I always get a chuckle out of TrekWeb threads where you guys concoct elaborate "continuity operas" -- storyline scenarios that entail minute details and characters from previous shows known only to hard-core Trek fans (e.g. "Mirror Kirk meets Dr. Soong on Ceti Alpha Five" or whatever).
You guys ought to all wake up and realize that TPTB will never make such shows. As a TV studio, they want each ep (or series anyway) to stand alone as much as possible, independent of any prior knowledge, so that potential new viewers are not confused. So any "send-ups" to previous series (esp the now-aged TOS) should not be so intricate as to require a PhD in Trek Continuity. Therefore, you can bet that any return of Kirk will *not* involve a reenactment of the climactic scene of "Generations," since casual ENT viewers can't be made responsible for having that movie as background knowledge.
Gene's Ghost wrote:
"Kirk will live because of CASH! NOT because it's good for Star Trek in general."
But that's exactly the point. CASH is what's good for Trek since this is how TPTB measure success. At least this has been the case throughout two decades of TOS reruns, 10 movies and four revival series.
--------
GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show!.... You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME! -- William Shatner on Saturday Night Live (1986)
I'm a huge Captain Kirk, TOS fan and love the Harve Bennet/Nick Meyer films and abhor everything Rick Berman has ever done (with the exception of the brilliant underrated DS9). For the record, I loved NEMESIS and thought FIRST CONTACT had moments of brilliance.
But bringing Kirk to a failed sci-fi series, years after most Trekkers gave up on it, is a big mistake and will dillute the Kirk mythos and, most importantly, eliminate any chance at future Kirk appearances in movies.
I'd rather see Kirk return to the big screen with Nimoy.
-
How will it dilute the Kirk mythos if no one watches it, as you are implying?
Nothing is going to dilute the Kirk mythos because anyone who really gives a dang about Captain Kirk is only going to remember the good anyway. If his 2 part arc on Enterprise sux ballz, then they're just going to click the "DELETE" button in their head and move on.
It's like athletes. Yeah, it is sad to see athletes play passed their prime and be horrible, but ten years from now, fans of that athlete are only going to remember him in his prime. There is little debate as to whether or not Mohammad Ali was the greatest boxer to ever step foot into the ring, but was his mythos diluted because he lost a couple of fights when he should have been retired? Um... no. Because no one even remembers the fact that he lost to Trevor Berbick before retiring.
-
That's the beauty of having Kirk on Enterprise. If done right, Kirk would return to his current post-Generations time period, and conceivably appear at a future time with Spock. This time, they wouldn't have to worry about the character's revival and taking screen time explaining it. It's a great idea to have Kirk on Enterprise. And it HELPS the franchise. I would love to see Nimoy and Shatner together again too, but this is likely a necessary first step, and it's a big one. I have no problem with Kirk helping Enterprise out. The various shows SHOULD crossover once and awhile and work together as a team. That only makes the franchise stronger.
-
I would love to see Kirk and Spock in a movie too. That was the great lost opportunity of the 1994 to 2002 era.
But now the next movie is a long way off, and is likely to involve an entirely new cast with no original Star Trek or TNG characters. Will it be Star Trek: Catwoman (with no connections to prior characters) at the box office, or something that is embraced, we don't know, but Shatner as Kirk is not in the picture from all reports.
Time is running out. Shatner is active and in good health, but that may not be the case in 10 years from now.
Enterprise is the best option available, and with Coto, Sussman, and the Reeves-Stevens working with Shatner, I think it can be done right.
-
A Trek film with new characters would not be a Catwoman if it took place in the star trek universe. Catwoman totally abandoned the DC universe. Cat powers? Magical egyptian cats? BAH!
Don't forget that every Trek series began with all new characters. OBrien on DS9 (and later Worf) was the only known character in the cast of a new Trek series.
This movie will likely be the same, only on the big screen, not TV. The question of success will be the script, and how interesting these new characters are. Let someonelike Nick Meyer write it nd I'm sure it'll be great. Get John Logan and we have another bomb on our hands.
