• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spock Must Die!

Bry_Sinclair

Vice Admiral
Admiral
Here's a little idea I had, for how The Search For Spock should have gone:

On the Genesis Planet, Lieutenant Saavik (played by Kirsty Alley) and Doctor David Marcus, the sole survivors or the science ship Grissom, find the rapidly regenerating body of Captain Spock. But the Klingons that destroyed their ship are hunting them down on the dying planet.

Managing to evade the Klingons for several days, they are caught unprepared as Spock undergoes another aging spurt, bringing him to the same age and appearance he was when he died--though without his katra, making him almost like a feral animal.

Once caught, they return to their Bird-of-Prey, where the Klingons try to use the three hostages as bargining chips against Admiral Kirk, threatening to kill one of them if he doesn't supply them with data on the Genesis Device. To prove his point, Commander Kruge orders one of the prisoners to be executed. All the while, the mind-less Spock stares at Kirk intently on the viewscreen, whilst all Kirk can do is watch as the Klingon warrior moves behind his son, David, and raises his dagger. Spock tackles the Klingon to the deck, where they struggle before Kruge shoots Spock in the back. As he lies, dying on the deck, being held by Saavik and David, Spock whispers just one word before he dies, "Jim."

Kirk, Scott, McCoy, Sulu and Uhura (Chekov was still recovering from the Ceti Alpha V brain parasites on Earth, where he managed to get them off the planet and arranged to meet them on Vulcan) manage to save Saavik and David (and Spock's body), but have to sacrifice the Enterprise to do so. Onboard the captured Bird-of-Prey, they go to Vulcan, but Spock's injuries are too severe to do anything about, so his katra is removed from McCoy and put to rest.

The crew, along with Saavik and David, begin to make repairs to the captured ship in order to return to Earth and face the consequences of their actions, all of them mourning the loss of Spock.
 
Putting aside that removes Spock as a character for any further Star Trek canon it seems a bit redundant and hard on the audience to lose Spock twice in two movies. After the pain of his death in the last film and seeing that hint of possible resurrection, it really seems almost petty to bring him back only to kill him off via sacrifice yet again; seemingly in a manner designed to bring as much anguish to Kirk and crew.

I don't know how one pulls that off critically, but I definitely know that the much of the audience would have felt upset.
 
Putting aside that removes Spock as a character for any further Star Trek canon it seems a bit redundant and hard on the audience to lose Spock twice in two movies. After the pain of his death in the last film and seeing that hint of possible resurrection, it really seems almost petty to bring him back only to kill him off via sacrifice yet again; seemingly in a manner designed to bring as much anguish to Kirk and crew.

I don't know how one pulls that off critically, but I definitely know that the much of the audience would have felt upset.


yeah, exactly. Pretty much the WHOLE POINT of making TSFS was to bring back Spock. If the movie was going to end in failure, they could have just forged ahead with an entirely new premise for a third film rather than spend a whole movie trying to bring back Spock, failing, and ending up at square one again.

It would have been a gutsy movie to make, but would never have happened. Spock was either going to stay dead, or be brought back, not be brought back and then killed off again in the same movie.
 
I never really liked TSFS. Leonard Nimoy had wanted to leave and Spock was given a heroes death at the end of TWOK, only to have the 'get out of jail free' ploy used with his melding with McCoy and "Remember".

Leaving out the massive plot hole of how he was brought back to life as a child and not the adult that was buried, I would have thought that his death would have a far greater impact on Kirk than that of David.

What would you think would work best: The death of Kirk's best friend for the last 20+ years, who he has gone through so much with, who is beloved by many fans. Or the death of a son Kirk never had anything to do with up until a few weeks prior to the events of the film (besides, seeing how often Kirk get his leg over, its not like he wouldn't have a small army of mini-me's running around the Quadrant), who was never developed to any great extent for the audience and who you never really felt that strong a connection too?

But that's just my thoughts. This was just a stray idea that came to me and I thought I would share it with anyone interested in reading it.
 
I never really liked TSFS. Leonard Nimoy had wanted to leave and Spock was given a heroes death at the end of TWOK, only to have the 'get out of jail free' ploy used with his melding with McCoy and "Remember".

