Would Into Darkness have worked better if Kirk had stayed dead at the end, with Spock in command, and Kirk had only been revived what later became Beyond?
Keep Kirk dead until Beyond?
- Thread starter Laura Cynthia Chambers
- Start date
No.
If they were trying to remake “Space Seed” and not TWOK, then they should have replaced Kirk with a redshirt, have that redshirt die of radiation poisoning, and dumped Spock screaming out KHHAAN!. Those two scenes were not necessary.
If they waited until the third movie to bring back Kirk, it would need to be for a good reason. Like Kirk coming from an alternate reality where he fulfilled Pike’s prophecy and got his entire crew killed. Doesn’t matter if its at the hands of Krall or not.
If they were trying to remake “Space Seed” and not TWOK, then they should have replaced Kirk with a redshirt, have that redshirt die of radiation poisoning, and dumped Spock screaming out KHHAAN!. Those two scenes were not necessary.
If they waited until the third movie to bring back Kirk, it would need to be for a good reason. Like Kirk coming from an alternate reality where he fulfilled Pike’s prophecy and got his entire crew killed. Doesn’t matter if its at the hands of Krall or not.
I think keeping Kirk dead awhile might have been a benefit, and given it more gravitas. Plus, seeing Spock as captain in yellow would be pretty cool.
The death was not as important as the choice Kirk made. Accepting the loss, and carrying forward the lesson of the Kobyashi Maru in 09.
Yeah, he faced his fears, and lived up to his dad's legacy. Even though he survived, that shadow, that question of "would I be brave enough to do it" isn't hanging over his head.
Maybe that's why everything becomes dull in Beyond - he's already faced his biggest fear, everything else pales in comparison.
Maybe that's why everything becomes dull in Beyond - he's already faced his biggest fear, everything else pales in comparison.
It also goes to meaning. He outlived his dad, the hero. Like V'Ger Kirk faces the question of is this all there is, while Spock struggles with is what I'm doing enough?
What is left to be afraid of for Kirk, then? Fatherhood? Daring to love someone in a committed relationship and risk losing them (not just pining for what he never had)?
To the original question, nah. I would have rewritten the ending so he didn't have to sacrifice himself at all. I feel like the lesson should have been Kirk being forced to sacrifice someone else, like Deanna did with Geordi in "Thine Own Self." On Nibiru he got to have his cake and eat it too with saving the planet and Spock. He should have sent a bunch of people to their death knowing it would save the day.
I was always of the opinion that they should have used Garth of Izar instead of Khan. He had been altered genetically so that he could change form and would have been a better infiltrator. The changes made him mentally unstable. The changes to his body could give his blood magical powers but with the risk of side effects. The consequences of those side effects could have been rolled into Kirk's story in Beyond.
So, I have been debating on this answer for a while. I could go overly long, as I think Kirk's arc is probably one that best reflects the challenges of the stages of psychosocial development that Erikson postulated. So, I would say a committed relationship is the next best step. He had to figure out his identify first (outside of his dad's shadow) to be able to move in to the intimacy stage and a develop a relationship, long term and romantic or just a better friendship. I would say that Kirk and Spock wrestling with this "Where do I go from here?" stage in Beyond sets the stage for both of them to become more interested in families rather than always running around as explorers. And I think Kirk would strive to balance both.
I liked Beyond as a standalone thing. Making me think about Into Darkness while I watch it would not improve the viewing experience.
It works as both. Kirk's arc though is perfect in the three films.
Maybe it should have been Garth instead of Krall.
Why? Further small universe syndrome. Also, people (though not I) complained about Khan appearing when a major benefit of another timeline was to avoid repeats of characters (beyond the actual crew). Having Garth would be subject to the same issue.
Fair enough. I wish it had been more of a sciencey/adventure movie myself.
I didn't mind the idea of having Khan as a villain in Into Darkness, just do a new story with him that isn't alternating between ripping off Space Seed and WOK. Same deal if they'd wanted to have Garth show up for another take on Whom Gods Destroy.
It's a reboot so to me that's not "small universe syndrome". They'd be meeting those characters for the first time in that timeline, not running into the same characters repeatedly even though there's a bast Milky Way Galaxy out there.
It's a reboot so to me that's not "small universe syndrome". They'd be meeting those characters for the first time in that timeline, not running into the same characters repeatedly even though there's a bast Milky Way Galaxy out there.
Similar threads