Hi all,
I've been an avid reader of Trekweb for a while now and never jumped in to the fray myself, til now.
But with the return of Kirk pending and seemingly imminent I thought now would be a good time to say my piece about how he should return, cause there really is only one believable way to do it. I've read all the talk about having him come out of the NEXUS and him being the MIRROR KIRK blah blah blah....not the way to to.
The simplest way to do it is this is this, when you watch Generations, the scene just after Kirk makes the missle thing appear he hangs there for a good 3-5 seconds as the metal breaks. That is more than enough time for a "beamout" assuming someone knew these events were going to take place. If he was beamed out it would have "0" effect on the timeline and all Picard would have would be a mystery as to where Kirk went. Remember he was fidling with missile when Kirk fell and wouldn't even notice it. It further seems that with the "temporal crap" going and the timeline changing every other day this would be no big deal for someone like....say..Daniels. Now the reason for bringing him back that's something else and I'm working on that. The only other commnent is this, say we all get our wish and Kirk is once again among us, NOBODY KNOWS WHO THE HELL HE IS IN THE 2150's!!! Pleae help me out on this one.
-
I LOVE the idea that no one knows who Kirk is in the 2150s. Archer now has no reason to trust him "because he's Kirk." Being the hero, Kirk would eventually earn that trust, but the fact that Archer doesn't know the legend can set up for some good old fashioned dramatic conflict.
-
Good point, but Kirk would surely have some tough choices to make considering he alone could really screw up the timeline. In fact he couldn't, or shouldn't even tell Archer who he is or how he knows what he knows. He would be a hell of a Temporal Time Bomb wouldn't he?
-
They seem to be ending the TCW early, so it would have to be another time travel scenario. A shame actually because I really think the TCW is a great way to bring in Kirk. Kirk has experience being in his past, so I don't think Kirk would do any damage to the timeline. This is a man that allowed the love of his life to die just to preserve history. He knows his duty. In a perfect world for me, the story would take place post-Captain's Glory (Shatner's next book), and canonize the books.
No need to rehash my objection to the idea of squeezing Shatner's bloated mass into a uniform again....
When all is said and done, this will be nothing more than a ratings stunt, providing a brief uptick in viewership. But a series can't be sustained by ratings stunts alone. Enterprise has already trotted out the Ferengi and the Borg, and now we're going to get a farewell tour from TOS & TNG's surviving cast. But what happens when they've run through all the stunt casting available to them? What will be left is what's been there all along - a show with no real direction, no real agenda, no real purpose, no real reason for putting it's cardboard cut-out characters through their paces.
Then again, since everyone seems to be in agreement that this is the last season, perhaps they only need enough stunts to fill up 26 episodes. They're even making it easier on themselves by stretching out each stunt across multiple episodes.
Sorry, I know it seems like an effort is being made to salvage something worthwhile of this show, but Coto and the new writers aren't going to be able to undo 3 years of mindless dreck. Taking a show that heretofore cared nothing for established continuity and turning it into continuity porn just ain't gonna be enough to save it.
-
Quote:
No need to rehash my objection to the idea of squeezing Shatner's bloated mass into a uniform again....
Shatner could be a cripple in a wheelchair and it wouldnt matter, I can't wait.
I think season 4 will be further improvement upon season 3 and I eagerly await the next 4 years of Enterprise.
-
Shatner could be a cripple in a wheelchair and it wouldnt matter, I can't wait.
They could put him in a big black one. One beep for yes, two beeps for no.
--------
"Outer Space: The Last Frontier.
These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise. Its five year plan calls for us to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly fly where no man has gone in space. Live long, and be happy."
Patrick Stewart--SNL, Stardate 9402.05
-
Actually, they are only doing 22 episodes next season (assumming it isn't cancelled mid-season).
So take 2 episodes to end the TCW to begin the season, 3 for Data's grandpappy, 2 for Kirk, and perhaps 2 for a series finale (if it gets cancelled).
