ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

How should James T Kirk have died?

Ali88

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 889

Report this Oct. 01 2009, 12:42 pm

I would have liked to have seen Kirk die with Spock or on board the Enterprise D

Ali88

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 889

Report this Oct. 01 2009, 1:08 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Oct. 01 2009, 12:55 pm)
Isn't there already a thread on this same subject?

:logical:

is there?

Trekwolf164

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 32043

Report this Oct. 01 2009, 1:35 pm

Phasered by a jealous husband.


:logical:

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Oct. 01 2009, 1:37 pm

Somedays I wish he was left flying into a star, then there are other days I wish he got a completely unceremonious death with a phaser shot to the back. But like starbase63 said, there was nothing wrong with his death on Veridian Three.

tribblenator999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3818

Report this Oct. 01 2009, 5:43 pm

dying a old man but in the history text died to save the enterprise B.

Camorite

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5510

Report this Oct. 01 2009, 8:41 pm

Who is to say that (in universe) trek history still doesn't still say that he died on the Enterprise B. for all we know Picard might not have told anyone about Kirk's involvement, or Starfleet thought that it was more fitting for one of their most famous captains to be remembered going out in a blaze of glory. Unless someone knows what happened between Generations and First Contact there is actually no way to know what happened when Picard returned home after the crash.

tribblenator999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3818

Report this Oct. 02 2009, 10:57 am

Quote (Camorite @ Oct. 01 2009, 8:41 pm)
Who is to say that (in universe) trek history still doesn't still say that he died on the Enterprise B. for all we know Picard might not have told anyone about Kirk's involvement, or Starfleet thought that it was more fitting for one of their most famous captains to be remembered going out in a blaze of glory. Unless someone knows what happened between Generations and First Contact there is actually no way to know what happened when Picard returned home after the crash.

your second explanation makes the most sense.

Ali88

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 889

Report this Oct. 02 2009, 11:04 am

Quote (tribblenator999 @ Oct. 02 2009, 10:57 am)
Quote (Camorite @ Oct. 01 2009, 8:41 pm)
Who is to say that (in universe) trek history still doesn't still say that he died on the Enterprise B. for all we know Picard might not have told anyone about Kirk's involvement, or Starfleet thought that it was more fitting for one of their most famous captains to be remembered going out in a blaze of glory. Unless someone knows what happened between Generations and First Contact there is actually no way to know what happened when Picard returned home after the crash.

your second explanation makes the most sense.

How do we know that when Picard was rescued by the shuttlecraft, he told about Kirk's death and the shuttlecraft went back and picked up Kirk's dead body and brought it on board the Farrgaut to be brought back to Earth for a proper starfleet burial-  it was just never mentioend on screen

tribblenator999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3818

Report this Oct. 02 2009, 12:11 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Oct. 02 2009, 11:40 am)
And what a can of worms that would have opened...

I'm betting Picard kept his mouth shut out of respect for Kirk (after all, as far as anyone knew Kirk had been dead for 75 years) and for his own peace of mind.

If Picard told anyone I'm presuming it would have been Ambassador Spock.

:logical:

I'm thinking Picard didn't tell anybody. (not even spock)

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Oct. 02 2009, 12:41 pm

Quote (Camorite @ Oct. 01 2009, 8:41 pm)
Who is to say that (in universe) trek history still doesn't still say that he died on the Enterprise B. for all we know Picard might not have told anyone about Kirk's involvement, or Starfleet thought that it was more fitting for one of their most famous captains to be remembered going out in a blaze of glory. Unless someone knows what happened between Generations and First Contact there is actually no way to know what happened when Picard returned home after the crash.

You're right, Camorite, that Picard didn't have to say anything about Kirk's involvement in stopping Soran.  

That said, from what I know of Picard, I believe he wouldn't do that.  What did he say to Wesley Crusher, something about truth being the first duty of any SF officer?  

It would be a very egotistical and underhanded thing for Picard to cover up the circumstances of Kirk's actual death, especially when his involvement changed history to save the Veridian system and Picard's crew.  

And wouldn't he want to give Kirk a proper burial?  Typically, laying stones on a body is only a temporary measure to keep scavengers away.  

It's just another failing of GEN, a bad film.  They should've ended it with a memorial service for Kirk.  Why they didn't is just another example of how bad a script GEN had.  

It's simply a bad film.  Shatner should never have agreed to be in it.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Oct. 02 2009, 12:42 pm

Quote (Ali88 @ Oct. 02 2009, 11:04 am)
Quote (tribblenator999 @ Oct. 02 2009, 10:57 am)
Quote (Camorite @ Oct. 01 2009, 8:41 pm)
Who is to say that (in universe) trek history still doesn't still say that he died on the Enterprise B. for all we know Picard might not have told anyone about Kirk's involvement, or Starfleet thought that it was more fitting for one of their most famous captains to be remembered going out in a blaze of glory. Unless someone knows what happened between Generations and First Contact there is actually no way to know what happened when Picard returned home after the crash.

your second explanation makes the most sense.

