Star Trek

"Oh my." Kirk's death line. Is that Captain James T. Kirk, Starfleet legend and hero, or a retard who took a big crap and was very surprised. He deserved better. What do you think?

Kirk deserved better.

I agree that it wasn't all that great. I  don't know why they couldn't just let Kirk live then have Scotty come pick him up in his rented shuttle and hang out and be groovy in the 24th century. It's one of the reasons I like the Shatnerverse novels that pick up after this movie. Sure they are a bit cheesy but they are loads of fun to read.

Tuvix's murder was pretty heinous.

errr...this is the movie boards...stuff that happened on T.V. doesn't belong here.

I have been a Kirk fan my entire life, and he is my #1 hero and idol. That being said, I have said repeatedly that I thought his death was fine. Could it have been better? Well, sure...I suppose so. I mean...it's DEATH people. It ain't going to be "great." I for one am glad that it avoided silly cliched attempts to look important and have a "blaze of glory" and all that.

It was a dignified, quiet moment. I thought the "oh, my" words were prefect. Kirk was a great adventurer, and that last utterance signified that not only is he perhaps pushing on to the next great adventure, but he's amazed with what he sees / feels as he crosses that bridge.

As much as "Generations" was somewhat a poop-pile, I thought Kirk's actual death was okay.

Y'know, I agree that Kirk's death was "fine," but for a legend like Kirk, I really really wanted it to be more than that.  I wanted it have the same stature and effect of Spock's death in TWOK.  That's what Ron Moore and Brannon Braga were shooting for, but they have since admitted that they failed miserably, and that Leonard Nimoy was right about the many faults of the GEN script.

Moore:

Years later, Moore added: Killing Kirk was a great concept and had the potential to resonate throughout the Star Trek franchise, but the execution [no pun intended] was flawed and the impact was not what we'd hoped for on any level. [2]

Braga:

Regarding the death of Captain Kirk, which he co-wrote with Ron Moore for STAR TREK GENERATIONS, he said "In retrospect you wonder if it was exactly the way, was it done right? Was it as effective as it should have been? Captain Kirk died on a bridge. Should he have died on the bridge of his starship? There is a lot of stuff that I personally, I can't speak for the other gentleman involved, I personally would love to go back in time, like a STAR TREK episode, and redo some stuff."

Now, here is the thing that is kind of frustrating to me (and I've brought this up before so if anybody has read it, I hope you forgive me).  The original ending for GEN has Kirk knocking out Soran.  He turns to Picard.  Soran recovers, pulls a hidden gun out of his boot and shoots Kirk in the back.  It is essentially lifted from "The Cowboys" where John Wayne is shot in the back by Bruce Dern (and man, did Bruce Dern get a lot of flack for that).  I've seen the ending on youtube and, if anything it is worse than the bridge scene.  

This ending did not go over well with test audiences, so Berman was given some money by Paramount to reshoot the ending.  What we got was Kirk on the falling bridge, which was better, but, as we all know by now, still did not go over well with fans.  

So here's what I'm wondering.  How could Berman, Moore, and Braga not realize that killing Kirk via falling bridge wouldn't work either?  It really sounds like they were determined to kill him because, for Moore at least, it was looked on as a way of driving home the whole grand theme of GEN, which was mortality.  That said, in the end, Moore has admitted that he and Braga were not up to the task of writing GEN, apparently of coming up with a plot that effectively conveyed their mortality theme:

TrekMovie.com: Leonard Nimoy said he really didn't like the script from Generations and he felt that  he didn't want to direct it, he didn't like

So, what I wonder is

1.  Why, given that they knew the first Kirk death didn't work, they thought the second one would, and

2.  Why didn't they reflect on what Leonard Nimoy had said about their script in light of how thier first ending was received and, with the money for reshooting the ending, just let Kirk live? 

It was probably because Moore and Braga, especially, just couldn't see the forest for the trees at that point.  They were in denial somewhat, I think, in thinking that the death by bridge ending was really going to fix the ending of the film.  The also seemed to be determined to keep the death of Kirk in the film to validate their mortality theme.

Moore:

Regarding the death of Kirk, Ronald D. Moore, co-writer of the script in which Kirk died, wrote:

[...] I felt (and still do) that the death of Kirk was an important moment in Trek and that this very human character should experience the final act in every man's existence, namely death. Kirk had never shied away from promoting and honoring the unique experience of being human (indeed, that was in many ways the foundation of Gene's entire vision ? the celebration of the human spirit). Therefore, it seemed that by killing him, by letting him really play out the human experience, he would become something greater than simply another comic-book hero that never dies and is never really mortal as a result. I find vulnerable heroes more compelling than teflon-coated heroes, and to me the death of Kirk made him human, and in the end, more heroic.

