Why did Shatner kill Kirk? And in such a shatty film?

[Mr. Scott]

I realize this question has been done to death here, but......

Why did William Shatner consent in killing off Captain Kirk? I would think that Shatner would want to keep his character alive for future movies and productions (like Star Trek 2009).

Was it Shatner's ideas or the ideas of the (infamous drunk and unstable) writers of the Star Trek Universe? Captain Kirk has always been Shatner's bread and butter and wealth, why would he kill off his character? Especially to a lame old guy with an energy ribbon?

If Kirk had to die, why not have Kang kill him? A final fight between himself and a Klingon of his gneration. Kirk's final words (and the first F-word in ST history), "Here I am you f'ing animal!" Kang could of summized in DS9 that he killed an honorable warrior, a good man and he really enjoyed eating his heart out.

Kang could of said in his elloquant way "Kirk was a great human, a great man, and one I wished could of been a friend. It was his day to die and he knew it. Kirk is an honored warrior in the Empire, something he would of hated. the fire of that hate gives us Klingons inspiration. The animals who killed his son have no honor or place among us." kirk is actually venerated in Klingon society (an irony).

I just can't believe that Shat would of given up his signature role unless someone gave him an obscene amount of money. Even then, if I were him, would of looked at that silly script and not done it.

 

[JarodRussell]

Paramount's decision.

 

[Trek Survivor]

Not sure if the OP is joking, but - are you serious? Do you think having Kang killing Kirk and eating his heart would be a more fitting end?

Geez. Generations may not be the best send-off, but at least suggest something preferable in its place!

And yes, it was Shatner's decision in part (he had a huge amount of input into the script - it hinged on his participation). If I recall interviews at the time, he said he felt it was time. That he was getting too old, and "seeing" Kirk die was better than just assuming it had happened somewhere out there.

And do you seriously think Shatner should've predicted Trek 2009 back in 1994!?!

He would never have done a TV guest shot as Kirk (despite the occasionaly rumours), and as far as he was concerned - and everybody else - the future movies belonged to TNG.

He did the right thing in agreeing to kill Kirk on screen. It was just a disappointment the way it was handled.

 

[Sparky]

Paramount's decision.

How so? Shatner could have declined to appear in the movie. Sure he regrets it now, but at the time I'm sure it seemed like a great opportunity.

 

[Deckerd]

Actors get paid to act, not decide what their characters do. I'm pretty sure every actor in Trek had to do something they would rather not, when considering the personal investment they put into their character (s). But since they're professionals, they take the gig and do as they're directed.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I want to hear more about the "infamous drunk and unstable" writers.

 

[Trek Survivor]

Actors get paid to act, not decide what their characters do.

True much of the time - but NOT when it came to Shatner, Nimoy, Patrick Stewart, Brent Spiner etc.

The production of the movies was a VERY different situation than the TV series. In Shatner's case, he had huge input into his character from about ST 3/4 onwards. By the time of Generations, he had the right of veto. Maybe not on everything, but on something like playing his death scene? You bet!

And lest we forget part of the reason the TNG movie series turned out to be a disappointing "Picard and Data" show affair... both Stewart and Spiner negotiated the right to review scripts, input into changes, have distinct sub-plots for their characters (which they had the right to yay or nay) and even completely veto certain things. Remember Patrick Stewart and the first draft of "Insurrection"?

 

[JarodRussell]

And lest we forget part of the reason the TNG movie series turned out to be a disappointing "Picard and Data" show affair... both Stewart and Spiner negotiated the right to review scripts, input into changes, have distinct sub-plots for their characters (which they had the right to yay or nay) and even completely veto certain things. Remember Patrick Stewart and the first draft of "Insurrection"?

Not exactly true. Stewart was Executive Producer in Insurrection, of course he reviewed the script. Spiner wasn't, and all he could do was asking some nitpick questions regarding the script.

Shatner was no executive producer in Generations. He was at about the same level as Nimoy was in Star Trek 2009. For him it was either "I like it, count me in." or "I dislike it, I'm out." But no guaranteed influence on the story or script.


From what I know, Generations was a bunch of plot points dictated by Paramount Pictures, and Moore & Braga trying to connect all these demands. "Passing the torch" was one of them, and I recall "Kirk needs to die" was another. Paramount didn't want Kirk to be there for future installments.

As to why Shatner agreed to appear? Why the hell not?

 

[Deckerd]

I have to say not one of the movies was particularly good after the first two. Perhaps letting the actors meddle was the reason they were so disappointing?

 

[JarodRussell]

I have to say not one of the movies was particularly good after the first two. Perhaps letting the actors meddle was the reason they were so disappointing?

Having read "Fade In", I'd say no. Insurrection was a case of a great misunderstanding (Berman thought Stewart wouldn't like a fountain of youth story, although that story was excellent, so they never even told him about that. And then they created another story, that was quite bad and which Stewart really didn't like. Then they returned to the fountain of youth stuff, but created a whole other story without ever going back to the original one). And then again I don't think it was so bad after all. I really like Insurrection, it's one of my favorite films.

 

[Satyrquaze]

I have to say not one of the movies was particularly good after the first two. Perhaps letting the actors meddle was the reason they were so disappointing?

Having read "Fade In", I'd say no. Insurrection was a case of a great misunderstanding (Berman thought Stewart wouldn't like a fountain of youth story, although that story was excellent, so they never even told him about that. And then they created another story, that was quite bad and which Stewart really didn't like. Then they returned to the fountain of youth stuff, but created a whole other story without ever going back to the original one). And then again I don't think it was so bad after all. I really like Insurrection, it's one of my favorite films.

Meh, I felt it was a fairly typical odd-numbered movie, from when the even/odd movies fit into a type.

Back on the topic of Shatner, though... in 1994 I understand he was feeling his age, at that point he's been playing the character for almost 30 years. Thats a long time to be doing anything.

 

[JarodRussell]

See, the thing is, they decided to kill off Kirk, and then they recognized that some percentage of fans was terribly upset about it and then they approached Shatner with "How about writing a "Kirk Returns" novel?" to cash in on that.

 

[RandyS]

Paramount's decision.

Actually, Ron Moore took credit. Yet another one of his "brilliant" writing choices.

 

[Avon]

shatner killed kirk by getting too fat to walk across a bridge without it collapsing.

 

[Sector 7]

I want to hear more about the "infamous drunk and unstable" writers.

Sounds like bad fanfic, to me. Most of the writers I met were decent people doing a decent job.

shatner killed kirk by getting too fat to walk across a bridge without it collapsing.

 

[Warped9]

I have to say not one of the movies was particularly good after the first two.

Quite true.

 

[The Wormhole]

See, the thing is, they decided to kill off Kirk, and then they recognized that some percentage of fans was terribly upset about it and then they approached Shatner with "How about writing a "Kirk Returns" novel?" to cash in on that.

Actually, the "Shatnerverse" novels were all his ideas, and he even pitched The Return to Paramount as the 8th Trek movie. Paramount rejected, and Shatner turned the story into a novel instead.

It's a pretty bad book really. Fanwanky as hell.

Spoiler: Yeah. Seriously, this is what happens.

Kirk singlehandedly hands each TNG character's ass to them and then blows up the Borg homeworld, which as it turns out is V'Ger's machine world.

The best/worst part? The Shatnerverse went downhill from there.

 

[sbk1234]

It may have had something to do with the wheelbarrow full of money they wheeled to him.

 

[Ghel]

Sadly, it seems several people beat me to the answer . . . He got PAID!!!