Spoilers Was it a mistake to kill Kirk in Star Trek Generations?

[The Overlord]

Was it a mistake to kill Kirk in Star Trek Generations? This article seems to think so, saying it was a move made without foresight that harmed the franchise long term:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/star-trek-shows-kirk-references-ignore-fix/amp/

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, I think that killing Kirk in Generations was a mistake.

However, as much as I appreciate the author's admiration for Kirk he is basically trying to force Kirk back in to Trek, and expecting Strange New Worlds to pick up the slack, when that would not be when Kirk became a hero. His 5 year mission was the historic part. Despite my love of Abrams' films I definitely see the push to make Kirk a captain too fast, which I think would be the expectation for his appearance in SNW. Never mind the canonistas throwing a fit over his appearance on the show if he does meet Pike.

I think Kirk's legacy is secure and the article is flailing for a reason for him to return.

 

[Henoch]

I really resented that they killed Kirk off.

Every 39.1 years the Nexus makes a return visit, so, we need a campaign to get Kirk out of the Nexus before Picard does it in Star Trek Generations. Kirk could simply walk out of the Nexus on his own at anytime. Would this create a new Kirk timeline and snuff out the Picard timeline at Generations? I guess just wishful dreaming.

 

[Imaus]

I don't think it harmed the franchise in any real way other than being a sign of things to come ala writing and plot convenience?

Kirk should had died ages before Picard, is all. He died saving the Enterprise, the ship that saved him and many worlds before, that's fine.

But for some reason they decided the movie needed to be a cross-generational thing?

Make Kirk's death grander, is all I'll say. It's 2293. The Klingons are subdued due to Praxis. The Federation is entering a golden age. The -B is launched, it's an Excelsior class, still crisp and now one of the most powerful ships ever.

There's an incoming convoy of refugee ships; they're in trouble due to the Nexus, a subspace? storm of sorts, really mucks up warp travel. The -B, out on advanced space trials, goes in to assist - though Kirk has to prod Harriman who is the 'newer' type of Starfleet officer, a bit too cautious. Kirk: 'You read about me in the books, right? Well, this is why I made it into those books. By doing, after calculating. Not just calculating.' Kirk knows a deflector trick, goes down to do it. Does it. Repels the Nexus. But the Nexus whips the ship one last time, takes Kirk out.

There. Now there's a chekovs datalog of how to take out the Nexus that Guinan might know or suspect, Kirk gets a heroic death, the B is shown, yadda yadda.

 

[KennyB]

The whole movie was a mistake pretty much..........The crash was outstanding VFX for the time. I never understood the need for Kirk to DIE.......especially in that shitty way.

 

[Angry Fanboy]

I think Generations fumbled the ball at the point where Star Trek was probably as popular as it had ever been and would ever be. TNG was finishing on a high, DS9 was doing well, VOY was about to launch - there was a huge appetite for Star Trek around 1994. Virtually everything about Generations up to and including the handling of Kirk was mediocre. If you're going to use Kirk then surely use him as a starship captain, not as Picard's second-choice decoy to fight a man on a bridge.

 

[F. King Daniel]

They should have had him live on in the future, like Old Spock in the past in the first 2 Kelvin universe movies.

 

[Qonundrum]

Was it a mistake to kill Kirk in Star Trek Generations? This article seems to think so, saying it was a move made without foresight that harmed the franchise long term:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/star-trek-shows-kirk-references-ignore-fix/amp/

Not really, IMHO, because it's become a trope used a lot more often nowadays. Imagine the typical youtube channels if they existed in 1994 after watching the film...

If they wanted Kirk to go out with a bang so the franchise could focus on TNG, et al, then they shouldn't have brought in TOS characters into GEN - or make proper use of them instead of the fumbled jumble that was filmed. Indeed, while test audiences all balked over Kirk's original death, it's still a lot more palpable in selling a tragedy not unworthy of Shakespeare than the stereotyped drivel that was eventually put into the movie, unintended pun about a bridge and all. It was a bold move to try at the time, especially as TNG ratings were starting to waver after season 5 and what better way to get audience interest than to do something big, but it didn't pay off.

The franchise was not harmed as STFC and DS9 still carried the flag while moving forward.

Later movies and incarnations, as the franchise ran out of steam (VOY/ENT) or felt like cast reunion parties that forgot there's an audience (TNG films), would rely on using catchphrases and words like "Kirk" and "Picard" to drum up superficial interest and nostalgia - those arguably did more to harm the franchise. NEM has many egregious examples of that (yet another android, it's all about Picard's clone gone wild yet it's clearly a different actor, ripping off TWOK, etc, etc), and - at least in the theater - the only time the audience reacted positively was when Riker belched out "Kirk epsilon" (as a defensive maneuver too BTW, not an offense-driven one)... be glad TNG season 1 didn't rely on ripping off every story the way they had "The Naked Time" or it wouldn't have survived...

 

[1001001]

A spoiler tag, with the only real spoiler in the thread title? Nice...

Kirk's death was heroic as fuck. He gave up eternity in paradise to save 230 million people who will never even know he existed! How much more heroic can a death be? And his first "death" (on Enterprise B) was pretty badass too.