How do we know that when Picard was rescued by the shuttlecraft, he told about Kirk's death and the shuttlecraft went back and picked up Kirk's dead body and brought it on board the Farrgaut to be brought back to Earth for a proper starfleet burial- ¿it was just never mentioend on screen

That's what I assumed happened.  I really don't see why it should've been otherwise.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Oct. 02 2009, 1:12 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Oct. 02 2009, 1:00 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ Oct. 02 2009, 12:41 pm)
Quote (Camorite @ Oct. 01 2009, 8:41 pm)
Who is to say that (in universe) trek history still doesn't still say that he died on the Enterprise B. for all we know Picard might not have told anyone about Kirk's involvement, or Starfleet thought that it was more fitting for one of their most famous captains to be remembered going out in a blaze of glory. Unless someone knows what happened between Generations and First Contact there is actually no way to know what happened when Picard returned home after the crash.

You're right, Camorite, that Picard didn't have to say anything about Kirk's involvement in stopping Soran. ?

That said, from what I know of Picard, I believe he wouldn't do that. ?What did he say to Wesley Crusher, something about truth being the first duty of any SF officer? ?

It would be a very egotistical and underhanded thing for Picard to cover up the circumstances of Kirk's actual death, especially when his involvement changed history to save the Veridian system and Picard's crew. ?

And wouldn't he want to give Kirk a proper burial? ?Typically, laying stones on a body is only a temporary measure to keep scavengers away. ?

It's just another failing of GEN, a bad film. ?They should've ended it with a memorial service for Kirk. ?Why they didn't is just another example of how bad a script GEN had. ?

It's simply a bad film. ?Shatner should never have agreed to be in it.

I don't know, to me the big memorial service scene would have been a bit hokey.

For some reason, I don't think Kirk needed a big sendoff. Especially in the way he died...almost behind the scenes but doing what he did his whole life, fighting for the good of the Federation and to save lives.

Kirk was laid to rest with quiet dignity by his successor as Captain of the Enterprise...on a mountaintop overlooking one of the two worlds he saved.

:logical:

Under a pile of rocks?  

That's fine for a temporary measure, but I prefer to believe that the body was exhumed and returned to earth for a proper burial in San Fransisco or Iowa as befitting a hero of Kirk's stature and for Kirk's family, who didn't have a body to bury 85 years earlier.  There was no good reason to leave him on the top of a rock on a strange planet when starships were coming anyway to evacuate the Ent-D's crew and, eventually, the saucer (does anyone think they left that too?).  

Do we leave behind the corpses of fallen and lost soldiers?  As I understand it, if they're found, they're returned for a proper burial with honors.  

Why should Kirk, a legendary SF officer, not get that treatment?  What could possibly motivate Picard, a man of honor and truth, to do something like that to the guy who saved his crew by sacrificing his own life?

I just can't see Picard doing that to Kirk, and, by extension, Spock and Kirk's family (assuming Peter Kirk had kids).

Edgeways

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2542

Report this Oct. 02 2009, 4:40 pm

You really can't let go, can you Ali88?  This is the second or third of this type of topic you've posted.  Kirk is dead, and he died and was buried in a way that you didn't like.  I didn't like Nemisis either, but I'm not going to argue Data should have died differently.  Its a movie.  None of them are perfect, of make everybody happy.  There were reasons for the film being made the way it was.  Originally, they wanted more of the original cast involved (ie: Nimoy, Kelly, Nichols, Takei, etc).  But the roles were so small, that most of the actors didn't want to do it.  Could you imagine Kirk's funeral without Spock?  Because that's what would have happened, if a funeral were in the picture.  A funeral would have also slowed things down tremendously, and take focus away from the new crew.  Rememeber, this was a TNG movie--NOT a TOS movie.  They were attempting to look forward, not backwards.  Granted, Kirk's death could have been better, but wasn't.  Accept it.  Kirk died in an imperfect way.  Tragic, yes.  Worth rewriting, no.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Oct. 02 2009, 5:31 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Oct. 02 2009, 1:45 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ Oct. 02 2009, 1:12 pm)
Quote (starbase63 @ Oct. 02 2009, 1:00 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ Oct. 02 2009, 12:41 pm)
Quote (Camorite @ Oct. 01 2009, 8:41 pm)
Who is to say that (in universe) trek history still doesn't still say that he died on the Enterprise B. for all we know Picard might not have told anyone about Kirk's involvement, or Starfleet thought that it was more fitting for one of their most famous captains to be remembered going out in a blaze of glory. Unless someone knows what happened between Generations and First Contact there is actually no way to know what happened when Picard returned home after the crash.

You're right, Camorite, that Picard didn't have to say anything about Kirk's involvement in stopping Soran. ?

