Yeah, I don't think David's death was much more tastefully done than the much maligned deaths of Kirk and Data. The only death that was really done properly was Spock's.
STIII - What's wrong with it?
- Thread starter DarthAkuma
- Start date
Actually, I think David's death was handled very well. It was gritty, and devoid of drama. A senseless death. No dramatic battle, no musical scoring. It was supposed to be ugly and brutal.
At least he ate it better than Tasha Yar.
Much better than Yar, whose death wasn't as senseless to me as "Yesterday's Enterprise" might have had us believe anyway.
And I don't think it David's death was senseless, either. (I mean, all death is senseless in a way.) It was sudden and gritty, but not without meaning. Kruge told the Klingons to kill "one of them," Saavik, Spock, or David, the Klingon picked Saavik, David lunged at him to stop him, and, not being a Klingon or in Starfleet, lost and died. So Saavik and Spock lived.
Again, his dad would've probably done it. So I don't see it as meaningless at all; it resonated with Kirk and sort of solidified the bond they had, in a way. Just as David was proud of Kirk in TWOK, Kirk was unquestionably proud of David.
To quote Saavik: "David died most bravely. He saved Spock. He saved us all."
And I don't think it David's death was senseless, either. (I mean, all death is senseless in a way.) It was sudden and gritty, but not without meaning. Kruge told the Klingons to kill "one of them," Saavik, Spock, or David, the Klingon picked Saavik, David lunged at him to stop him, and, not being a Klingon or in Starfleet, lost and died. So Saavik and Spock lived.
Again, his dad would've probably done it. So I don't see it as meaningless at all; it resonated with Kirk and sort of solidified the bond they had, in a way. Just as David was proud of Kirk in TWOK, Kirk was unquestionably proud of David.
To quote Saavik: "David died most bravely. He saved Spock. He saved us all."
Well, I didn't mean senseless in that regard. I meant that none of them had to die. Kruge just killed one to show he meant business, but it wasn't necessary to get what he wanted.
I'm not saying the death didn't make sense dramatically or was meaningless. It didn't reek of killing off a character just to get even with one of the actors as many Star Trek deaths have. I just thought it was too...blah. Underwhelming. Anti-climactic. Just about the most boring way I've ever seen a major character killed in a movie.
I'm not saying all deaths in movies have to be scored with dramatic music or the opportunity for the person being killed to have some heartfelt last words, but there should be some art to how it's shot. This death was just so perfunctory and as I said before, it left me with a feeling of "that's it?". Yes, it was "gritty" and "realistic", but that doesn't mean it was done the best way it could have been.
Fortunately, cutting to Kirk's reaction almost justified it. Now that was something memorable, unique, and interesting to watch. It was everything I thought the death should have been (if it had to happen at all, and I don't think it did).
I'm not saying all deaths in movies have to be scored with dramatic music or the opportunity for the person being killed to have some heartfelt last words, but there should be some art to how it's shot. This death was just so perfunctory and as I said before, it left me with a feeling of "that's it?". Yes, it was "gritty" and "realistic", but that doesn't mean it was done the best way it could have been.
Fortunately, cutting to Kirk's reaction almost justified it. Now that was something memorable, unique, and interesting to watch. It was everything I thought the death should have been (if it had to happen at all, and I don't think it did).
I totally understand where you're coming from, Too Much Fun. Totally. I'd have been much happier had he not died, because his death and Saavik's exit in IV pretty much hit the reset button, and that annoys me, especially since I and II built so strongly on the idea of growth, and VI went back for the growing old angle.
What really killed it was the murder of Kirk's son. First of all, it's just not a Kirk-family trait to break out of a "knife-to-back" situation and then die like that. But also the "response" to his death wasn't much. Kirk fell backwards yeah, but compared to the response to the death of that young engineer kid from the Wrath of Khan, Kirk's son didn't get much of a response.
If it wasn't for that scene, it'd have been a flawed but adequite movie.
If it wasn't for that scene, it'd have been a flawed but adequite movie.
I always found the recasting of Saavik to be a bit weird. At first, it makes sense because she was on the Enterprise and the film takes place almost immediately after WOK, but we never see her until the Grisom. Robin Curtis could've just been a different character just as easily.
Also, what was David doing whilst Saavik and Spock were getting it on on the Genesis planet, looking the other way whilst caughing?