Whether it was a bridge collapsing or a phaser to the head or getting his life force sucked out by an alien isn't really relevant to me. The circumstances and his sacrifice are what make his death matter.

In that sense, his death was perfect.

PS: Moving to the movies forum, per the title.

 

[The Overlord]

A spoiler tag, with the only real spoiler in the thread title? Nice...

Kirk's death was heroic as fuck. He gave up eternity in paradise to save 230 million people who will never even know he existed! How much more heroic can a death be? And his first "death" (on Enterprise B) was pretty badass too.

Whether it was a bridge collapsing or a phaser to the head or getting his life force sucked out by an alien isn't really relevant to me. The circumstances and his sacrifice are what make his death matter.

In that sense, his death was perfect.

PS: Moving to the movies forum, per the title.

The spoiler tag was for spoilers in the article about modern Trek shows, its kinda hard to spoil a movie that came out in 1994. But fair enough on moving the thread.

 

[1001001]

The spoiler tag was for spoilers in the article about modern Trek shows, its kinda hard to spoil a movie that came out in 1994. But fair enough on moving the thread.

I understand. It just struck me as funny.

 

[BillJ]

Killing the character was fair game, he just should have been on the bridge of the Enterprise when it happened.

 

[valkyrie013]

I didn't like how they took him from 2293 and left the rest of the crew to grow old without him, so a 150 year old life like McCoy, and him only being in it for 30 years.
but owell.

 

[ChristopherPike]

No, I don't think so... and Shatner only agreed to appear, if Kirk died.

Both of his deaths in the film are heroic. Admittedly the first one, strangely more heartfelt.

Was it an apt end? Popular opinion seems to say not. But he could've been shot in the back by Soran, as they originally planned. What an anti-climax that would've been!

Generations as a remake of "Yesterday's Enterprise" would've been better? Sure.

Do I wish some future Star Trek film could somehow undo the death? Again, sure... and it's getting more and more possible too. If not particularly desirable to Shatner or whoever's devising such a film.

Everytime I've seen Generations, from back in the cinema to more recently, I've always been okay with it. There are far worse written killings of Star Trek characters. Kirk at least goes out fighting in a style that feels like something "Original Series", for all the talk of dying in the Captain's chair and going down with the ship. It's funny how Picard feels like the 3rd wheel in that climax on Veridian III, failing in diplomacy and then unable to take down Soran physically.

 

[DonIago]

I don't think it was a mistake to kill Kirk in GEN (which isn't the same as arguing it was good or necessary), but the manner of his death is more arguable to me. That said, I'm much happier with the ending as shown than with Kirk being shot in the back. I can't readily come up with a way to make his death better that wouldn't involve more significant changes to the film.

 

[Henoch]

First Take Soran: "It's only Picard. I can take this wimp."

Second Take Soran: "Crap, that's Kirk. He's beating the shit out of me."

Instead of dying on the Bridge of the Enterprise, he dies on an "away" mission (TNG vernacular) on a bridge on a lonely planet." I guess it's better than just dying of old age from boredom in his mountain cabin. I still wanted the adventure to continue, though.

 

[NCC-73515]

Kirk died to stop Soran, who otherwise would've killed the D crew, which then wouldn't have gone back in time to stop the Borg in FC, so without Kirk's sacrifice, the Borg would've assimilated Earth in 2063, then Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, etc., and no one would've been there to stop them. Kirk saved the galaxy from the Borg.

 

[128bits]

It's very common that veteran actors will only reprise well known roles that they feel have run their course, if the script involves killing the character off.

Paramount were desperate to get both Kirk and Picard (at minimum, they settled for it when Nimoy and Kelley refused to sign on) together and this was the only way of getting Shatner on board.

In my honest opinion, it was a huge mistake for them to do it. Generations was obviously marred by rushed production due to wrapping up TNG, but the script was also rushed together based on the principle of Kirk and Picard teaming up, with zero regard to how the story fit around it.

The original rules of TNG were that TOS was off limits unless Gene Roddnberry approved it or a character's fate was open ended (Scotty heading off to explore, Spock staying behind on Romulus etc). This helped prevent anything crazy from happening, it kept the story consequences focused on TNG cast and used TOS characters to enhance their development.

The fact that William Shatner has repeatedly stated that it was a mistake to end it like that, and even co-wrote a novel series that undoes Kirk's death says a lot.

If they utterly had to kill Kirk off, it should have been on the bridge of the Enterprise.

 

[Vger23]

Kirk is my favorite character in all of fiction.

I have no problem with him dying or the way he died. That’s life...and agree with it or not, that was the theme of the film and the death served the film well.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I don't think it was a mistake to kill off Kirk as far as the franchise was concerned. Killing off the heroes you grew up with is almost the norm these days (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Star Wars).

That being said, I was more than happy prior to Generations not knowing what became of Kirk because I felt Star trek VI was a fitting and beautiful end to the entire TOS era. Kirk and the gang ended on a high note, and it was time to move on. Stick a fork in it, the 23rd-Century was done. I just wish the seventh Star Trek movie could have been a TNG-only film that built on what TNG had.