Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death better?

[Ithekro]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

Jim Kirk's Enterprise was gone. He's passed the next one off the Captain Harrimanand knows it will still be around under this Captain Picard. His need for his pain was gone. What he probably needed was a life beyond the Enterprise and Starfleet. If he found, again, that he couldn't do that, he'd either need to die, or somehow get back to Starfleet and get himself a starship.

 

[slappy]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

I think they could've said that the real Kirk died at the beginning, but his echo remained behind. When Kirk "leaves" the Nexus, it's like a scanner making a copy. He's still there too, just like Guinan, Picard, Soran, and anyone else who has been there. He always will be.

You could've then had "Kirk" die with Picard after a little speech.

"I always thought I'd die alone....and...and I guess I was right. Alone....aboard my beloved Enterprise. And again....here, a man lost in time. I always thought I could cheat death. Maybe I never really ever won....but I think I've earned a little rest."

He dies and his body fades away. Kirk really died saving the Enterprise, really died saving the galaxy, but will never really die.

At the end of the movie, after all the stuff with the Enterprise D, we see Kirk in the Nexus, smiling, chopping wood, with his communicator on his side. It chirps and he answers it. It's Scotty.

"When can we expect you back aboard, Captain?"

To which Kirk reples:

"It's a beautiful day out, Mr Scott...so I think just stay here a just a bit longer. The next adventure can wait a while"

END

Kirk's at peace, but in his version of heaven, the next adventure is always just around the corner.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

Every time I try and think of a better way to kill Kirk in the film, I keep running across the same problem. When I think about it, Kirk figuratively dies twice in Generations. For first time viewers and the characters in-universe, everyone believes Kirk died in the opening act by saving the Enterprise B. So throughout most of the majority of the film, we're trying to deal with the idea that Kirk, according to the in-universe history of Star Trek is dead. If Kirk is going to die for real in the film later on, it's got to be a death that matters in a way that the opening act did not, and that sadly is not what happened.

The opening act has Kirk in his element. He contemplates his old age, retirement from Starfleet, not being able to Captain a starship again, ect. These are all themes that carry over from the TOS films and they work pretty well outside of the out-of-place humor that occurs during the tour. During the rescue when Kirk refuses to take the Captain's chair, there is a sense of finality to Kirk's decision that he's come to accept where he is now and believes that the real Captain of the Enterprise should be on the bridge of his ship, and Kirk is not the Captain. On a side note, for a film that marketed itself as a "passing of the torch", this scene is the closest we get to Kirk passing the torch of not only the Captain's chair, but the whole entire Enterprise to someone who we never see or hear from again after the opening act. At least with John Harriman there is room to grow and expand, where as with Picard, he's already done enough trekking to fill seven whole seasons.

But when it comes time to the real act where Kirk dies FOR REALZ, we're thrown into random, out of place elements that have never been established nor hinted at for Kirk's character. Cabin in the woods, love for horse riding, promising some girl we never met that he wouldn't go back to Starfleet, a dog named Butler ect. It's all so jarring and it doesn't compliment his character at all. I know some argue that the Nexus gives us what we don't realize we want, but that's not a creative way to tell a story since you could literally have ANYTHING be what a character never knew they wanted.

So in conclusion... Kirk's death as it happens in the film is no where near as problematic as the set up for it. It's not the death that needs fixing, it's the entire film.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

Shatner loves horses and dogs. His personal life contributed to Kirk in those scenes. It was Shatner and the horse he owns impressively doing a side-step - not Kirk. It does tend to intrude on the film. But it wasn't a problem for me. Stories can only consist of what a writer knows or is influenced by, and sometimes stars do lend their personal talents and contract pressure to a character. It might even mean the difference between an appearance, or not.

 

[EnriqueH]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

I probably would've reversed death scenes.

Kirk falls off the bridge helping Captain Harriman on his first mission and gets picked up by the Nexus before he dies.

Later in the film, Kirk is on the Enterprise-D and dies similarly to the way he dies at the beginning of the film we got.

If Kirk is going to die, it should've been on the Enterprise, (which I think is a sentiment MOST fans share). Maybe he could've stayed behind on the E-D battle bridge because they needed someone firing off photon torpedoes and phasers like crazy while the saucer tried to get away because Lursa and B'Etor were being assisted by a fleet of warships.

There's an INFINITE number of ways it could've been...and SHOULD have been...improved.

 

[Starborn Dragon]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

Kirk sacrificed his life to save billions. how is that stupid and pointless?

