Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next movie

[Kegek]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Of course Kirk's death will be addressed in this movie, at least tacitly.

Why? We see young Kirk and young Spock.

We see old Spock, but we don't see old Kirk. Where's old Kirk? Dead, presumably. They don't have to spell it out for us, but that'd probably be the subtext. We might even get a line from Spock referring to the idea his old friend, whose tale he's probably reflecting on, is dead.

So relax... in some sense or another, Kirk's death is effecting the movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Kegek said:
So relax... in some sense or another, Kirk's death is effecting the movie.

Yeah...it's saving them a few million bucks.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Kegek said:
Of course Kirk's death will be addressed in this movie, at least tacitly.

Why? We see young Kirk and young Spock.

We see old Spock, but we don't see old Kirk. Where's old Kirk? Dead, presumably. They don't have to spell it out for us, but that'd probably be the subtext. We might even get a line from Spock referring to the idea his old friend, whose tale he's probably reflecting on, is dead.

So relax... in some sense or another, Kirk's death is effecting the movie.

Exactly right.. and if Spock is significantly older than the last time we saw him, as I expect to be the case, well... then it's not really NECESSARY to say which "Death of Kirk" we're talking about... the one on the Enterprise B, the one on Veridian 3, or the one that would come long after that in the "Shatnerverse."

It's enough to leave it that he's dead. Leave it to the imagination of the viewer as to "which death" is being discussed.

 

[Tamek]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Why should Kirk's death be addressed in the new movie?

Kirk is going to be the star of the new movie.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Tamek said:
Why should Kirk's death be addressed in the new movie?

Kirk is going to be the star of the new movie.

Well, I'm basing my statement upon the assumption (based upon information I became familiar with a while ago) that this film was going to be a "cradle to grave" story about Jim Kirk as told by Spock... focusing on certain aspects of his personality and of his growth into the "living legend"... a story told for the benefit of someone that "old Spock" would be talking to.

If that were to turn out not to be the case, well... yeah. You'd be 100% correct. But if it's Spock reminiscing, it's likely that he'll talk about Kirk in the past tense. That's all I was sayin'...

 

[USS KG5]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Franklin said:
I guess we crave closure in fiction because it so often alludes us in life. I guess that's why we crave better death scenes in fiction, too. No author would've had General George Patton die as he did if his life had been a fictional story.

In fact in the movie Patton I don't think his death or the manner of it are mentioned at all.

Kirk died saving 237 million innocent aliens and the 1000 odd crew of the Ent-D, he was old and he died better than most of us get to.

Generations was not a great movie but death is part of life, as the film says time follows us on the journey through life, until we die. Death is part of life and is NOT a bad thing...

 

[Kegek]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

USS KG5 said:
In fact in the movie Patton I don't think his death or the manner of it are mentioned at all.

Well, it is referred to indirectly: Near the very end of the film he sees two vehicles crash and dryly comments on it being a bad way to die. However, the film does end a month or two before Patton himself died in such an accident.

Anyway, the arguments about the dramatic effectiveness of Kirk' death, while relevant, are academic - the movie was made, it was made over a decade ago, it's not going to be un-made. What's being advocated here is to contradict it, which will simply make it more hollow than it already is - and I doubt it'll happen anyway.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Kegek said:

USS KG5 said:
In fact in the movie Patton I don't think his death or the manner of it are mentioned at all.

Well, it is referred to indirectly: Near the very end of the film he sees two vehicles crash and dryly comments on it being a bad way to die. However, the film does end a month or two before Patton himself died in such an accident.

Anyway, the arguments about the dramatic effectiveness of Kirk' death, while relevant, are academic - the movie was made, it was made over a decade ago, it's not going to be un-made. What's being advocated here is to contradict it, which will simply make it more hollow than it already is - and I doubt it'll happen anyway.

George C. Scott actually played Patton again for a mid-1980s TV movie about the death of Patton. The "real time" in the movie was Patton mortally wounded on his deathbed in the hospital. The rest was flashbacks about his life. I've only seen parts of it. Not too good from what I've seen.