That only leaves 13 episodes for them to come up with something else. Throw in the reported Vulcan shake-up episode(s), and another Andorian episode or two, and the season is pretty much filled up. Drag out the Klingons, a Phlox piece, and a couple other ship-in-the-bottle stories, and there's nothing left.
So in the words of Scotty, a chimp and two trainees could probably run the show the rest of the season and few would notice.
--------
If we wanted to read political opinions, we wouldn't be coming here.
-
Quote from Jupiter to The Flashlight:
So in the words of Scotty, a chimp and two trainees could probably run the show the rest of the season and few would notice.
And, so far, there hasn't been one PR peep about repairing S3's most egregious instrument of ruin: T'Pol. Dodgy S4 spoilers say that the brain-damaged quasi-Vulcan mutant continues to pine for a monkey-brained human.
Coto's "continuity porn" licks feel promising, but, after three aggressively abusive seasons, I'm keeping my seat in the "I'll believe it when I see it" section of ENT's theater.
--------------
Classic TOS Phaser 1 + 2
Once they bring fat old Shatner back (don't get me wrong dear flamers, I LOVE THE MAN!), there will be no ignoring ENTERPRISE's previous 3 years of disregard for canon or continuity that's been consistantly it's biggest flaw.
But if B&B manage to drag "The Shat" throughout the rest of the sesaon, they probably will guarantee the show not being cancelled this year. There by sealing the deal for Paramount who just wants to get their cash back from the minimum amount of total episodes for syndication purposes. See? This idea isn't an inspired one, no matter what the feckless masses believe.
Kirk will live because of CASH! NOT because it's good for Star Trek in general.
The only hope I have as a true die hard (but discerning) Trek fan is that this piss poor series is set in the "Mirror, Mirror" universe. If not, another one goes splash in the toilet of modern television from what once was the best sci-fi franchise in history.
I suppose it will be good to see Kirk anyway, he works best in comedy, and he'll probably be great in the comedy of errors otherwise known as ENTERPRISE.
--------
PAY ATTENTION! Listen to DemocracyNow! , AirAmericaRadio and CrooksandLiars - Where the REAL truth hurts everyone!
-
I'm glad that there has been some 'offical' verification from The Bring Back 'Kirk" Campaign. A story such as this can be hard to believe sometimes. I admit that if I hadn't actually seen the spot myself, I probably would have been a bit skeptical. Not sure if Paramount will ever admit to running it, but one thing is for sure: This Trek fan is POSITIVE that he saw it.
If this does happen, as advertised, would you run this as a sweeps speical or save it as, maybe, a cliffhanger at the end of the season to help solidify a fifth season. I would imagine holding off until the end of the season, one way or the other, will (or should) create interest in season 4.
-
Thanks for sharing the information! I hope that the others who voted that day were favorable to Kirk returning as well.
I think that if it happens, it will run mid-season, probably February sweeps. That way there is a chance to retain some of the increased audience that Kirk will bring in. That would be a better strategy to get a fifth season/ series than saving it for a year-ending cliffhanger that might never be resolved. It would also seem to make sense to run it in the normal time slot to try to build viewership there.
Then as a FAN let me just say we the fans :
WE ARE GO FOR SHATNER!!
Testing is what they do at TV City. IIRC, they either record the audience or have an employee make note of reactions. If the Shatner appearance was really a go, there would be an actual press release. They're probably just seeing if it would be worth the trouble of getting Shatner by finding out how people react to the idea.
--------
The supervisor is Verizon!
Usually with these posts I expect Scorned to be the 1st to post. Oh well.
I'm kinda two sided on this subject. I will watch this episode(s) but I still think it's too much of a crutch.
I enjoyed Generations, but I think they could have done so much more with it. I remember reading a concept some years back on how they were gonna do Generations, they were gonna have EVERY crew member (Uhura, McCoy, Chekov, Sulu, Spock, Kirk) on the ENTERPRISE-B. The nexxus was going to be a tear in time and the ENTERPRISE-B would be brought into the 24th century.
