Spoilers WRATH OF KHAN v. INTO DARKNESS deaths
- Thread starter Galileo7
- Start date
Great drama is always about the moment. It's fleeting. Both scenes work, to that end. As far as the resurrections go, the fact that Spock's occurs in the subsequent film is irrelevant for the most part. 30 years after the fact. Sure, WOK should still be judged by itss own merits, but for how many of us is it judge so really? To that end, for my money, I'll take"magic blood" (which isn't nearly as far-fetched as some make it out to be) over metaphysical, existential, whatever necromancy any day (especially of a species that covets logic above all else 
).
Going back to the drama, the importance of either scene is inherit in the act of sacrifice. Strictly speaking, the death itself isn't important. One could easily argue that Kirk's sacrifice was more sincere (and thus more dramatic) because he had no idea he could be brought back to life. Post production/not Meyer's vision aside, the "remember" scene is on film none the less. And it demonstrates a premeditated attempt by Spock to back-up his hard drive before unplugging the system.
).Going back to the drama, the importance of either scene is inherit in the act of sacrifice. Strictly speaking, the death itself isn't important. One could easily argue that Kirk's sacrifice was more sincere (and thus more dramatic) because he had no idea he could be brought back to life. Post production/not Meyer's vision aside, the "remember" scene is on film none the less. And it demonstrates a premeditated attempt by Spock to back-up his hard drive before unplugging the system.
You don't know that since the word "Remember" was said off-screen through post. There were many situations on Star Trek, Spock seemed to like touching people all the time for some supernatural reason, and Harve who was well versed in the series could create some movie magik*. I doubt anyone here has actually seen the Meyer-screening cut, from what I've read; the preview audiences were crying and very unhappy from what was seen. He might've said something completely more sad to Bones? Post brought on Nimoy for ADR so changing the dynamics of the conclusion was part of the process through Harve Bennett.
I think a monumental difference is the fact that nobody has any emotional attachments to the nuCrew. They've got, what, four hours of screen time in total? Kill 'em, keep 'em, it doesn't matter. What gave Spock's death in WoK its power was that people in theaters knew Spock. In those days, there weren't many channels on TV and Star Trek reruns were everywhere. Spock meant something to people, and so did his death.
WOTK is perfect the way it is, imo. At the end there's been a lot of heartache and death but the films ends on a hopeful note, with Genesis just having been born, Kirk and his son reconciled and Saavik poised to take over in Spock's place.
Yes- a thousand times YES.
Nothing frustrates me more than hearing someone say a movie sucked simply because a character dies. If the character dies in a crappy way, that's legit. But, just because you're bummed because a character dies doesn't necessarily make it a bad film.
Speak for yourself on this regard. I'm just as emotionally attached to nuKirk and nuSpock as the original crew. I'm sure I'm in a minority in this fact, but Spock's death in WoK works on a number of levels, largely because of the themes running through the film being relatively simplistic (death and rebirth, vengeance).
Spock's death works because it grows out of the story. Likewise, I like nuKirk's death scene grows out of his character arc.
Question-does that include ending on the image of Spock's torpedo?
Yes.
Well, Nemesis and X3 both have a LOT more problems than just the character deaths. I didn't mind the deaths in either TWOK or Serenity because both of those movies were very well done.
TOS itself showed that not everything about Vulcan culture is 100% logical in "Amok Time."To that end, for my money, I'll take"magic blood" (which isn't nearly as far-fetched as some make it out to be) over metaphysical, existential, whatever necromancy any day (especially of a species that covets logic above all else
I think you're forgetting that the "Remember" bit was intentionally ambiguous and that when it was written and shot they had no idea if there would even be a STIII. It didn't definitively mean that Spock was coming back to life. It was there just to create some possibilities for Bennett & co. to follow up on the story in some fashion. But because TWOK was a creative & financial success and Nimoy had a good time making the picture, that's what it ended up being.
