Dillard's Generations
- Thread starter Odo
- Start date
The novelization is indeed one of the better ones, but note that there are two different versions available -- the hardcover first edition, or the subsequent mass-market paperback printings. The hardcover version contains the original version of Kirk's death (pre-test screenings), but Dillard rewrote the entire final confrontation against Soran for the paperback edition to fit the newly-reshot ending that was in the theatrical cut of the film (as released in November, 1994).
There wasn't enough lead-time to get the revised ending into the hardcover edition, and it's about the only time I can recall that this has ever happened with a Star Trek movie novelization.
There wasn't enough lead-time to get the revised ending into the hardcover edition, and it's about the only time I can recall that this has ever happened with a Star Trek movie novelization.
Last edited:
Is the battle between the Enterprise and the BOP better than in the movie?
As Leto said, the original hardcover version contained the originally filmed version of Kirk's death, which is generally considered to be pretty terrible (he gets shot in the back), which is why they went back and reshot the whole climax. The paperback version novelizes the version of Kirk's death that we got in the final film.
Right, I should have been more specific:
In the paperback version, which follows the film, does Dillard add or subtlety alter any details surrounding Kirk’s death to make that moment more meaningful or interesting? I understand the bare bones of what happened are the same, I’m just curious as to any changes in the details she provides.
In other words, though it’s the same story, does the book tell that story better than the movie?
In the paperback version, which follows the film, does Dillard add or subtlety alter any details surrounding Kirk’s death to make that moment more meaningful or interesting? I understand the bare bones of what happened are the same, I’m just curious as to any changes in the details she provides.
In other words, though it’s the same story, does the book tell that story better than the movie?
Are you sure about that? I have both the hardcover and the paperback version and they both contain the same version of Kirk's death.
Both of mine are first printings so it might have been revised in subsequent reprints.
Definitely sure. Both of mine are completely different from each other, ending-wise. Though you may be right in that the new ending maybe wasn't added until a second printing or later of the paperback edition, too.
I have the original hardcover and yes, it's the shot in the back version. I think Dillard did the best she could with what was a terrible scene. Overall I thought Generations was ok. Like Insurrection, it could easily have been an episode of the show, but that's not all bad, I mean I liked the show. And his first 'death' on the Enterprise B seemed very fitting. He 'died' alone as he thought he would in TFF, and he 'died' saving the Enterprise. All very fitting. The final death could have been better. I don't have a problem with him dying, or dying for a race he never knew. That was Kirk. But there were better ways to handle it. Dillard's novel handles those elements pretty well, even some of the issues with Captain Harriman at the beginning. In the movie he is made to look like a complete dope, less so in the book. As an aside it was nice in later novels that some background on that was given and he was made out to be a worthy captain of the Enterprise,
I've never understood that perception. Harriman comes up with a lot of good ideas that just aren't feasible because the ship isn't fully equipped yet, through no fault of his own. And once he realizes he's exhausted his options, he does the smartest, wisest, most responsible thing he could possibly do: he sets his ego aside and asks a more experienced veteran for help. That deserves respect, not contempt.
I get that. And reading the various novels (including the Generations novelization) helps that. He turns out to be a very good and worthy captain (and some of the various issues with their 'test run' are not his fault--that's not entirely clear in the film--Kirk even admonishes him on screen for leaving spacedock without a tractor beam). When I first saw the movie, I have to admit my first impression is, really, this guy is the new Captain. The Enterprise won't last a month with him. But as I rewatched it I started seeing him in a different light (part of that is obviously colored by the novels I've read later that show him to be a very competent and able captain--that allowed me to see what I initially thought were negatives as positives).
It may have helped just a bit if one of Harriman's ideas ended up with some merit. Say something that had potential and Scotty made it work through one of his miracles with some help from Kirk. I just thought on first viewing they sort of made Harriman look like a buffoon. A green captain who needed Kirk and co. to save the day, a captain who couldn't come up with a workable solution. That's the impression the filmmakers gave I think, fair or not.
Last edited:
Yes, he was inexperienced and in over his head, but that didn't make him a buffoon. Everyone starts out inexperienced. What would have made him a buffoon was if he'd been too arrogant to admit his limitations and ask for help, and gotten people killed as a result. Buffoons are people too stupid to recognize that they don't know everything. Harriman had the wisdom to admit that he didn't have all the answers and needed to listen to others. That's an admirable trait, and I regret that too few people in our society recognize that.
Heck, Kirk himself is a fine example of that kind of wisdom. He never assumed he could figure it all out for himself. He always relied on advice from Spock and the rest of his crew.
Indeed, Dillard's novel specifically and purposely points this aspect out during the prologue-scenes aboard the Enterprise-B -- the moment Harriman swallows his pride and asks Kirk for advice, Kirk realizes that the younger man is fully deserving of his command, whereas a lesser man would've seen his entire ship destroyed rather than ask for help. Q says the exact same thing to Picard at the end of the first TNG Borg episode, as well -- realizing in certain moments that the job is bigger than just you is the mark of an effective starship commander.
I know, and I've come around to that viewpoint. But the filmmakers did him no favors. I can see how people, esp. those who haven't read Dillard's novel and further novels featuring Harriman think he's some sort of joke. Yes, Kirk always looked for input, but there was never any doubt who was in charge. He projected confidence.
It's something over time that I've come to agree with your interpretation, but I can understand those who after first viewing who think Harriman is not a worthy successor to Kirk, since I initially had those thoughts myself.
It's something over time that I've come to agree with your interpretation, but I can understand those who after first viewing who think Harriman is not a worthy successor to Kirk, since I initially had those thoughts myself.
Yes, and that's where the novelization helped me re-evaluate Harriman. Instead of an unsure captain looking to be rescued out of a bad situation, she presents it as a man who doesn't want to leave any stone unturned. Who is willing to take his ego out of the equation and seek out all his resources (Kirk and Picard did that as well, but they projected a confidence that to me in the film version of Generations seemed absent). And it was also more clear in the novelization that it really wasn't his fault the ship was taken out before she was fully, um, put together. That there was politics involved and Harriman even tried to take a stand to prevent it but was overruled.
I just felt the filmed version left a bad impression that has unfortunately stuck with a lot of people. I'm glad the novels continued the part of his character seen in Dillard's novelization and made him a strong and worthy successor. After all, the Enterprise deserved no less.
Yes, the film left a bad first impression of Harriman. But that just shows how important it is to question our first impressions, as you've done. Too many people form a first impression and then refuse to re-examine it.
I do think that the script doesn't make him look like a buffoon, but it looks to me like the actor was directed to play him as hesitantly as possible, to make Kirk look better. I think the problem is in the direction. Those same lines could have been delivered decisively but they weren't. The impression that a viewer was intended to get, the way that scene was acted and directed, is that Harriman was completely incompetent. You can twist that around and say that it's important to reevaluate first impressions if you want to, but the fact remains that the scene was made that way on purpose by someone. Even with that script Harriman could easily have been portrayed as ready for command, just not for exceptional circumstances, and he wasn't.
It's true some people refuse to see it any other way. Part of that is there are a lot of people that dislike Generations for various reasons and that probably colors their perceptions (if they even gave it a 2nd chance). I personally thought it an average Star Trek film. Some good (I thought the Nexus was an interesting plot device), some not so good (Kirk's death scene).
But to be completely fair, some probably didn't give it too much thought simply because Harriman wasn't a main character for much of the film. He was important for a few minutes then probably forgotten by a lot of people once the main part of the film got going.
Similar threads
