Generations - Kirk's Death: A question of stamina?
- Thread starter SpockSandwich
- Start date
I wish they had Shatner turn his face away during his death scene. He almost looks like a dead Fred Flintstone. I half expected him to cry out, "WILMAAAAA!!!"
Gee. I don't know. How would anyone do with a collapsed bridge on top of them?
Kirk did not lack anything except maybe a decent scriptwriter for Generations.So what of he looked older than STV? he was 5 years older than when he made that feature film, and five years to someone that age surely takes its toll. Of course he seemed slow but bloated? Dont be absurd.
All the more reason why Generations is not well-liked by many. Granted it had Malcolm McDowell playing a tragic character/villain and the killing off of the Duras Sisters, but the rest of the film after the Enterprise-B segment went downhill. The death of James T. Kirk was less than heroic. It was less than graceful.
I don't know what the writers were thinking when they wrote this half-and-half film, but one thing is for certain. They wrote a film that wasn't all that great, period.
And to think that both Insurrection and Nemesis were bad!
I don't know what the writers were thinking when they wrote this half-and-half film, but one thing is for certain. They wrote a film that wasn't all that great, period.
And to think that both Insurrection and Nemesis were bad!
I say they should not have done a transitional film at all, and just gone from Star Trek VI to a movie totally focused on TNG crew. Generations has some good moments and I actually prefer it to the latter films, but that's just my personal choice.
P
pengbuzz
Guest
"Lacked stamina"?
Okay...exactly how much stamina would anyone have if a bridge fell on them after a fall from the top of a cliff???!!! That's like asking "Why did the guy who got whacked by a tractor trailer die so quickly"? For crying out loud, Kirk's vital organs were probably somewhere between origami and pudding!!!
As for Kirk's death; I have to agree that it was less than heroic or graceful. It was more like "Oops, Kirk slipped!! Our bad!" This is why I don't regard Generations very much; the last way I want to remember Kirk is in need of a giant spatula to pick up what was left!
Okay...exactly how much stamina would anyone have if a bridge fell on them after a fall from the top of a cliff???!!! That's like asking "Why did the guy who got whacked by a tractor trailer die so quickly"? For crying out loud, Kirk's vital organs were probably somewhere between origami and pudding!!!
As for Kirk's death; I have to agree that it was less than heroic or graceful. It was more like "Oops, Kirk slipped!! Our bad!" This is why I don't regard Generations very much; the last way I want to remember Kirk is in need of a giant spatula to pick up what was left!
Kirk died because he let Picard do all the thinking.
He could have returned to the Enterprise-B, gotten his life back, and nipped the Soran problem in the bud.
Picard didn't want to go back that far and change history, but as far as Kirk's concerned, it's not history. Picard is a man from the future. Kirk can leave the Nexus and go to any time he wants. There is no sensible reason for him to go to Picard's time instead of his own.
He could have returned to the Enterprise-B, gotten his life back, and nipped the Soran problem in the bud.
Picard didn't want to go back that far and change history, but as far as Kirk's concerned, it's not history. Picard is a man from the future. Kirk can leave the Nexus and go to any time he wants. There is no sensible reason for him to go to Picard's time instead of his own.
Yeah, Picard's plan didn't seem to be the most logical one.
Picard: So we go back in time and we find Soran on the bridge. Then I stand on one end and you on the other, and then he'll be trapped.
Kirk: Are you sure that's a good plan? What if he decides to dive off the side of the bridge?
Picard: Naw, Soran would never do that.
Plan-wise, I'm not sure why they decided to go with this course of action. Why not send Kirk off from the start to go and mess with the rocket? Why did they have to confront him like that? Or maybe Kirk could have jumped Soran while Picard took care of the rocket. Why waste time confronting Soran on the bridge with stupid one-liners?
Indeed. Then, at the end of the film, a far older Kirk would meet with Picard, and that would've been the true torch passer.
Why are people always so obsessed with his death? It does not matter how whether you die gloriously or not but what you have done before your death. Kirk saved millions of lives.
KIRK: Did we do it? ...Did we make a difference?
Both series were over. We had a great moment in Encounter at Farpoint with Bones, and two more with Spock and Scotty that were the true passing of the torch moments.
Another moment with Kirk would have seemed ideal, but that it came in a horrible "redux" ending to what Star Trek VI and All Good Things had just recently accomplished, and was a pathetic use of Kirk was just inexcusable.
Another moment with Kirk would have seemed ideal, but that it came in a horrible "redux" ending to what Star Trek VI and All Good Things had just recently accomplished, and was a pathetic use of Kirk was just inexcusable.
The novels are good, at least the first wave, but not canon thank God.
Kirk didn't die, he took a power napHey, it allowed The Shat to have his JesusZombieBorg novels ghostwritten for him. That has got to be good for something.
You know, I would've preferred him dying aboard the Enterprise-B a whole lot better. Or hell, if he had to come to Picard's time, dying on the Enterprise-D (somehow- maybe enabling people to escape the warp-core breach) would've been preferable to how he actually died. Oh well, one of life's little disappointments I guess. Still liked the movie for the most part though. It was what first really got me into ST:TNG though I had seen some of the show before.
Agreed! They could have made a better crossover feature film without having to kill off anyone.
Roddenberry, who was himself dead at the time, didn't have enough stamina to fight Berman and the others over the issue of Kirk's death?
I suppose there's a good possibility you are just joking, but even then, I found it a rather odd comment.
Why?
Why is a crossover feature where no one dies automatically better than one where someone does die? Why is it true that Kirk "should not have died" as Anji put it? These characters aren't immortal. They all have to die eventually, and they live in a universe full of dangers. And in the case of characters who are Starfleet officers, they willingly throw themselves into said dangers repeatedly. I've never understood why main character death is seemingly a taboo for some people.
Debating the merits of how the character died, or debating whether or not the work in which the character died was good or not, is one thing; that's completely understandable to me, and is largely subjective anyway. Personally, I didn't actually mind Kirk's death. I like GEN overall, though I have my problems with it, as I do with all of the films, but Kirk's death wasn't one of them. He sacrificed himself to help save an entire civilization - not because he'd get anything out of it, or because the Federation would get anything out of it. The people he saved would never even know his name. He did it because it was right. I always thought it was a fitting way for this particular character to go. I know I'm in the minority on that, but eh, what can ya do.
That said, the sentiment that depicting Kirk being killed on-screen is something that simply SHOULD NOT have been done, period... I honestly don't get it.