And he died just like how he predicted in Star Trek V. Without Bones and Spick there to cover him.

I really don't feel that his death was stupid and pointless.

What would be stupid and pointless would be to bring him back. That pretty much negates his death.

Kirk really did die a heroic death. There was no fanfare to it and only Picard knows because everybody else believes he died on the Enterprise B when the Nexus ribbon struck that ship.

Does every heroic death need fanfare?

First I never said his reasons for dying were stupid and pointless, the way they shot it was.

Second, and I know this is going to be in vain to some degree because either people truly thought the death was fine or because some people slavishly accept everything Star Trek does as being great in some way, no matter how stupid and ill thought it may be.

Let's look at the demise of 3 central characters in Sci-Fi franchises.

Spock in TWOK. Makes the logical decision to sacrifice his life to save the Enterprise from being destroyed by the Genesis explosion.

Darth Vader in ROTJ. A character who has been portrayed as a heartless killing machine for the series can't stand the sight of his own son being slowly tortured to death by his master and makes the decision to save Luke's life pretty much knowing that by grabbing the Emperor his lightning will cause fatal damage to his life support suit.

Flynn in Tron: Legacy. A man who, as the creator of the grid, realizes he is the most powerful entity on it but, because he blames himself for the way it's become and his generally peaceful nature, doesn't use his full power until the point where CLU is threatening to harm his son and then, knowing it will destroy both of them, uses his power to reassilimate CLU into him.

Even Luke Skywalker, who didn't die, made the decision to sacrifice his own life rather than join Vader.

So ALL of these CENTRAL characters choose, beyond any doubt as far as they were concerned, to die for what they considered to be a truly noble and/or heroic reason. Luke is spared through a combination of other's actions and sheer luck. But all of these characters took their own fate into their hands and decided death was preferable to the alternative.

Now let's reshoot these scenes like Kirk's death scene, where they knew it was dangerous but thought they would probably survive.

Spock would have repaired the Warp engines, suffered injury from the radiation but have told Kirk he believes he is OK but as he is on the way to the door he touches an exposed electrical conduit and is electrocuted to death.

Vader is in bad shape but believes if Luke can get him off the Death Star he can be saved, but as they are heading towards the shuttle a beam jarred loose by the attack hits Vader in the head and kills him.

Flynn is a little spent and out of breath but is OK, then when he returns to the human world he suffers a heart attack because of the stress of the events.

Luke tells Vader he'll never join him and instead of deciding to plummet to his death, Vader just says "OK" and rams his lightsaber right through Luke's heart.

Now please tell me WITH A STRAIGHT FACE that any of those alternative scenes would have been more emotional and dramatic than how they were really filmed.

For a character like WILLIAM SHATNER AS JAMES TIBERIUS KIRK the most central and important character in the entire Star Trek Universe and either #1 or #2 in terms of popularity (Nimoy's Spock the other contender, I don't think Picard would beat Kirk) out of the dozens, if not hundreds of significant characters in all the ST franchises, you're damn right he deserves a death where he takes his fate into his own hands and dies because he decided it was the necessary sacrifice, not just because he was in a dangerous situation and his luck just ran out.

We are not talking about Jadzia Dax, or Tasha Yar, or even Data.....this is Captain Freaking Kirk. Out of all the characters in ST he, above anyone else, should have a dramatic end that comes of his own choosing. Not because some chains, he thought might hold, couldn't support his weight and gave way.

Let's say if, as was supposedly intended, Spock's death in TWOK was meant to be the end of the character. Yeah it would have sucked to have Spock gone, but at least when thinking about his death you couldn't have asked for a more noble and fitting end. Like I said if Spock's death had been written like Kirk's he would have gone into the radiation chamber realizing it was dangerous and he might die, but also might survive and then upon not receiving fatal injuries while fixing the warp engines would have died of some unexpected explosion or other element as he was walking towards the exit doors.

Would you really have thought that was the way a character as important and beloved as Spock was should go? Seriously?

I honestly can't believe I have to explain why something like Kirk's death is crappy storytelling and filmmaking and I can't believe even further still why people will continue to say it was good. Not every film should follow filmmaking 101, but there are obvious cases where something tired and true is actually the BEST way to do something.

I guess I could be wrong though. I mean "Generations" was such a masterpiece of filmmaking, I guess it might be crazy of me to think such a classic could possibly screw up Kirk's death

I'm not being slavishly devoted to Trek here, I just don't understand why you really think it's such a problem and has to be changed.