Kirk/Picard and company would be batteling a Romulan situation (this would have been the 1st movie dealing with the Romulans) both ENTERPRISE's teaming up to save the day, in the end the only way to save the day is the get the ENT-B back to it's own time to even prevent this situation (because with the ENT-B gone this situation occurs, with it, it's prevented...Guinan is the one who tells all this)...anyways, Kirk is pretty much killed the same way (the Nexxus striking the ENT-B) he was thought be killed in 2294 trying to get the ENT-B and her crew back to their original time.
I got this info I believe from the Next Generation Companion book that came out after TNG went off the air.
It would have sound more promising, yet in the end I feel that Kirk should remain dead, let old Legends live on in the mind and not in actions.
ENT is using this episode only to put butts in seats on Friday night, and unfortunately, once they achieve that type of glory they'll never be able to duplicate it (which fans will demand) and no show could have done that. If they had used Kirk on TNG, DS9, VOY, they would have never duplicated the success again, all other episodes would have been remedial afterwards.
Ah well, nothing I can do about it, gonna watch it anyway and end up liking it and then being one of the ones saying "they need to do something like that again" and not be able to get it. Oh well...
--------
"My old friend, this song's for you. Cause a few simple verses was the least that I could do to tell the world that you were here. Cause the love and the laughter, will live on long after all of the sadness and the tears. We'll meet again, my old friend"
Tim McGraw "My Old Friend"
Dedicated To My Home..New Orleans
-
I hope they don't bring Kirk back from the dead. Kirk's my all time favorite Trek character, but I agree that the dead should stay dead.
Maybe it will be a Kirk from Before the Enterprise B incident, and will be a time travel story. Maybe Archer will enter the nexus and meet the echo of Kirk that will exist there forever. So many possibilities....
-
Why is everyone so addicted to the Nexxus? It's not that big of a deal, it was just a plot device, there are OTHER plot devices that can be used, I will really be upset if this is the only plot device that they use to bring Kirk back to the television screen
--------
"My old friend, this song's for you. Cause a few simple verses was the least that I could do to tell the world that you were here. Cause the love and the laughter, will live on long after all of the sadness and the tears. We'll meet again, my old friend"
Tim McGraw "My Old Friend"
Dedicated To My Home..New Orleans
-
Dude, that story sounds like a complete and total rip-off of "Yesterday's Enterprise," right down to Guinan being the only one knowing the truth. I'm glad they didn't go through with it.
--------
The supervisor is Verizon!
-
I like it, think it's enjoyable to see two generations fighting side by side, the only reason they didn't use it is because (I was right, it was in the TNG Companion) they couldn't come up with enough lines for everyone. In other words they couldn't justify having Uhura doing something, or Chekov doing something, etc etc etc...
--------
"My old friend, this song's for you. Cause a few simple verses was the least that I could do to tell the world that you were here. Cause the love and the laughter, will live on long after all of the sadness and the tears. We'll meet again, my old friend"
Tim McGraw "My Old Friend"
Dedicated To My Home..New Orleans
Usually with these posts I expect Scorned to be the 1st to post. Oh well.
I'm kinda two sided on this subject. I will watch this episode(s) but I still think it's too much of a crutch.
I enjoyed Generations, but I think they could have done so much more with it. I remember reading a concept some years back on how they were gonna do Generations, they were gonna have EVERY crew member (Uhura, McCoy, Chekov, Sulu, Spock, Kirk) on the ENTERPRISE-B. The nexxus was going to be a tear in time and the ENTERPRISE-B would be brought into the 24th century.
Kirk/Picard and company would be batteling a Romulan situation (this would have been the 1st movie dealing with the Romulans) both ENTERPRISE's teaming up to save the day, in the end the only way to save the day is the get the ENT-B back to it's own time to even prevent this situation (because with the ENT-B gone this situation occurs, with it, it's prevented...Guinan is the one who tells all this)...anyways, Kirk is pretty much killed the same way (the Nexxus striking the ENT-B) he was thought be killed in 2294 trying to get the ENT-B and her crew back to their original time.
