Off as in, he stopped giving a shit. He doesn't look, sound or act like Kor. There's no Kor core to grab on to that makes him connected to TOS beyond the name.
I probably feel off too but I still have something people recognize.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I probably feel off too but I still have something people recognize.
Kang & Kor: "How did Kirk die? Was it a glorious death befitting such a warrior?"
Me: "A
"
Never meet your heroes or your aged opponents.
Me: "A
rusty bolt broke, squashing Kirk with a metal walkway.
Never meet your heroes or your aged opponents.
I think that's unfair. Kirk's death was very heroic. He'd just nearly fallen off the bridge to his death, only barely gotten off it alive, but he unhesitatingly went back out onto the bridge that had just almost killed him, because he still had a job to do and people to protect. That's profoundly heroic and profoundly in character, but in such a casual, matter-of-fact way that people tend to overlook it.
FWIW, that's exactly the way I feel about the Picard we see in season 1 of Picard.
And Kirk left an eternity in paradise to save 230 million people who will never know he even existed.
That’s pretty fucking heroic.
The bridge thing doesn’t matter.
That’s what really happened.
Kirk's death is fine, save for the bridge falling. Show an explosion, Picard has to follow up on the mission, then finds Kirk.
Boom. Scene is so much better.
Boom. Scene is so much better.
Why would Kirk com back as a fat old man?
I don't think he did.
But every time he came back as a version of himself younger, smarter and faster, he failed, and everyone died, or got eaten by the Nexus.
"That doesn't sound so bad."
"It happened because he was trying to save 230 million sheep."
"Alas! A tragedy!"
I think that, no matter the objective, Klingons would respect an officer who doesn't hesitate to throw himself back into the jaws of death he escaped from seconds before because he's that dedicated to his goal.
Maybe because he was depicted as a drunk?
Substance abuse will do that to you. They even had an episode of DS9 where people laughed at Kor because he was nothing like the warrior he used to be. They laughed and laughed because he was only a drunk and not some mighty warrior. Then they stopped laughing when he showed he had at least one last battle deep inside. Then they sang a song in his honor.
Again. Same thing. Only this time it wasn't substance abuse but a trauma. Broken people act like they are broken. Doesn't matter if it's self inflicted abuse or a outside incident.
There is actually a pretty good theory out there that all of Trek from the time Picard entered the Nexus is just a Nexus illusion in Picard's head. The Nexus grants your wish in the form of an illusion that grants your heart's desire. Picard's desire was to leave the Nexus. Cue illusion. This is actually a plot hole.
Last edited:
Regarding Kor...
It wasn't because Kor was a drunk that others were laughing at him. It was because of his failing memory... essentially Klingon Alzheimer's. (Worf had to remind him which ship to report to as Third Officer, him confusing the current battle with the Dominion over a Federation one over a century before, forgetting he had to go to the bridge during alert status, etc.)
"ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH" was an excellent episode. Gave Martok even more depth, and had a great message about dying the way you lived. In this case, as a warrior.
Kor struck me as an apparatchik. Kang as a soldier. And Koloth as a politician
I always thought it was a bit odd that they made Koloth a stoic swordsman on DS9 when he came off a bit sleezy on TOS. Guess things change over 100 years.
As for Kirk, I think there is no way to write a good death scene for the character. You can make it as heroic as possible and it will be fine. But it won’t feel right because Kirk is one of those characters that you expect to find a way to survive, to cheat death. So it will get written off as “he fell off a bridge” or “yeah, some jerk shot him in the back”. Even dying in battle on the bridge of the Enterprise (ala Picard in Yesterdays Enterprise)…eh…maybe more fitting but still….
That’s why I’ve always thought his fate should have been left ambiguous. The final word on the character should have been his log entry at the end of TUC.
As for Kirk, I think there is no way to write a good death scene for the character. You can make it as heroic as possible and it will be fine. But it won’t feel right because Kirk is one of those characters that you expect to find a way to survive, to cheat death. So it will get written off as “he fell off a bridge” or “yeah, some jerk shot him in the back”. Even dying in battle on the bridge of the Enterprise (ala Picard in Yesterdays Enterprise)…eh…maybe more fitting but still….
That’s why I’ve always thought his fate should have been left ambiguous. The final word on the character should have been his log entry at the end of TUC.
Koloth probably would have made the best diplomat of the three, but also the most duplicitous. Curzon Dax and the Federation were lucky to have Kang to negotiate with in the road to peace.
I thought that was a bigger change than Kor. Kor still had that John Colicos swagger. Koloth was smarmy in Tribbles.
That is a very interesting take.
Obviously, The Twilight Zone was not shy about using sociopolitical allegories, etc., in the manner viewers would eventually see on TOS, and in general, such episodes were accepted, but i've assumed some had a problem with that kind of story in TOS having continuing characters (and by association, the "world" they represented in Starfleet / the Federation) revealed to have any affinity for "old" Earth history/government, particularly that of the United States.
The "problem" was not the episode, but that group of viewers who watched nearly two full seasons of TOS (up to that point) and missed how various 1701 characters made references to "old" Earth history, traditions and beliefs with a form of respect, if not outright reverence, so the appearance of the Constitution, and Kirk's glowing passion for its meaning should have fit with character traits/perspectives established in earlier episodes.
I totally agree. That should have been it for all the characters... They go off into the sunset. Certainly gives authors a lot of options after that.
Interesting points. I meant that the duplication of the Constitution itself would have seemed less out place in a Twilight Zone style show precisely because of its clearer anthology structure. Other episodes had close parallels with earth but this one seemed to go one step further with its duplication. It was in that sense I raised the credibility issue. It’s roughly analogous to the moment where the half-buried Statue of Liberty is revealed in The Planet of the Apes (at least co-written by Serling, IIRC). It’s a tonal match—at least for me.
I wondered what you guys thought of that. How would they react, right? Lots of good answers, I would think they would be disappointed at the lack of explosions, even if he did save all those people.
Similar threads