Leaving out the massive plot hole of how he was brought back to life as a child and not the adult that was buried, I would have thought that his death would have a far greater impact on Kirk than that of David.

What would you think would work best: The death of Kirk's best friend for the last 20+ years, who he has gone through so much with, who is beloved by many fans. Or the death of a son Kirk never had anything to do with up until a few weeks prior to the events of the film (besides, seeing how often Kirk get his leg over, its not like he wouldn't have a small army of mini-me's running around the Quadrant), who was never developed to any great extent for the audience and who you never really felt that strong a connection too?

But that's just my thoughts. This was just a stray idea that came to me and I thought I would share it with anyone interested in reading it.


but again, the ONLY reason to make a movie like TSFS was to undo the death of Spock at the end of TWOK.(And tie up some loose ends like the Genesis project and David Marcus)

If the third movie WASN'T going to end with Spock being resurrected and on the way to mental recovery, then there's no point in making what is essentially a continuation of TWOK but one that ends in tragic failure.

If they planned to keep Spock dead, the next movie would have been a totally new premise, not a continuation of TWOK. (There may have been some background stuff that explained what happened to the Genesis Planet and David Marcus, but it wouldn't have been a central part of the plot)


You might as well speculate about a version of TUC that ends with the peace negotiations successfully sabotaged and a war between the Klingons and the UFP breaking out. That's about as likely as your premise.
 
Or they could have let Maltz beam up Spock at age 25, as Kirk had requested of Kruge - when Spock was still being played by Joe Warren Davis - and we'd have had a new young Spock (a Buddy Holly lookalike?) to act alongside Saavik in a series of telemovies!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0204857/
 
yes, Leonard Nimoy would have been thrilled with that idea.

Actually, he was. The script was written (with the succession of evolving Spocks) to free him up to direct and, if he suddenly got cold feet, he would have stepped back and let the 25yo version take on the mantle.

Saavik had already been groomed as a Spock replacement during ST II. It was only Nimoy's change of heart that altered things.
 
That is a terrible idea for a movie, not to mention that there was a novel that was more interesting - Spock must die! In this one, one of the Spocks was more in tune to the Klingons.

Spock_must_die_%28reprint%29.jpg
 
yes, Leonard Nimoy would have been thrilled with that idea.

Actually, he was. The script was written (with the succession of evolving Spocks) to free him up to direct and, if he suddenly got cold feet, he would have stepped back and let the 25yo version take on the mantle.

Saavik had already been groomed as a Spock replacement during ST II. It was only Nimoy's change of heart that altered things.

Thank you for the information, Ian.
 
Putting aside that removes Spock as a character for any further Star Trek canon it seems a bit redundant and hard on the audience to lose Spock twice in two movies. After the pain of his death in the last film and seeing that hint of possible resurrection, it really seems almost petty to bring him back only to kill him off via sacrifice yet again; seemingly in a manner designed to bring as much anguish to Kirk and crew.

I don't know how one pulls that off critically, but I definitely know that the much of the audience would have felt upset.

yeah, exactly. Pretty much the WHOLE POINT of making TSFS was to bring back Spock. If the movie was going to end in failure, they could have just forged ahead with an entirely new premise for a third film rather than spend a whole movie trying to bring back Spock, failing, and ending up at square one again.

It would have been a gutsy movie to make, but would never have happened. Spock was either going to stay dead, or be brought back, not be brought back and then killed off again in the same movie.

This is where I say... he should have stayed dead, then.

Maybe then death would have some meaning in Trek, and not be just a temporary inconvenience or something gotten around with some trick or slight of hand. Maybe then Trek fans could learn to accept death as a part of life, and that everyone - including their heroes - die.

And on the same vein, they should have gotten the Excelsior for their new ship. Rename it Enterprise if you like.

Of course, both of those are said today. Back at the time, neither could have gone any way other than how they did.
 
Putting aside that removes Spock as a character for any further Star Trek canon it seems a bit redundant and hard on the audience to lose Spock twice in two movies. After the pain of his death in the last film and seeing that hint of possible resurrection, it really seems almost petty to bring him back only to kill him off via sacrifice yet again; seemingly in a manner designed to bring as much anguish to Kirk and crew.