I got this info I believe from the Next Generation Companion book that came out after TNG went off the air.
It would have sound more promising, yet in the end I feel that Kirk should remain dead, let old Legends live on in the mind and not in actions.
ENT is using this episode only to put butts in seats on Friday night, and unfortunately, once they achieve that type of glory they'll never be able to duplicate it (which fans will demand) and no show could have done that. If they had used Kirk on TNG, DS9, VOY, they would have never duplicated the success again, all other episodes would have been remedial afterwards.
Ah well, nothing I can do about it, gonna watch it anyway and end up liking it and then being one of the ones saying "they need to do something like that again" and not be able to get it. Oh well...
--------
"My old friend, this song's for you. Cause a few simple verses was the least that I could do to tell the world that you were here. Cause the love and the laughter, will live on long after all of the sadness and the tears. We'll meet again, my old friend"
Tim McGraw "My Old Friend"
Dedicated To My Home..New Orleans
If this is true, then the legacy of Kirk is forever soiled. The guy has to die to be a worthwhile legend, otherwise he's just a comic book character. There is no conceviable way for them to write him into the Enterprise timeline which isn't going to look like pathetic pandering to the fans and to the general public it'll just look like a cynical ratings grab - which is exactly what it is.
-
That couldn't be further from the truth. Legends never die. Kirk needs a happy ending--the character has never been about death. You don't need to see Kirk die--especially in a horrible way like in Generations. Star Trek hasn't been the same since Kirk was killed off, and bringing him back will make Trek whole again.
There is no downside to Kirk's return. The books have been highly successful. As for no conceivable way to write him into the timeline, that's not true either. This is science fiction, where anything is possible. Getting Kirk to Enterprise is actually quite easy--especially given that the Reeves Stevenses are now on board.
As for pandering to the fans--guess what? Giving the audience what they want is what they are in business to do. Getting ratings is what they are in business to do. Their ratings have been hurting for a long time, and this is a story that is in high demand.
So it's time--Bring Back Kirk.
-
Quote:
That couldn't be further from the truth. Legends never die. Kirk needs a happy ending--the character has never been about death. You don't need to see Kirk die--especially in a horrible way like in Generations. Star Trek hasn't been the same since Kirk was killed off, and bringing him back will make Trek whole again.
Why can't death be a happy ending? The one thing all human beings have in common is an eventual death. What did Kirk see to make him say "oh my.." at the end of Generations? He went onto the next adventure, that's what. The true Final Frontier. I'm not a religious guy in the slightest, but I'd say that's a far more beautiful ending for Kirk than endless "Hey look! Kirk's back for yet another one-more-adventure!"
Would I have preferred Kirk's final appearance in Trek to have been Star Trek 6? Yes, definately. However, Generations dared to do what no one thought possible - have Kirk die in a really disappointing way - BECAUSE THAT'S HOW A LOT OF HUMANS DIE. How many human beings die in car accidents/plane crashes and various other completely futile ways? Kirk simply succumbed to death, like all other human beings. As has been said here before, Kirk died saving a planet full of people who have no idea they were ever in danger and had no idea who saved them - it showed him to be a true hero. Noble to the end.
Bringing him back on Enterprise ruins it. Completely. Kirk's Star Trek was always about "the human adventure" - an adventure that ALWAYS ends with death.
And as for your opinion that bringing him back for 2 episodes "makes Trek whole again" - how can even you believe this? If this report is true, and there's a huge question mark hanging over that anyway, he's going to be in TWO EPISODES. That's IT, and then Kirk's gone again. So what happens then? Does the Bring Back Kirk movement start clamouring for a new Captain Kirk movie? Or two? Or a new TV series?
The whole Bring Back Kirk movement reminds me of a family that can't let go of a loved one. People die, and it's not always pretty. Deal with it.
-
Quote:
How many human beings die in car accidents/plane crashes and various other completely futile ways? Kirk simply succumbed to death, like all other human beings.
True enough. But the point is Star Trek is NOT "real life." It's a fictional universe created by writers who can and do make choices about what happens to the characters.