I just don't see it as a problem.

But if you're really determined to change it, why don't you get some friends together, and make a you tube video of it, post it on you tube, and see how it goes.

Not all deaths have to be the same.

 

[NeroShrimp]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

Have his career end in Star Trek VI. It was so well wrapped up and to include him in the seventh film was obviously an afterthought in an attempt to make the film more memorable. As for the in-universe reason, why kill Kirk at all? Why not give him a ship of his own after reintroducing himself to Starfleet? Or, just drop him off in Iowa or Yosemite. Killing him was just a mistake and it was lame in my opinion. Just to leave him in a simple cairn of rocks on top of Veridian III was equally disrespectful.

Bottom line, there were so many ways to handle the passing of the baton.

 

[martok2112]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

The original intent was to have as many of the original crew appear in the opening moments of Generations as possible in a passing of the torch to the NG era. Unfortunately, most of them were disinclined to appear, as they felt the lines written for them were not meaningful to their characters and could be spoken by any crewman. Ergo, it whittled down to Shatner, Doohan, and Koenig.

Alas, it wouldn't do to have all the old crew, or at least those who'd shown up, killed off. It would be more meaningful to have Kirk die though, in story, albeit twice...once according to StarFleet/Federation history records, and then once in a manner that would go unrecorded, except in the memory of J.L. Picard.

I think it's safe to say that most, if not all of the old crew were retired after TUC. Kirk, Scotty, and Chekov simply donned their uniforms for a sending off/commissioning ceremony/cruise for the Ent-B...they didn't expect to get called into action...especially a life-changing one as seen in Generations.

Kirk didn't die in a blaze of glory commanding a starship in battle as many fans would probably have liked, but at least he didn't die getting shot in the back. And he died "alone" (re: without Spock and McCoy) as he self-prophesied.

The writers were tasked with Kirk's death, and they did as good a job as they could...and perhaps better than most could even conceive.

And if the scene was good enough for Der Shat, it was good enough for me.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

Kirk didn't die in a blaze of glory commanding a starship in battle as many fans would probably have liked, but at least he didn't die getting shot in the back. And he died "alone" (re: without Spock and McCoy) as he self-prophesied.

kirk dying 'alone' as he prophesied in V was a nice touch. When he talked about it in V you might imagine something similar to George Kirk on the bridge of the Enterprise the captain going down with his ship. he was 'alone' in that Spock and Bones weren't with him like he meant at the campfire. But he wasn't alone as Picard was there with him..he didn't go out alone on the bridge of a starship for example.

also the mountain thing, he almost died falling off a mountain in V (and was nearly killed by 'god' on the mountain at the end - the start being something of a set up for his near death at the end) but in Gen he did die a mountain death (on a very Sha Ka Ree-ian rocky planet), so he was along the right lines talking about his death in that situation/environment. He didn't die on El Capitan as Spock and Bones were there (and Spock was there for him again on Sha Ka Ree "you were never alone") but when they weren't he did..(wonder if Shatner had any input into that in Generations? The idea of a mountain death tying in somewhat to the beginning of V.)

 

[martok2112]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

Kirk didn't die in a blaze of glory commanding a starship in battle as many fans would probably have liked, but at least he didn't die getting shot in the back. And he died "alone" (re: without Spock and McCoy) as he self-prophesied.

kirk dying 'alone' as he prophesied in V was a nice touch. When he talked about it in V you might imagine something similar to George Kirk on the bridge of the Enterprise the captain going down with his ship. he was 'alone' in that Spock and Bones weren't with him like he meant at the campfire. But he wasn't alone as Picard was there with him..he didn't go out alone on the bridge of a starship for example.

also the mountain thing, he almost died falling off a mountain in V (and was nearly killed by 'god' on the mountain at the end - the start being something of a set up for his near death at the end) but in Gen he did die a mountain death (on a very Sha Ka Ree-ian rocky planet), so he was along the right lines talking about his death in that situation/environment. He didn't die on a mountain in V as Spock and Bones were there (and Spock was there for him again on Sha Ka Ree "you were never alone") but when they weren't he did..(wonder if Shatner had any input into that in Generations? The idea of a mountain death tying in somewhat to the beginning of V.)

A very worthy question. I don't know if Ronald D. Moore and his co-writer consulted Shatner about it at all though. I would imagine if they did, Shatner would probably have had a co-writing credit like Spiner did later in Nemesis for his own death.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

And [Kirk] died "alone" (re: without Spock and McCoy) as he self-prophesied.