Let's face it, there was no acceptable way to kill off Kirk other than have him go out in a fanboy blaze of glory or die from an untreatable alien version of VD.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

The movie isn't anything like "the story of James Kirk's life and career," so it's a moot point.

 

[xortex]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

They're not going to make the same mistake twice and mention it. Especially when so many people want to reimagine what Braga et al. did.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

People can "reimagine" whatever they want whenever they want.

What they can not do is successfully dictate, campaign,argue, wheedle, intimidate, or boycott Paramount Studios into servicing their obsessive/compulsive fixation on Shatner and on Kirk's death.

 

[RookieBatman]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Cary L. Brown said:
... then it's not really NECESSARY to say which "Death of Kirk" we're talking about... the one on the Enterprise B, the one on Veridian 3, or the one that would come long after that in the "Shatnerverse."

Kirk died in the Shatnerverse? I think that would be considered a SPOILER!

 

[jonnyskywatcher]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

They should bring Kirk back to life and then have him shot in the back five minutes later.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

RookieBatman said:

Cary L. Brown said:
... then it's not really NECESSARY to say which "Death of Kirk" we're talking about... the one on the Enterprise B, the one on Veridian 3, or the one that would come long after that in the "Shatnerverse."

Kirk died in the Shatnerverse? I think that would be considered a SPOILER!

Nahhhh... I'm just saying that nobody lives forever... and sooner or later, the "Shatnerverse" Kirk will die, too. If "Old Spock" (who SHOULD age much more slowly than Leonard Nimoy does) is there, it is reasonable to assume that his appearance demonstrates that a LOT of time has passed since the end of TNG. More than in reality.

SO what I was saying was that the Shatnerverse Spock would still probably outlive the Shatnerverse Kirk, all other things being equal. So an ancient Spock could talk about Kirk's death without necessarily invalidating all of the stuff Shatner and his ghostwriters have come up with.

My point being that there's no need to intentionally contradict anything in any of the fictional "branches." A little vagueness is all it takes.

 

[RookieBatman]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Cary L. Brown said:
Nahhhh... I'm just saying that nobody lives forever...

*phew* You really had me worried there, Cary. Actually, though, since Shatner and the R&S's are now doing books in a different time period, and it seems that the future Shatnerverse is over, it would be kind of satisfying...almost. It would be a little like

Spoiler: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

How the Earth is destroyed at the end of the last book, with Our Heroes on it. It brought the whole story full circle, and before Douglas Adams died, it eliminated the question of "why doesn't he just write another one?" which helped bring closure to the fact that the series was done. For me, anyway.

 

[xortex]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

I think the power is with the people on this one. They can either open their wallets or not, but the sad thing is paramound will be happy if it makes only one dollar profit.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

RookieBatman said:
Kirk died in the Shatnerverse? I think that would be considered a SPOILER!

Well, he is dead in the beginning of Book 2, "The Return" (exactly as seen in "Generations"), and was resurrected by Romulans using Borg nanites. He then died again, but was resurrected for Book 3, "Avenger", so no surprise there - and Kirk has featured all the way through Books 4 to 9. He has not yet died again.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

jonnyskywatcher said:
They should bring Kirk back to life and then have him shot in the back five minutes later.

Funniest thing I read all day.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Kegek said:
So relax... in some sense or another, Kirk's death is effecting the movie.

They could do it as simple as this (and keep in mind, I don't care either way):

WHOMEVER SPOCK IS ADDRESSING (CADETS, WHATEVER): "But we all know that Kirk died on Veridian III."

SPOCK: "That is... one interpretation."

[SPOCK'S NARRATION CONTINUES]

 

[RookieBatman]

Re: Kirk's death should at least be adressed in the next mov

Therin of Andor said:

RookieBatman said:
Kirk died in the Shatnerverse? I think that would be considered a SPOILER!

Well, he is dead in the beginning of Book 2, "The Return" (exactly as seen in "Generations"), and was resurrected by Romulans using Borg nanites. He then died again, but was resurrected for Book 3, "Avenger...

Well, yeah, I knew that much. I thought Cary was talking about the end of the series.
I really wonder why they saw the need to kill him again at the end of "The Return." Were they not planning for it to be a series at that point?