In the original draft of the script, Soran SHOOTS KIRK IN THE BACK and he dies in Picard's arms. In the revised version, he's killed by a fall. Again, a WRITER decided how Kirk died. It could just as easily been written that Kirk and Soran wrestle for control of the padd, and the missle blows them both up. Or Picard could have chosen to leave Kirk in the Nexus and deal with Soran himself.
We may not have a choice in how we die, but a fictional character certainly does.
Quote:
As has been said here before, Kirk died saving a planet full of people who have no idea they were ever in danger and had no idea who saved them - it showed him to be a true hero. Noble to the end.
Yes, right. Agreed. But that still doesn't mitigate the fact that Kirk's death was pointless and unnecessary. With the power of the Nexus, Picard could have stepped back at any point in time and stopped Soran, WITHOUT dragging Kirk back with him. Where exactly is the heroism in that?
Quote:
The whole Bring Back Kirk movement reminds me of a family that can't let go of a loved one. People die, and it's not always pretty. Deal with it
People die--yes, we know that. But again, as I say at the beginning, we're not talking about a real person or real life, but a fictional character.
I've used this analogy before, but it bears repeating. Arthur Conan Doyle was sick of writing Sherlock Holmes stories, and killed him off. Public clamor for new Holmes stories was so great, however, that he found a way to "resurrect" him. The desire by fans to "bring back Kirk" is NO different now than it was for those Holmes fans in 1897.
--------
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, cigar in one hand, favorite beverage in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming WOO HOO - What a Ride!"
-
Quote:
Why can't death be a happy ending?
Is that a serious question? The man was thrown off a bridge, splattered on a mountain, and died for no reason. That's not a happy ending. Kirk's final appearance needs to be simply riding off into the sunset. ST6 was the perfect ending. But Generations ruined it.
Oh my is not a happy ending. He was bleeding at the mouth, and delerious due to being crushed. That's a horrific ending. Add no funeral and no eulogy, and the fact that his death added NOTHING to the plot, and you can see why so many people were angry over it and remain upset to this day.
And if you want to see reality, go outside. Captain Kirk is not about dying. To show him dying in a horrible and meaningless way is not bold. It's a slap in the face to fans that followed the franchise for decades. It is so anti- what Star Trek is about, which is an optimistic viewpoint. Generations seemed to say that no matter what happens, you get screwed in the end. Terrible. There was nothing noble about Kirk's death. ANYONE could have done what Kirk did, which was essentially keep Soran busy while Picard stopped the launch. And what happens if Soran succeeds? Kirk and Picard go back to the nexus and try again, probably going back 15 minutes earlier and slapping the cuffs on him.
If you really think that Star Trek is about ending with death and that is a good thing, you really need to rethink.
Quote:
And as for your opinion that bringing him back for 2 episodes "makes Trek whole again" - how can even you believe this? If this report is true, and there's a huge question mark hanging over that anyway, he's going to be in TWO EPISODES. That's IT, and then Kirk's gone again. So what happens then? Does the Bring Back Kirk movement start clamouring for a new Captain Kirk movie? Or two? Or a new TV series?
You don't get it. It's not about re-centering the franchise on Kirk. It's about the character being out there--on to the next adventure. Whether we see it or not, at least the character is there. Two episodes is all that's needed. As long as they don't kill Kirk again, there would be no need for a further Kirk appearance.
Quote:
The whole Bring Back Kirk movement reminds me of a family that can't let go of a loved one. People die, and it's not always pretty. Deal with it.
If Kirk comes back, you can deal with it. Star Trek is always about possibilities, and fortunately the franchise exists in a universe. There are a LOT of fans that want to see this. The ratings will go up, and there will be a lot of goodwill for the franchise. Deal with it.
-
Quote:
Why can't death be a happy ending?
In the case of what was shown in GEN, it wasn't any of the sort at all.
Quote:
The one thing all human beings have in common is an eventual death. What did Kirk see to make him say "oh my.." at the end of Generations?
