Why kill off David Marcus?

[Magellan]

I did a quick Google search and didn't see any results. It was probably just for dramatic effect, but I feel like it kinda makes the whole film a bummer. Kirk is pretty upbeat at the end and downright cheerful by Star Trek IV but the loss of a son, even one he only knew briefly, always seemed like a life altering event that you never get over.

Rewatching Star Trek II, it felt like the series was going to go in these new and interesting directions with the characters. Kirk has a son, Spock is gone and a new major crew member in Saavik is introduced(disappointed she didn't stay around also, the movies could have used some fresh blood). Was David killed off just to enact the big reset button? Couldn't they just have sent him away like Saavik and Gillian Taylor never to be seen again?

 

[Ithekro]

Kirk's payment for getting Spock back.

His ship, potentially his career. His son.

 

[Magellan]

Kirk's payment for getting Spock back.

His ship, potentially his career. His son.

That's a good point, and Kruge killing off Saavik wouldn't have the same personal impact for Kirk. It still feels like he wasn't affected enough by the death though. The audience sort of accepts the Spock is back happy ending because we're less invested in David. Sacrifices had to be made, but what if Scotty had died in their rescue attempt? I think we would expect a sadder ending a la Star Trek II.

 

[Kilana2]

Kirk's payment for getting Spock back.

His ship, potentially his career. His son.

That's a good point, and Kruge killing off Saavik wouldn't have the same personal impact for Kirk. It still feels like he wasn't affected enough by the death though. The audience sort of accepts the Spock is back happy ending because we're less invested in David. Sacrifices had to be made, but what if Scotty had died in their rescue attempt? I think we would expect a sadder ending a la Star Trek II.

If Scotty had died, Kirk would travel back in time to save Scotty, to hell with the Temporal Prime Directive....

 

[BillJ]

Because it served the story.

 

[Melakon]

Because it served the story.

This. Someone had to die in order to injure Kirk. It couldn't be Spock, Saavik would have had little personal impact. David was the obvious choice, and it was his karma for using proto-matter in Genesis.

 

[arch101]

In the last few years I've gotten the idea that there should have been another film between TWOK and TSFS, making the Spock/Genesis story a true "trilogy". This would have given David more time for the audience to know and get invested in him, and I think this would have made the trade off of David for Spock much more dramatic. It also would have made the audience more comfortable with the idea of Trek without Spock before bringing him back in the concluding chapter.
Maybe someday.

 

[Melakon]

In those days though, there was no guarantee of a sequel until after they saw the box office results and they were good. Some franchises these days have sequels even if they lose money.

 

[GNDN18]

I had the sense that David, Saavik, and the crew of the USS Recruit were introduced to carry the torch passed by the aging TOS cast, but then the whole "next generation" angle was abandoned after TWOK proved to be a surprise box office and critical success.

If Spock had simply died without the "Remember" escape hatch and the last few added scenes, TOS might well have given way to the adventures of a boatload of children.

Was Spock's potential resurrection a result of early previews and focus groups?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Harve Bennett explained all in a "Starlog" interview at the time. To get Spock back, the balance of nature/karma required a sacrifice from Kirk greater than Spock's. Thus David and then the Enterprise. And Carol doesn't appear in ST III because Bennett realised that, had she been present, she would have been implicated by David's cheat of protomatter, either as a co-conspirator or neglectful. (Originally, Besch thought he wasn't pleased with her performance.)

 

[MacLeod]

In those days though, there was no guarantee of a sequel until after they saw the box office results and they were good. Some franchises these days have sequels even if they lose money.

They might lose money at the box office but could have after strong sales i.e. DVD/BR sales. So they end up making a profit

 

[Therin of Andor]

In those days though, there was no guarantee of a sequel until after they saw the box office results and they were good. Some franchises these days have sequels even if they lose money.

They might lose money at the box office but could have after strong sales i.e. DVD/BR sales. So they end up making a profit

Don't forget that there was a big "Don't Kill Spock" campaign, reported in the "Wall Street Journal", in which a large group of Nimoy/Spock fans took out a full-page ad in "Variety" and estimated how much damage their intended black ban would cost in box office receipts, tie-ins and home video sales, if Spock died in ST II.

 

[Terok Nor]

I was shocked when the Klingons killed David. In Trek you usually expect Kirk to triumph and save everyone - he even came back for Zombie Spock in this very movie - but his own son was snuffed out in an instant. Then the Enterprise got blown to pieces. I think it was all very effective. In order to get Spock back something irreversible had to take it's place. Killing Kirk's son and destroying THE Enterprise fits the bill.

 

[martok2112]

Because they needed a reason for Kirk to say: "You Klingon bastard, you've killed my son. You Klingon bastard you've--killed my son! ------ You - Klingon bastard!"

 

[Galileo7]

Because it served the story.

This. Someone had to die in order to injure Kirk. It couldn't be Spock, Saavik would have had little personal impact. David was the obvious choice, and it was his karma for using proto-matter in Genesis.

Agree.

 

[Phantassm]

I disagree. I've always felt that Kirk was deeply hurt by David's death. It was a fact that was carried to the very last film and mentioned in his personal log in TUC.
"I've never trusted klingons and I never will. I've never been able to forgive them for the death of my boy." Speaks volumes what he said and the fact that David's picture was in his cabin. I also think that he felt much grief and guilt in that he could not save him.

 

[eyeresist]

Because drama.

As Junkball Media pointed out, the Klingons are utterly incompetent in their supposed mission to obtain the secret of Genesis - and their incompetence culminates in killing the one person who could have given them all the info they wanted.

From 2:44 ...
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5v-d7QVu3M[/yt]

 

[OpenMaw]

Never cared for the protomatter plot development nonsense. Saavik's little spiel at David is amusing to me. David isn't responsible for what terrorists and rogue Klingons get up to.

He was trying to do something wonderful, and he was fully aware of what it could be potentially turned into. He was somewhat naive, sure, but the idea that he somehow needed to "pay" for taking a supposed shortcut does not track. By that logic I guess the first humans to use fire should have paid the price for the mass misuse of it later.

As David himself pointed out, Genesis may never have worked at all if he hadn't used protomatter, and frankly, we don't actually know that Genesis would have been unstable if it had been deployed properly. It also likely would not have become the "galactic controversy" had it been deployed secretly and quietly as was intended.

I was glad when Sarek stepped in to defend Kirk and co, along with Genesis itself.

 

[RoJoHen]

For me the biggest disappointment is that we never got to see Carol's reaction to learning that her son had been murdered.

 

[Melakon]

For me the biggest disappointment is that we never got to see Carol's reaction to learning that her son had been murdered.

"You Starfleet bastard, you killed my son!"