It takes away the meaning to me.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
What more meaning could his death have possibly had?
The randomness of the accident makes it less meaningful to me.
The craving for constant nostalgia will only expedite the demise of Star Trek. When was the last Star Trek made with no references to anything prior?
I don't disagree and even think Kirk's death fits Roddenberry's mold.
I just think it also removes a bit of meaning with the way it happens.
The scene was somehow stupid imo, Kirk under all that rubble and his last words just "Oh my".I have never understood why people hated Kirk’s death in Generations.
He gave up eternity in paradise to save 230 million people who will never know he even existed.
Can’t get much more heroic than that!
Very Short Treks - from the same genius marketing team that brought you "The Starship is Landing" and the terrible Trek NFTs the Disco cast rightfully got grilled over promoting on twitter.
Very true. It's just not well done. And it isn't even mentioned in the rest of the movie.I have never understood why people hated Kirk’s death in Generations.
He gave up eternity in paradise to save 230 million people who will never know he even existed.
Can’t get much more heroic than that!
I like the movie but I find the way Kirk is used in the last half of the film a bit of a waste. Even the writers feel they kind of lost the thread.
The sad thing is that what we saw on theaters was actually a re-shoot, because the first cut wasn’t apparently good enough. Shatner mentioned that he had just gotten the call-back in an addendum to his Movie Memories book, excited that maybe Kirk might be allowed to live. The book went into publication before they filmed, I guess, as I don’t recall his reaction to the update after they wrapped a second time.
I honestly can’t even contemplate how much worse it could have been to necessitate bringing everyone back to that location. Re-shoots are generally stoopid-expensive. It must have been epically bad.
I honestly can’t even contemplate how much worse it could have been to necessitate bringing everyone back to that location. Re-shoots are generally stoopid-expensive. It must have been epically bad.
He fought to save others, countless others.
The bridge he was fighting on got weakened significantly during the fight, and he fell to his demise.
It wasn't random, it was a consequence of his battle to save the future of countless people.
It's not like he was on a random hike, and boom the bridge fell.
See, I loved those last words. I could imagine he saw Something but leave the rest to my imagination. He wasn't afraid though, or sad, and I liked that. Plus, "it was fun" summed up Kirk to me.
He saw the bright white tunnel or whatever was in it. That's my head canon.
The final mystery to be explored. And he was headed right for it.
The final mystery to be explored. And he was headed right for it.
It obviously wasn’t at the time, but my new head canon is absolutely that Kirk was reacting to The Koala.
WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN JUST NOW. NICE.
Again, people take it differently. What you say is logical but when I watch the movie it just fails to hit the way you describe.
Would you have prefered if Kirk had been walking on a normal hike, and while walking over a shoddy / shakey bridge, he falls to his doom? Death due to shoddy maintenance of a bridge.
Or would you prefer the current outcome, where he was fighting Soran, the bridge they were on was weakened, and he fell to his demise because of a result of his scuffle with Soran?
One is heroic, the other is a freak accident.
That's a rather binary choice and ignores my actual objection.
Similar threads
- Locked