Nothing because Kirk became a cardboard cutout thanks to Moore and Braga.
Quote:
He went onto the next adventure, that's what. The true Final Frontier. I'm not a religious guy in the slightest, but I'd say that's a far more beautiful ending for Kirk than endless "Hey look! Kirk's back for yet another one-more-adventure!"
The issue of even broaching such a subject came from where? Why was it necessary to do ANY kind of "passing of the torch" film at all? Let alone kill off the main hero that started this franchise.
You just DO your film about TNG and if someone wanted a gimmick of Kirk there, then when you're done, allow him to go back to his own time and live out his life and go on those "next adventures", in the past.
There was NO NEED to do what they did in GEN except that Ron Moore made it so. And thus he is paying the price for it.
Quote:
Would I have preferred Kirk's final appearance in Trek to have been Star Trek 6? Yes, definately. However, Generations dared to do what no one thought possible - have Kirk die in a really disappointing way - BECAUSE THAT'S HOW A LOT OF HUMANS DIE.
But people miss the point regarding this fictional character and his larger than life persona that precluded ANY COMPARISON to "real life".
NONE of the episodes were REAL LIFE. That is NOT what these characters were SUPPOSED TO BE. They were created as mere tools to show fantastical settings that would help to flesh out Human motivations and drives. And it just so happened that one James T. Kirk was a very good tool to do such, representing a somewhat "swash-buckling" everyman who had just enough flaws to be "Human".
Quote:
How many human beings die in car accidents/plane crashes and various other completely futile ways? Kirk simply succumbed to death, like all other human beings. As has been said here before, Kirk died saving a planet full of people who have no idea they were ever in danger and had no idea who saved them - it showed him to be a true hero. Noble to the end.
On the contrary, it was enoble because he did NOTHING that Picard couldn't have done on his own.
Quote:
Bringing him back on Enterprise ruins it. Completely.
No, Ron D. Moore and Brannon Braga's treatment of it ruined it COMPLETELY, with their incompetence.
You don't put a man in charge who comes into the Star Trek franchise saying he hated Star Trek. But that is exactly what they did.
Bringing him back puts him in some era where he goes off like a good little fictional character that he is, to do his do offscreen.
Quote:
Kirk's Star Trek was always about "the human adventure" - an adventure that ALWAYS ends with death.
And what source within ANYTHING that resembled Star Trek, did you get THAT from?
In the Star Trek universe, certainly Spock came back to life in TSFS. Scotty came back to life in TOS "The Changeling", Sisko is apparently NOT DEAD, despite going over the cliff with the Pah-Wraith infested Dukat in DS9 "What You Leave Behind... I & II", neither Janeway (in VOY "Coda") nor Neelix (in VOY "Mortal Coil") are "dead".
So what you just wrote is NOT borne out from ANYTHING that has been presented in the canon of this show. Because THAT show TELLS US that in many cases, death is NOT the end of the Human Adventure and that not only can the Human spirit allow one to cheat death, factors that are irreligious may in fact make one immortal.
If every day, the Human sat around bemoaning the fact that one day, when he walks out the door, he may die, then he may never go out the door.
Humans aren't fixated on death and how "good" one's death might be. They fixate on life, which allows them to do extraordinary things that one might not even consider doing or would be afraid to do because they might die.
Quote:
And as for your opinion that bringing him back for 2 episodes "makes Trek whole again" - how can even you believe this? If this report is true, and there's a huge question mark hanging over that anyway, he's going to be in TWO EPISODES. That's IT, and then Kirk's gone again. So what happens then? Does the Bring Back Kirk movement start clamouring for a new Captain Kirk movie? Or two? Or a new TV series?
That doesn't have to happen. What it DOES do, for the sake of the cash cow called the Star Trek franchise, is open up a whole new realm of story-telling with this character, via the novels, whereever and in whatever era he ends up in.
Quote:
The whole Bring Back Kirk movement reminds me of a family that can't let go of a loved one. People die, and it's not always pretty. Deal with it.