I don't know how one pulls that off critically, but I definitely know that the much of the audience would have felt upset.

yeah, exactly. Pretty much the WHOLE POINT of making TSFS was to bring back Spock. If the movie was going to end in failure, they could have just forged ahead with an entirely new premise for a third film rather than spend a whole movie trying to bring back Spock, failing, and ending up at square one again.

It would have been a gutsy movie to make, but would never have happened. Spock was either going to stay dead, or be brought back, not be brought back and then killed off again in the same movie.

This is where I say... he should have stayed dead, then.

Maybe then death would have some meaning in Trek, and not be just a temporary inconvenience or something gotten around with some trick or slight of hand. Maybe then Trek fans could learn to accept death as a part of life, and that everyone - including their heroes - die.

And on the same vein, they should have gotten the Excelsior for their new ship. Rename it Enterprise if you like.

Of course, both of those are said today. Back at the time, neither could have gone any way other than how they did.


you'll get no argument from me. I think the way they handled it was silly. If Nimoy was having second thoughts by the end of the making of TWOK about Spock being killed off, the ending just should have been re-written so he doesn't die.(either some other solution to the problem is found, or Spock just gets massively sick but recovers in between movies)

Or Spock just should have stayed dead. But bringing him back was kind of a cheat, plus it "wasted" a premise of an entire movie in a giant reset button when we only got six TOS movies anyway. That said, TSFS handled it about as well as it could have been, and killing off David and destroying the Enterprise made it so it wasn't too much of a cheat and an easy fix.
 
Love the character, but would have preferred he stayed dead and had the katra removed. Think the OP could have been a great idea, but they were never that bold with the Trek franchise.
 
yes, Leonard Nimoy would have been thrilled with that idea.

Actually, he was. The script was written (with the succession of evolving Spocks) to free him up to direct and, if he suddenly got cold feet, he would have stepped back and let the 25yo version take on the mantle.

Saavik had already been groomed as a Spock replacement during ST II. It was only Nimoy's change of heart that altered things.

Of course the script was constructed to allow Nimoy to direct and only appear as Spock at the end, but I have never ever read or seen an interview anywhere that they considered having any of the actors cast to play Spock permanently replace him as Spock... Ian this is interesting is there a reputable source for this?

Saavik (Kirstie Alley) yes, but Vadia Potenza or Joe Warren Davis... i don't think so.... They were glorified extras and I'm sure cast for their likeness to Nimoy if anything.
 
Vadia Potenza or Joe Warren Davis... i don't think so.... They were glorified extras and I'm sure cast for their likeness to Nimoy if anything.

Well, Carl Stevens and Vadia Potenza were little boys. Stephen Manley was Spock during the pon farr scenes and got to do the most acting. Joe Davis was barely seen and yes, was selected on resemblance to a 25 year old Nimoy rather than acting ability.

But, as I said, the script was constructed so that Nimoy could back out of returning even down to the last minute. There was a sense that the cast needed young people to continue the film (or telemovie) franchise and they'd already killed of Decker, Ilia and now David. If Nimoy had had disastrous time directing ST III, he'd have probably been happy to let Spock stay rejuvenated - and a casting drive would had been needed prior to ST IV. I was being flippant that the job already belonged to Joe Davis. He's still pretty much an unknown.

However, Nimoy was clearly having a ball all the way through ST III, so the safety net wasn't required.
 
TSFS is probably my favourite of all the films, but I've always had one major gripe with it: Spock returns. After the emotional payoff of his death in TWOK I felt that his Resurrection had a cheapening effect on the franchise. It reduced Trek to comic book status. I admit that Spock was always my least favourite character from TOS. I never thought that Nimoy could act at all. And I honestly think that he got worse rather than better with age. His departure from the series would have bettered it, IMHO, especially as it might have let us avoid that most heinous of all Trek films, TVH! (Gods, but I do hate that piece of dung!)
 
I doubt you can really call one of the franchise's most successful outings a "piece of dung."

You may not like it, but it's not dung.
 
For the sake of the nation, this Vulcan must die!
Must die! Must die! This Vulcan must die!
Like redshirts before him, this Vulcan must.....die!!!!
 
If young was the way to go then we could have kept David alive. Not the greatest of actors but still......
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top