Also, what was David doing whilst Saavik and Spock were getting it on on the Genesis planet, looking the other way whilst caughing?
I agree with the few posters who complained about the pacing. I believe that this was the first film that Nimoy directed, and it shows. The story is good. The acting is decent. The pacing is off. I still find it hard to sit through the dénouement. It seems to drag on forever.
I still think David was a dumb concept that was handled well. Would you have liked TSFS to have wrapped up as a father son team? Or TVH to have been a Crystal Skull style adventure? Just say no to Kirk "and Son".
It suffered from the same problem as the rest of TSFS, which is: characters die, planets fall apart and Spock comes back to life so it can systematically undo every change to the Trek universe introduced by TWoK. Now Kirk doesn't have a son any more, Genesis is a dead technology (so the writers don't have to worry about dealing with that) and we've got our Vulcan science officer back.
It's ballsiest moment was destroying the Enterprise, but even that got gutted of impact in TVH when they get an identical ship with the same name. So yeah. The movie works okay, but never feels really alive or vibrant because it just moves like clockwork from one necessary setpiece to another. It's not bad, just...bland. And predictable.
I wouldn't have minded if the Excelsior had become their new ship! With a name change, of course.
We only have a sample size of two.
Oh, wait, Kirk's brother got killed by a giant flying fried egg.
We only have a sample size of two.
Oh, wait, Kirk's brother got killed by a giant flying fried egg.
I liked the fact that David was a crappy fighter. Remember he is a SCIENTIST. It would have been dumb if David was able to beat everyone just because he had Kirk blood.
Now, you know I am morally obligated to disagree.
I wouldn't have necessarily wanted "Kirk and son" adventures, but I still think killing him off was unnecessary and even dramatically a bad idea, because it limited the kinds of growth that the Kirk character could experience. One might argue that he did grow a bit as a knee-jerk reaction to the way he was embittered towards Klingons in TUC, but still.
Very, very well said, good sir. That's really why, despite finding it entertaining, I've grown to somewhat dislike TVH. It should have been called "Star Trek IV: The Reset Button."
I'd have been happy with that myself, but then I'm an unabashed Excelsior fan.
I'd have honestly like to have seen the crew split off. Kirk, McCoy and Saavik go to the new Enterprise. Sulu gets his own ship, and Chekov becomes his XO, with Rand and Chapel tagging along. Spock gets his own ship, or maybe goes and becomes a diplomat. Uhura gets a ship or goes to work at Starfleet HQ, for real this time. Maybe Scotty retires. Then have them all come back together for a version of the TUC story.
Maybe there's a heavily altered version of TFF in between, where Spock has been kidnapped by his crazy half-brother and Kirk and company have to rescue him while a war threatens to break out between all three galactic powers over the compromise of the neutrality of Nimbus III...
People grow. Trek people often don't.
We only have a sample size of two.
Oh, wait, Kirk's brother got killed by a giant flying fried egg.
Plastic vomit, thank you.
I LOVE TSFS! It's one of my favorite, and a great foil to "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" introduced in TWOK. Sarek's speech to Kirk about sacrificing his ship, his son and all of their careers for Spock, and Kirk's answer about it being about his own soul had they not tried was brilliant. I love the message of comraderie and friendship.
And I recognize some of the film's flaws that might keep it off some folk's "best list". Some of the sets, not all, look a bit cheesy. Genesis looks like a soundstage, and that can be distracting. The "new Saavik" is also not as good an actress as Kirstie Ally. After they steal the Enterprise, there is a good amount of down time until they reach Genesis while we're waiting for the main characters to DO something. And I think there is a let down that the Enterprise only gets off one volley before it's taken out by the Klingons.
But dang it, it's still a great film to watch, and was the only Trek film to capture the feel of TOS with the right mix of character moments, drama and comedy.
And I recognize some of the film's flaws that might keep it off some folk's "best list". Some of the sets, not all, look a bit cheesy. Genesis looks like a soundstage, and that can be distracting. The "new Saavik" is also not as good an actress as Kirstie Ally. After they steal the Enterprise, there is a good amount of down time until they reach Genesis while we're waiting for the main characters to DO something. And I think there is a let down that the Enterprise only gets off one volley before it's taken out by the Klingons.
But dang it, it's still a great film to watch, and was the only Trek film to capture the feel of TOS with the right mix of character moments, drama and comedy.
