had just left Kirk's story as finished in TUC and had just done a TNG movie instead of a halfassed attempt at torch passing despite already having done that in their pilot episode.

While I actually do actually like Generations, I have to agree with this. The Kirk stuff has always seemed almost pointless to the bigger picture. I've never really seen where the person Picard got out of the Nexus had to be Kirk. That stuff could have easily been done by pretty much anybody.

[Enterpriserules]

JD wrote:

---

While I actually do actually like Generations, I have to agree with this. The Kirk stuff has always seemed almost pointless to the bigger picture. I've never really seen where the person Picard got out of the Nexus had to be Kirk. That stuff could have easily been done by pretty much anybody.

I like your line about it being anyone who could have done it, great point

[Christopher]

Well, again, I think the pivotal moment in that climactic scene is the one that tends to get overlooked, where Kirk climbed right out on the bridge after he'd almost fallen off it to his death. Most other people couldn't have done that. They would've hesitated to go back out on that bridge after barely getting off it alive, or would've wasted time trying to find some other way to get the remote, and thus wouldn't have been able to deactivate the cloak in time for Picard to prevent the launch. It took Kirk's special blend of courage, sense of duty, and sheer recklessness to be able to unhesitatingly go back out on that rickety bridge, and that's what made the difference.

Still, I'll concede that the story structure was a bit contrived based on the decision that they needed Kirk to pass the torch. Maybe if they hadn't rushed the film into production, if they'd taken a year off after the end of TNG and refreshed their creative energies before tackling GEN, they might've come up with something stronger. Although I think GEN still works pretty well, all things considered.

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I'll go on the record as saying that I liked Generations. And I liked both it and Insurrection better than I liked First Contact or Nemesis (neither Borg nor Remans exactly thrill me), but I liked all of them.

[cml898]

Generations was always my favorite of the TNG films. I still remember how amazed I was seeing the crash sequence in the theater.

[Christopher]

cml898 wrote:

---

Generations was always my favorite of the TNG films. I still remember how amazed I was seeing the crash sequence in the theater.

Yeah, that was intense.

[JD]

Christopher wrote:

---

Well, again, I think the pivotal moment in that climactic scene is the one that tends to get overlooked, where Kirk climbed right out on the bridge after he'd almost fallen off it to his death. Most other people couldn't have done that. They would've hesitated to go back out on that bridge after barely getting off it alive, or would've wasted time trying to find some other way to get the remote, and thus wouldn't have been able to deactivate the cloak in time for Picard to prevent the launch. It took Kirk's special blend of courage, sense of duty, and sheer recklessness to be able to unhesitatingly go back out on that rickety bridge, and that's what made the difference.

I can see that. I just think it would have been more interesting if they had made it more personal for Kirk. Like if they had brought back one of the TOS villains, or had Spock or McCoy in danger. Just something that would have made Kirk's presence more important.

[Christopher]

^The producers invited Nimoy and Kelley to appear, but they declined.

And of course the point of this was that it was a TNG movie, not a TOS movie. It wasn't supposed to be centered on Kirk. It was passing the torch to the TNG cast, selling movie audiences on the new team and just using Kirk to ease the transition. He was there to be a special guest, not the center of the story.