That said, from what I know of Picard, I believe he wouldn't do that. ?What did he say to Wesley Crusher, something about truth being the first duty of any SF officer? ?

It would be a very egotistical and underhanded thing for Picard to cover up the circumstances of Kirk's actual death, especially when his involvement changed history to save the Veridian system and Picard's crew. ?

And wouldn't he want to give Kirk a proper burial? ?Typically, laying stones on a body is only a temporary measure to keep scavengers away. ?

It's just another failing of GEN, a bad film. ?They should've ended it with a memorial service for Kirk. ?Why they didn't is just another example of how bad a script GEN had. ?

It's simply a bad film. ?Shatner should never have agreed to be in it.

I don't know, to me the big memorial service scene would have been a bit hokey.

For some reason, I don't think Kirk needed a big sendoff. Especially in the way he died...almost behind the scenes but doing what he did his whole life, fighting for the good of the Federation and to save lives.

Kirk was laid to rest with quiet dignity by his successor as Captain of the Enterprise...on a mountaintop overlooking one of the two worlds he saved.

:logical:

Under a pile of rocks? ?

That's fine for a temporary measure, but I prefer to believe that the body was exhumed and returned to earth for a proper burial in San Fransisco or Iowa as befitting a hero of Kirk's stature and for Kirk's family, who didn't have a body to bury 85 years earlier. ?There was no good reason to leave him on the top of a rock on a strange planet when starships were coming anyway to evacuate the Ent-D's crew and, eventually, the saucer (does anyone think they left that too?). ?

Do we leave behind the corpses of fallen and lost soldiers? ?As I understand it, if they're found, they're returned for a proper burial with honors. ?

Why should Kirk, a legendary SF officer, not get that treatment? ?What could possibly motivate Picard, a man of honor and truth, to do something like that to the guy who saved his crew by sacrificing his own life?

I just can't see Picard doing that to Kirk, and, by extension, Spock and Kirk's family (assuming Peter Kirk had kids).

Kirk's only family would be through his nephews, Peter (whom you mentioned) and his brother.

And possibly Sam's other sons, metioned in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"

Quote


Picard knew the galaxy had felt that James Kirk had died a hero 75 years before...doubtlessly there were memorial services and recognitions back then...why go through it all again?



Because Picard is a man of integrity and truth. ¿He would want the record set straight on Kirk's actual death and the sacrifice he made for Picard, Veridian, and the crew of the Ent-D. ¿

Second, again, it would give Spock and Kirk's family something to bury, which they didn't have before.

Third, Kirk's a SF officer who deserves to be buried in their equivalent of Arlington Cemetary or by his family instead of left under a pile of rocks on an unpopulated, alien planet. ¿Picard had a lot of respect and admiration for him in that regard and, imo, would feel a duty to accord him those honors. ¿

BTW, it's looking that in the comic series Spock Reflections, Spock got word from Picard about Kirk's death. ¿I know it's not "canonical," but it's certainly an indication that these writers believe Picard is at least telling Spock about Kirk's death.  Apparently Paramount has given its blessing to that story.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Oct. 02 2009, 5:48 pm

Quote (Edgeways @ Oct. 02 2009, 4:40 pm)
You really can't let go, can you Ali88? ¿This is the second or third of this type of topic you've posted. ¿Kirk is dead, and he died and was buried in a way that you didn't like. ¿I didn't like Nemisis either, but I'm not going to argue Data should have died differently. ¿Its a movie. ¿None of them are perfect, of make everybody happy. ¿There were reasons for the film being made the way it was. ¿

You're right.  GEN was the first TNG movie but someone at Paramount, or Berman, wanted to have Kirk and other ST members pass the torch to the TNG characters.  

Why Kirk had to die is another question.  Moore apparently came up with the idea.  I never had a problem with the idea of Kirk dying at all.  I just wish it had been done in a better way in a better film.  Even the writers, Ron Moore and Brannon Braga have admitted that they totally screwed up Kirk's death.  

Quote

Could you imagine Kirk's funeral without Spock?  Because that's what would have happened, if a funeral were in the picture.  


That's a very good point.  Spock wouldn't be there and you wouldn't have that dramatic punch.

Quote

Rememeber, this was a TNG movie--NOT a TOS movie.  They were attempting to look forward, not backwards.  


True, it was the first TNG movie.  However, GEN also acted as something of a coda or epilogue to Kirk's story in the films.  It has his death.  His presence is extremely significant to the film and his death really was the centerpiece of the whole movie, as Ron Moore noted.  I regard GEN as both a TOS and TNG film, as I believe other fans do as well as wikipedia (for what that's worth).  

Quote

Accept it.  Kirk died in an imperfect way.  Tragic, yes.  Worth rewriting, no.


I agree.  What's done is done.  As much as GEN sucked, leave Kirk Prime dead.  And, heck, I honestly think Kirk's death could've been worse.  I mean, it's Rick Berman we're talking about!  Look at INS and NEM!

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum