[Quark]

Originally Posted by TribbleWrangler

The only beef I had was the exclusion of TAS as Canon

HERE HERE!

[gimmeyourphaser]

I think the way Kirk was killed off was BS. It wasn't like Spock giving his life for the Enterprise. It felt like the producers at the time wanted to get Kirk out of the picture so Picard's character could stand alone. Like Patrick Stewart could not hold his own with Shatner. Well those producers nearly ran Trek into the ground and they got their just rewards. They have been wisely kicked to the curb.

[kukalakana]

"Canon" -- I couldn't care less about it. As long as the story and characters are reasonably consistent, it shouldn't matter. So why this quasi-religious fervour about what's in and out?

"A cashless economy" -- Personally I find this unrealistic. Sure it's great if your in a job that you like. But I've worked jobs that have made me want nothing more than to go down to the lake and drown myself. Are they honestly trying to tell us that the poor sod working on the waste extraction systems day after day is content to do so for the "improvement of humanity"?

[KiraTroi87]

Originally Posted by dotcanada

I don't believe his death was "undignified". He died by making "a difference". Did you ever see the deleted scene of how he originally was supposed to die (getting shot in the back by Sauron)? Now THAT is undignified. In the version we've all seen, Kirk risked his life to prevent the death of millions by decloaking the missle so Picard could rig it never to launch. He was a hero.

The whole Kirk dying in Generations was utterly ridiculous and very poorly thought out! First of all he never should have died and second of all if you're gonna kill off a character like Capt. Kirk....you don't do it that way!

[_Eris_]

Originally Posted by kukalakana

[u]

"A cashless economy" -- Personally I find this unrealistic. Sure it's great if your in a job that you like. But I've worked jobs that have made me want nothing more than to go down to the lake and drown myself. Are they honestly trying to tell us that the poor sod working on the waste extraction systems day after day is content to do so for the "improvement of humanity"?

I agree. It is kinda hard when I'm writing my simple fan stories of Trek,
especially when they're on DS9, where Latinum was a form of currency,
how did the Starfleet officers acquire it?
I can't imagine that currency could just, go away, even if we are able
to replicate anything we need...

[The Doctor]

Originally Posted by dotcanada

I don't believe his death was "undignified". He died by making "a difference". Did you ever see the deleted scene of how he originally was supposed to die (getting shot in the back by Sauron)? Now THAT is undignified. In the version we've all seen, Kirk risked his life to prevent the death of millions by decloaking the missle so Picard could rig it never to launch. He was a hero.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Chris Fawkes

Killing Kirk in an undignified manner, that and those who respond to those of us who find kirks death very poorly done with a comment like "Kirks dead, get over it". As if that is a problem in science fiction, duh!

One of my beefs with Star Trek (and sci-fi in general) is when they bring characters back. Death becomes meaningless if you just do that. Sci-fi fans actually start expecting every death to be undone. There's no surprise left in it when it gets like that.

And besides, as they say in that very movie, mortality is part of being human. It defines us. Life is important because it eventually ends.

I have nothing against the way Kirk died. He sacrificed himself to make a difference. But I will ask out of curiosity, if anyone else here had the chance to write his death, how would they have it happen?

[tomalak301]

I have two beefs with Star Trek

-The relationships in Trek suck. They are so forced, and not very well written. Even the Odo/Kira one had some issues, even though it was the best one. No scifi series can do a relationship like the one Crichton and Ayren had in Farscape.

-They don't do death very well. Spock's was good, Sarek's was the best, but Yar and Dax should have gotten better deaths.

[Chris Fawkes]

I think if you sat in a class of six graders and asked them to brainstorm a way to kill of a character like Kirk you would pull ten better ways of doing it.
Perhaps falling off a cliff may have not been so bad had it been done with some level of drama.
I liked generations but when the borg queen was reduced to that little piece of brain and spine Picard snapped it with no level of emotion whatsoever. That moment was completely flat.
I find this flatness seemed to permeate the Burman movies and so with Kirks death you may rationalise that he was saving others but it came across as badly done. With a budget of millions some of that ought to go into getting your defining moments perfect.

[The Doctor]

Originally Posted by Chris Fawkes

I think if you sat in a class of six graders and asked them to brainstorm a way to kill of a character like Kirk you would pull ten better ways of doing it.
Perhaps falling off a cliff may have not been so bad had it been done with some level of drama.
I liked generations but when the borg queen was reduced to that little piece of brain and spine Picard snapped it with no level of emotion whatsoever. That moment was completely flat.
I find this flatness seemed to permeate the Burman movies and so with Kirks death you may rationalise that he was saving others but it came across as badly done. With a budget of millions some of that ought to go into getting your defining moments perfect.

Okay. But you say a class of six graders could think of better ways, yet you still haven't come up with one yourself. I'm not trying to criticize, but I'm curious about what people could come up with.

[Chris Fawkes]

Ok i guess you don't know the basics of story telling. The idea is that certain things are set up through the story so that by the time the point of death occurs there is no real choice except it will cost others, thus a sense of real sacrifice.
Dropping off a cliff was simply added to kill off the character, there was no need. That is the scene would have worked just as well with both captains coming out alive so there is no sacrifice in the sense that it was Kirks death or the death of others.
The fact that they were fighting an old git that anyone in the audience felt they could beat up if needed didn't help either.
So for a start a stronger and more intimidating adversary should have been written in.
It could have been as simple as the adversary pushing a button that would take him into the nexus and destroying the other planet (which we should have seen in order to have some emotional connection anyway).
Kirk and Picard could have received a serious beating and as the man/creature that they were fighting were about to press the button Kirk intends to use the last of his strength to take said adversary off balance and over a cliff face that would take them both to their deaths. Picard seeing how badly injured Kirk is tries to stop him so Kirk first has to beat up Picard in the last few seconds before succeeding in his attempt to take himself and the villain to their deaths.
The idea is to set up a simple enough goal then create a series of obstacles to the hero getting there to build tension. Generations had non of that.
As i say his falling off the cliff had no basis in need. the simple suggestion i just made does.
Which gets us back to the idea that with millions to spend on a film you must get your climax right. The rest of the story can be forgiven if the climax is great.
I will add another beef. Why is it that building a forum that is to promote a multi million dollar film they cannot get it so that it does not keep logging you off?