That's rationalizing bullshit for writers who didn't follow through. He was not alone. Even you had to quote "alone" to overcome the sense of cheating the truth of it. Either Kirk got it wrong or the writers did. Since Kirk isn't real and the writers are, I blame the writers of Generations. Whoever wrote the line into The Final Frontier did a good thing in a bad movie. There was just no payoff later the way there should have been.

About Kirk's death being not alone:

It has happened! I watched it happen! I saw it happen! Don't tell me it didn't happen!

LOL

 

[Cpt. Kyle Amasov]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

Kirk blows up the rocket, sacrificing himself and taking Soran with him. The final chat was just crap, all important stuff had been said before (actually, the "did we make a difference"-part would have been a pretty decent punchline before he blows up the rocket, something like "Let's make a difference" - boom!).

Also, not only did Picard come across as a wussy throughout the movie, but when he had to recruit Kirk to stop Soran - that stuff was kind of outrageous. He goes to Veridian, grandpa Soran punches him in the face and he goes off to get Kirks help in the Nexus. That latter part of the movie was a mess anyway (why didn't Soran use the Nexus himself to prevent Picard/Kirk from going back in time to stop them? Or prevent the Enterprise from saving him from it in the beginning?). They could have fixed some of that by connecting the Kirk-Soran-narrative directly in that scene. Like Soran making Kirk responsible for his "rescue" from the Nexus on the Enterprise-B. That way, Picard brings Kirk in the mix and they have a real reason to fight. So, add a line or two about Soran having a personal feud with Kirk because the Enterprise-B saved him, and then Kirk going out by blowing the rocket up.

Or make it a little ambiguous. Like the apparent death of Kor, when he went up against those Jem'Hadar ships on DS9. The odds were overwhelming, he's probably dead and saved everyone, but there is this tiny chance that he survived somehow. They should have treated Kirk the same way, like the legend he is. And that's coming from a Picard-fanboy.

 

[martok2112]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

Well, fortunately, I'm not a fan of anything.

I just watch a movie. If it entertained me....job well done. I don't worry too much about just how much of a hero's death someone deserves. I'm not that slavish or fanboyish.

Kirk died, doing what he does....saving the galaxy, or a small slice of it, again. He was alone when he was mortally wounded. There wasn't a damned thing Picard could do to save Kirk when he did find him, and they had their last words together. Although he and Picard had allied, Kirk was still, utterly, alone. No McCoy. No Spock...the two people whom he'd implicitly believed in above all others.

But there's no rationalizing with hero worshippers, so....

But please understand that everything I have written is simply a personal opinion about the death of Kirk, and how the writers handled it. Without seeing more interviews, or even getting to speak to any of them personally, all I can do is provide an opinion. Just as you all do. Kirk's death, how it was handled or even the fact that in-universe it happened, affects everyone differently.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

...everything I have written is simply a personal opinion about the death of Kirk, and how the writers handled it...

I don't believe the writers thought of anything close to the rationalization you provide. So you've already thought it through more than they ever did. I don't think they thought about it at all. "What happens in Star Trek V stays in Star Trek V" and continuity is disregarded. Show to show, movie to movie - continuity. That's the big problem the Abramsverse tried to fix: eliminate the slaving to continuity; pass the buck to the new universe. Until it happens all over again. Reboot! Lather, rinse, repeat.

That said, in my head canon, of course, Picard's family still lives and Newt, Hicks and Bishop are still alive and Alien 3 and 4 never happened. Some utter disregard for continuity (and writers) is justified and deserved.

 

[martok2112]

Re: Keeping the same basic scene, how could you make Kirk's death bett

I getcha, JW. And thank you for the credit you give me (if I am not being presumptuous).

Perhaps you're right that the writers did not think it through/rationalize it as I do....but, if there is one thing I think we know, Ronald D. Moore is a fan of Star Trek. However, without further clarification, it's really hard to know if he was "waving the fan banner" that day, or just did his assignment. Remember, for as many fans as Star Trek has, there are as many ideas how Kirk should've checked out.

At one point, many years ago, well before Alien Resurrection came out, I was working on a fanfic that still would've continued along the lines that Alien 3 left us with....but it would've focused on the Aliens making it to Earth, and the Colonial Marines and the Earth military would've been forced to try and drive them off our planet. It also involved an unlikely alliance between Bishop, the creator, and Morse, the last survivor of Fury 161.