If Nimoy decided not to return as Spock and direct STIII, they would have come up with some other story and the only tie-in with "Remember" would be McCoy's line, "He isn't really dead as long as we remember him."
I have no idea who this comment was supposed to be addressed to. Who doesn't know what?
Exactly. They were trying to duplicate the emotional impact of Spock's death in TWOK without the 15 years' worth of history the audience had with those specific actors playing those specific characters. And then they tried to mix it up by arbitrarily switching around Kirk and Spock.
Even though I didn't care when nuKirk died, I disagree that you can't form an emotional attachment that quickly. I've been emotionally compromised by deaths in a solo film, where I've literally only known the character for 90 minutes. Obviously it's a lot stronger when you've grown up watching a character, but it can work well even with new people.
Yes.
True. I'm not saying that it can never happen. Just that it didn't happen there.
Both deaths scenes had an impact on the characters. Kirk facing a friend's death that was personal in TWOK, and Spock from ST:ID understanding why Kirk did a collection of decisions for him.
I stand corrected. It is possible. And it's happened to me on more than one occasion. But Star Trek is different, I think. It has a lot going on; relatively intricate plots, a large ensemble of characters, and so on. I continue to believe four hours just isn't enough to develop strong emotional attachments under that set of circumstances.
Ok. Because one aspect of the original cut wasthat it left no indication of Spock's fate. Nimoy had hoped that he would remain dead, and the question was left out there.
I often wonder if that scene was removed how people would respond.
Personally, I disagree. Emotional attachment to characters is largely a subjective experience, based upon whether or not there is a connection to the character on some level, background, personality traits, etc.
For me, I identify with the nu-Crew a lot more because they remind me of people I know, in some way shape or form. Obviously, this is different for every person, and I'm not saying that you have to have that emotional impact. But, I was impacted by Pike's death in STID and I was definitely impacted by Kirk's death. Also, as an aside, I'm upset that they are destroying the nu-Enterprise in Beyond's trailer.
To further my example, please keep in mind that not everyone who watched the Star Trek films necessarily watched TOS as a series. Some people's first exposure may have been TMP. That may sound odd, but TMP picks up with our characters at a different place than in TOS. So, we really get to know these characters either from the first experience or learning about where they are at that time.
In my opinion, the emotional impact of TWOK and STID rests on the impact of the themes driving those films as well as the characters. It might vary for everyone, but yeah I'm just as upset about nu-Kirk's death as I am Spock's death.
Let's be honest here, regardless of the behind the scenes decision making Spocks death in TWOK left people in doubt. It could easily have been final. ST:ID however was so gimmicky from start to finish that it was clear Kirk was coming back. The film lacked the emotional substance of TWOK and it was obvious where the cracks were being plastered over to rectify this.
Then again, I'm biased by my overall view of Nu Trek where I actively dislike versions of characters I cared about in their previous incarnation. Frankly I was rather cheering Khan on as he was the only character I felt any emotional response to at all beyond annoyance.
Then again, I'm biased by my overall view of Nu Trek where I actively dislike versions of characters I cared about in their previous incarnation. Frankly I was rather cheering Khan on as he was the only character I felt any emotional response to at all beyond annoyance.
I was rather sorry to see NuPike die, so attachment to the characters was not what made Kirk's demise in STID less effective than Spock's in TWoK. In TWoK the scene was after the action so its impact was not glossed over and the emotions of the characters could sink in. In STiD, it was the precursor to a flashy action sequence full of violence and anger. This blunts the emotional impact of the death.
I think Shatner and Nimoy's performances are so true to the characters, and Kirk comes across as truly devastated. The fact that he has nobody to shout at or shoot at in the final scenes allows the grief to wash over us. It's just more powerful.
In addition, we could all see a mile off where the magic blood thing was headed, albeit I did not completely discount the intriguing possibility that they might kill off Kirk. In some ways, that would have been a preferable ending, much as I like Pine. In TWoK, it was not obvious that Spock would be coming back at the time we watched the death but despite that, the scene still gets me, even today. So does the scene in ET for that matter. What's that all about?.