I'm actually ok with this.  I was never against killing Kirk, only wanting it to be done well.  That was a key point that Nicholas Meyer made to a Paramount exec who objected to the death of Spock in TWOK, that the audience would be ok with Spock's death if it was done well, which, as history has shown, it obviously was.  Clearly, Moore and Braga, at that point, and perhaps also due to the list of requirments they were given wrt the GEN script, just could not give Kirk's death the resonance of Spock's.   I would love to know if they really thought the bridge scene would work. 

I think, if they'd really been able to be honest with themselves, and if Rick Berman had let them do it, that they should've just reshot the ending with Kirk living in the end and beaming up with Picard.  Yes, it would've compromised the centerpiece and big marketing ploy of GEN and their whole mortality theme, but it would've been better, imo, than then ending we got.  I would'v ebeen happier. 

They could've killed Kirk off later in the Dominion War or even the next TNG film and done it right.  Or have a DS9 arc with him reuniting with Spock to fight the Dominion. 

And even if they'd done nothing with Kirk beyond that, like they did nothing with Spock (on account of Nimoy being marginalized by Berman and Paramount after turning down their GEN offer), Kirk would've been alive with Spock and able to appear in ST XI, as William Shatner and fans are now lamenting. 

William Shatner discusses this in his book, "Star Trek Movie Memories."  It's a good read.

.........But he was buried under ROCKS, people!!! I mean, Picard could have said (stole this idea from a Plinkett review......): "Picard to Enterprise, hey I got the body of James T. Kirk here how 'bout you beam us both us so that we can give him a proper burial?"

That would have been more fitting. But I guess I was a little bit disappointed that he died because he fought with an old guy and fell off a bridge. Oh, well. *sigh*

>> RS, you give much to think about. I guess why it was felt Kirk needed to die would be a good question in the next Berman interview.

I expect he'd just parrot what Ron Moore said above.  It's obvious from reading this that Berman, Braga, and Moore were dead-set (pun!) on killing Kirk, despite knowing that the original shot in the back death scene wasn't workng.  Berman just would say that killing Kirk needed to be done as the thematic payoff.  That is probably what he would say. 

>> I am glad his death was captured on screen at some point. It is good to know how his story ended rather than it left in question.

Yeah, I know what you mean.  Again, I had no problem with them giving Kirk a heroic death, but the overall film, and the way they killed him, was justso dissapointing.

>> As for surviving the movie, I think if Kirk had survived, Picard would have always been in his shadow. 

And that could very well be another reason why Berman, if not Moore, wanted to make sure Kirk was killed.  Free Enterprise's Mark Altman went so far as to say this about Berman feelings towards TOS:

"The dirty little secret is Berman and the people running 'Star Trek' right now hate 'The Original Series' and hate being compared to it," says Altman, referred to by the Los Angeles Times as the "world's foremost Trekspert." Altman, during his days as a sci-fi magazine journalist, actually used to have a good relationship with Berman until he became critical of "Next Generation" and "Voyager."

"They are not people who have any affection for the old show. When [producer] Harve Bennett and [director] Nick Meyer took over the franchise for 'Star Trek II,' they went back and looked at every episode of 'The Original Series' and learned everything they could about what worked and what didn't. When these guys [Berman and writer Brannon Braga] took over, they hated the original and resented being in the shadow and avoided watching it. They'd be happy if people forgot the original, and that's unfortunate."

Rick Berman is the anti-Gene."

>> Fans would have wanted more 24th century kirk and he would have over shadowed the other lead characters.

Well, of course we would've wanted more 24th century Kirk.  Can you honestly blame us?  Us TOS fans only got 3 seasons and not 7 like TNG did.  But would Kirk really overshadow the other lead characters of TNG and/or DS9?  Isn't TNG supposed to be better than TOS according to many TNG fans?  Isn't Captain Picard as good as, if not better than Kirk?  Why wouldn't he be able to hold his own?  Oh, yeah, because he had to pull Kirk out of Valhalla-Nexus because he couldn't take out one mad scientist.  Kirk had to fight Picard's battle for him.  Yes, Berman's GEN film even managed to make Picard look bad, and I really like Picard.  GEN is really terrible.  

