I think a mix and match of the bridge crews throughout the movie would be in order. Timey-Wimey shenanigans please.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
That's part of my point. Him being in GEN wasn't an issue. By 1994 (closing in on the 30th Anniversary of TOS) there was enough of a groundswell for James T. Kirk to ride off into the sunset with some heroic end to his life that I didn't see it as a wasted casting and writing choice. His death wasn't totally satisfying, but then most real life heroes don't die in blazes of glory surrounded by massive explosions of special effects and thundering soundtrack music.
Paul Wesley's his own thing and I don't even treat him as shamelessly recycling Kirk, just an easy sentimentality grab on behalf of Kurtzman and his people. Same with Chris Pine. Different timeline, new stories. Shatner's Kirk seeing his journey end on Veridian III could have been done better, but it in and of itself wasn't some insult to the audience.
29 years is longer than a lot of pop culture heroes remain onscreen, especially those still played by the same actor. It felt more earned than a lot of character deaths in popular entertainment.
Which is why the first rule of Trek should be to never, ever listen to fandom.
Like you and others would say: not perfect, but it worked for me.
Besides, once they got Shatner on board with his payday there's no way Kirk wasn't dying.
It was a fait accompli. At least this way he hasn't been back in 15 other episodes and films since the mid-1990s. And that would have been WAY worse than anything in GEN.
Besides, once they got Shatner on board with his payday there's no way Kirk wasn't dying.
It was a fait accompli. At least this way he hasn't been back in 15 other episodes and films since the mid-1990s. And that would have been WAY worse than anything in GEN.
It's also my favourite Star Trek movie. It's the very definition of a "last hurrah" and practically everyone gets a chance to shine. It's the perfect coda to the TOS movie era.
I don't know, I don't think we have to see every hero going out in a blaze of glory. I think some have earned the right to long and peaceful retirements. Generations including a raddled old Kirk wheezing his last on his deathbed would have sucked, sure; but watching him fall off a mountain for no readily apparent reason and monologue his last wasn't great either.
Perhaps it would have been better for Kirk to be returned to the Enterprise-B and be faced with making the choice to sacrifice himself to save her for real. Or maybe it would have been great if the first TNG movie didn't have to be a "handing of the baton"... by that point TNG had a strong identity all of its own.
Yes, hamfisted is the PERFECT word to describe Generations. I don't doubt its intent, only its horribly flawed execution. There's some wonderful moments in the film and some solid performances, but in the end it's just so much less than the sum of its parts.
It's not like that death was SCRIPTED.
He should have sailed off into the unknown, living on in legend.
Cue Bon Jovi
Sorry, I got carried away and kept adding more of them.
I still don’t know why they demoted the Enterprise name.
I have no objection in principle against Kirk dying a heroic death in a Trek movie, when done well. All human lives end at some point, and I also agree Kirk is not the type of man to die in his bed.
To me it's just that in Generations, it feels distinctly underwhelming. Sure, he's supposedly saving an entire world but to me it doesn't feel that way. The feeling I get from the movie is that he just dies fighting some random madman, because a bridge collapses on him. Perhaps it's also because we never get to see the people he dies for, which makes me believe that perhaps we shouldn't have seen Kirk dying, either. In that sense, his original 'death' (saving the enterprise-B) was perhaps better.
Then, there's the point that his death wasn't necessary in the first place, given that they could have left the Nexus at any point in time (including one where they could just waited to capture Soran with no risk to anybody involved), but that's more of a story logic loophole.
No one said it was. But Nimoy's passing prevented them from pulling him out of their pocket every two or three years like some Get Out of Plot Free Card.
Use legacy actors sparingly, especially if they're playing their classic character.
Just like at the end of The Undiscovered Country...
Not only do we not get to see the people he dies for; everyone Kirk knew, or knew him, believes he died on the Enterprise-B 78 years earlier. There's a terrible kind of emotional void there, a disconnect the movie never even acknowledges. And yes, there is an argument that giving your life saving people you don't even know is a very heroic gesture, I get that. But it's narratively unsatisfying at the same time too. Kirk died a small death, amongst strangers, far from his family, friends, and home, and nobody who cared about him would ever know about it. It just... sits badly.
I felt Nimoy appearing in Star Trek (2009) was the best part of the movie, and he gave a wonderful, touching, nuanced performance. I wasn't terribly keen on the Kelvinverse movies generally, but it was the definition of how to use a classic character and legacy actor well.
I felt Nimoy appearing in Star Trek Into Darkness was gratuitous, unnecessary, and spoiled what would have been his perfect swan song. It was the definition of how to not use a classic character or legacy actor. Worse, it's exactly the sort of thing that Nimoy had avoided doing before precisely because he didn't want something "unworthy" being his final performance as Spock. It's why he turned down Generations.
Last edited:
Agreed on the Spock appearance in STID. When a gratuitous, largely pointless cameo by Leonard Nimoy is one of the best things about a Trek movie then you know it's not a film for the ages.
ID is a better Kirk story than Generations.
I never claimed to be normal. Ever.
Kirk's arc is incredibly satisfying in ID, highlighting the dark excesses he possesses yet his capability for good and self sacrifice. It feels very in keeping with how we know Kirk could be vs. his rough start in 09.
Touché.
Perfect. Just perfect. I should save this because I've been trying to put this into words for around 29 years and nine months.
Even Moore and Braga acknowledge that they were so busy trying to subvert expectations that they didn't actually meet any expectations.
And if you have to kill Kirk his "original" death on the B is about as good as it gets.
I love Into Darkness, the only thing that didn't set right with me, was the appearance of Nimoy. I love Leonard Nimoy, even named a cat after him, he wasn't needed in the second movie.
Still have to do a STID rewatch. I’ve been saying that since I joined the board.
This. Such a wasted opportunity. My version would have been Kirk coming out with Picard taking his place, and having to interact with the entire TNG crew to find a solution to rescue Picard. He would butt heads with Riker, have nice moments with Data and Worf, and ultimately face off against the Bird of Prey, taking command, pulling rank like TMP, and using something that only Kirk could do to save the day. At the end, he could choose to stay in the Nexus to free Picard, that his mission is over, but their time is just beginning. End the movie with him walking onto a nexus version of HIS bridge, with HIS crew, even if just sound effects off screen, or people seen from the back. Roll credits.
Similar threads
- Locked