I think Shatner and Nimoy's performances are so true to the characters, and Kirk comes across as truly devastated. The fact that he has nobody to shout at or shoot at in the final scenes allows the grief to wash over us. It's just more powerful.
In addition, we could all see a mile off where the magic blood thing was headed, albeit I did not completely discount the intriguing possibility that they might kill off Kirk. In some ways, that would have been a preferable ending, much as I like Pine. In TWoK, it was not obvious that Spock would be coming back at the time we watched the death but despite that, the scene still gets me, even today. So does the scene in ET for that matter. What's that all about?.
Why does it blunt emotional impact? Personally, I found the violence and anger carrying on the emotional impact of the death because the death is what drives the third act, really. Now, I'll grant that the pacing could have been slowed down, but Kirk's death just drives it home for me.
The second question I have is the idea that somehow if the audience knows there is a way out then it cheapens the death scene. For me, and again, I'm probably weird, the idea that the character doesn't know there is a way out from death. So, Kirk's death isn't cheapened for me because of Khan's blood, just like Spock didn't know about Genesis. So, from an in-world, character point of view, both choices are made with the knowledge that they will not be coming back. Based on the themes of the film, those deaths arise from the film organically and are carried through. That's what drives the impact for me.
I think the deaths work on different levels. For Spock's death on WOK, we are supposed to believe he has truly died (at least for that film) and it is played with finality. We get a full funeral and a cast off for a character who had been around for three television seasons and two feature films... not counting animation.
I am perhaps in the minority, but I don't think JJ Abrams was trying to mimic the impact of Spock's death in Darkness. Rather (perhaps because of the other shows like Fringe he has done with parallel universes) I saw the reversal of Kirk and Spock's death as a way of playing with the choices each character makes. In addition, often times people hear friends say, "you would have done the same for me" but Darkness actually shows that both truly would enter the contaminated chamber for each other. The death in this film struck me far less for the actual death scene than for the characters choices both contrasting and confirming those of their prime counterparts. This is also why Kirk's death doesn't have to "stick."
I am perhaps in the minority, but I don't think JJ Abrams was trying to mimic the impact of Spock's death in Darkness. Rather (perhaps because of the other shows like Fringe he has done with parallel universes) I saw the reversal of Kirk and Spock's death as a way of playing with the choices each character makes. In addition, often times people hear friends say, "you would have done the same for me" but Darkness actually shows that both truly would enter the contaminated chamber for each other. The death in this film struck me far less for the actual death scene than for the characters choices both contrasting and confirming those of their prime counterparts. This is also why Kirk's death doesn't have to "stick."
Yeah that doesn't worry me. I think you can look at those scenes and have both Spock dead or Spock's dead but may come back, but at the end he is definitely dead. Whatever happens next, is something else and finally collapses into being as Trek III but that's it's own thing. I think people are right to be wary of people treating death lightly in fiction but I don't mind it so much here, maybe because it had all been done before I was even watching Trek
I think this is fair and I probably wouldn't mind the death scene if it didn't duplicate TWOK's scenes so much. I just think they should have come up with something new, but that's just my opinion. I am someone who's idea of Trek is the Trek films, at least 2 - 6. I grew up with them and don't have any real attachment to TOS.
According to Nimoy himself in the commentary to STIII, that little shot was added as a completely ambiguous 'get out clause' that could fit almost any follow up story. It wasn't a replacement line, but a new one added to leave the door for his return open. He stated as well that the Paramount bosses believed he had demanded to be killed off and that his contact for STII required this, due to them believing rumours at the time. He categorically states this wasn't true. Obviously, he is but one source and as with most Hollywood types is probably telling a version of the story that with hindsight paints him in the best light, but his take is certainly different from the oft cited 'Nimoy wanted out then changed his mind' explanation.
What's your source on this? Because Nimoys face and arm are also in frame in the footage of the meld used in STIII which would make using someone else's hand very cumbersome and rather pointless.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