But even if that was the case, we're not talking about having Kirk added to the cast of DS9 or even showing up in the TNG films following GEN.  I mean, Spock was alive all that time and we never ever saw him again in TNG.  BTW, that's funny, isn't it, considering what a ripe plot thread that was at the end of Unification.  They had two more seasons of TNG to revist Spock and they never ever did, even though Nimoy was itching to play Spock again. 

And Spock didn't show up in DS9 or NEM, where he would've been appropriate.  Now we know the reasons why.  Berman doesn't like TNG being compared to TOS and was angered that Nimoy told him his GEN script was bad and turned down his offer to act in and direct that film. 

But, again, Kirk could've just as well been placed alongside Spock and Scotty on the shelf at the end of GEN instead of being killed off.   The ending of the film, imo, would've been better and Kirk could've been used again in ST XI.  Maybe they could've had him sacrifice himself there taking Nero down and saving the Enterprise, including his younger self.  Again, my problem was never with killing Kirk, it was just the manner of his death.   Berman, Moore, and Braga totally failed there.   

 >> Besides, would Shatner have wanted to reprise the role? He was probably ready to stop being Kirk and have closure for that part of his career.

If you read "Star Trek Movie Memories," Shatner makes his feelings clear.  He agreed to be in GEN and kill Kirk off because he figured that it was the last opportunity he would ever have to play the character (plus, he would make a lot of money, Shatner always been honest about that).  Here's what he said wrt Kirk's death in GEN:

 PCX  Did Paramount ever explain to you why was necessary to kill Captain Kirk ?

WS : Because they felt they could utilize...upon the popularity of The Next Generation, and make more money from making movies. They would cancel the [TNG] TV series, make the movies and be able to make more movies, I think was their -

PCX : But that doesn't explain why they actually wanted to kill Captain Kirk off -

WS : Well, they didn't have to, he could've just disappeared. But they thought it was interesting, dramatic thing - and it was; an interesting dramatic ploy and asked me to go along with it. Since I saw the handwriting on the wall; that we were not going to make any more movies, it seemed a good way to go.

PCX : Well, you're certainly a team player.

WS : No; it just seemed that if that was the end of the character, why not die in a terrific death scene. It just..uh..it...there should have been more trumpets.

In his book, Shatner says as the death scene approached he grew more and more reluctant and apprehensive.  He had really enjoyed working with Patrick Stewart and Malcolm McDowell.  Stewart had great fun too and says in Shatner's book that he felt a real chemistry between the two characters.  You can totally see it in the film, however bad GEN is.  It's a real shame that they couldn't have these two icons in a better film with more time with them together.  The plot structure of GEN was just terrible (I think that was based on the story requirements that Berman gave Moore and Braga).  Nevertheless, Shatner played out Kirk's death scene.  He made a point of saying how unexpectedly saddenned he was with killing his character off.  He said he honestly really liked his character and was sorry to end him.

At the very end of the book, Shatner describes getting the call from Paramount for reshoots and hopefully suggests that Kirk might end up surviving his death.  Of course, we know that he just ended up being killed another way that was only a little bit better than what they had before.  The ending obviously still failed with the majority of critics and the audience.  And, again, Moore, Braga, Shatner, Nimoy, and McDowell have all said Kirk's death was weak.  Stewart wasn't happy with killing Kirk either, since he wanted to work with Shatner again.

We all have read how much Shatner wanted to be in ST XI.  He has since said that he regrets agreeing to kill off his character in GEN.

>> But he was buried under ROCKS, people!!! I mean, Picard could have said (stole this idea from a Plinkett review......): "Picard to Enterprise, hey I got the body of James T. Kirk here how 'bout you beam us both us so that we can give him a proper burial?"

Yeah, I thought it was stupid that they didn't at least show a real burial for Kirk by the ENT-D atteneded by its crew.  Why couldn't they at least have done that?  I just don't understand what Berman, Moore, and Braga were thinking.  Why didn't they want to get as much mileage from Kirk's death as they could? 

And it just looks, franky, bad.  Picard puts Kirk under a cairn of rocks and, that's it?!?!?  Frankly, it looks like Picard kept Kirk's reappearance in the 24th century a secret, which doesn't make Picard look good at all.  In fact, this is what the IDW comic book series Spock:  Reflections assumes.  In that miniseries, Picard only told Spock about Kirk's death. 

>> That would have been more fitting.

Totally.  They couldn't even get that right.  

>> But I guess I was a little bit disappointed that he died because he fought with an old guy and fell off a bridge. Oh, well. *sigh*

We all were.