Well you need to "deal with" the fact that the very post in the forum that generated THIS news item, has well over 2000 views as of my posting here, something not that common for the average thread at all. Meaning that there is interest out in the fandom about this character and his ultimate disposition.
--------
"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701
-
Quote:
Why can't death be a happy ending?
In the case of what was shown in GEN, it wasn't any of the sort at all.
Why? Because he fell off a bridge? As I said, human beings die in unfortunate ways sometime. Why would Kirk be any different?
Quote:
The one thing all human beings have in common is an eventual death. What did Kirk see to make him say "oh my.." at the end of Generations?
Nothing because Kirk became a cardboard cutout thanks to Moore and Braga.
Or perhaps you could just use your imagination. It's fairly obvious if you just watch the film that at that moment, Kirk focuses on something that we aren't shown, and then dies. If Moore & Braga didn't write him to do that, at least Shatner knew enough to put it in there himself. It's a great moment.
Quote:
Kirk's Star Trek was always about "the human adventure" - an adventure that ALWAYS ends with death.
And what source within ANYTHING that resembled Star Trek, did you get THAT from?
Well, that'll be the end of Star Trek 1 (I think) that says "The Human Adventure is just beginning..". And Gene Roddenberry often described it as "The Human Adventure". And if you don't think "The Human Adventure" includes death, you must have some issues with it. Every human being dies. That's fact. So why can't it be explored?
Quote:
In the Star Trek universe, certainly Spock came back to life in TSFS. Scotty came back to life in TOS "The Changeling", Sisko is apparently NOT DEAD, despite going over the cliff with the Pah-Wraith infested Dukat in DS9 "What You Leave Behind... I & II", neither Janeway (in VOY "Coda") nor Neelix (in VOY "Mortal Coil") are "dead".
So what you just wrote is NOT borne out from ANYTHING that has been presented in the canon of this show. Because THAT show TELLS US that in many cases, death is NOT the end of the Human Adventure and that not only can the Human spirit allow one to cheat death, factors that are irreligious may in fact make one immortal.
People get saved from the clutches of death every day, but all it is is an extention of life. Just because its taken a lot for any character in Star Trek to FINALLY die, doesn't mean it can't ever happen, and it had to happen one day to lend credability to the series. People would die in these events, and it won't always be the unimportant people like the red-shirts.
I can't imagine anything in Star Trek saying that a human can become immortal. Point me to something that says otherwise.
Quote:
If every day, the Human sat around bemoaning the fact that one day, when he walks out the door, he may die, then he may never go out the door.
Humans aren't fixated on death and how "good" one's death might be. They fixate on life, which allows them to do extraordinary things that one might not even consider doing or would be afraid to do because they might die.
..did I say that? I specifically said "why can't death by a happy ending?". Just because humans (generally) aren't fixated on death, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Assuming Kirk is a real human being in the future, why can't he die in an accident? It makes him more human.
Quote:
And as for your opinion that bringing him back for 2 episodes "makes Trek whole again" - how can even you believe this? If this report is true, and there's a huge question mark hanging over that anyway, he's going to be in TWO EPISODES. That's IT, and then Kirk's gone again. So what happens then? Does the Bring Back Kirk movement start clamouring for a new Captain Kirk movie? Or two? Or a new TV series?
That doesn't have to happen. What it DOES do, for the sake of the cash cow called the Star Trek franchise, is open up a whole new realm of story-telling with this character, via the novels, whereever and in whatever era he ends up in.
So why even make it canon that his actually still alive when all you're expecting is more novels, which are already being made by Shatner himself? If Kirk does appear on Enterprise, all his previous books about Kirk's Return become completely negated. Is it worth that?
Quote:
The whole Bring Back Kirk movement reminds me of a family that can't let go of a loved one. People die, and it's not always pretty. Deal with it.
Well you need to "deal with" the fact that the very post in the forum that generated THIS news item, has well over 2000 views as of my posting here, something not that common for the average thread at all. Meaning that there is interest out in the fandom about this character and his ultimate disposition.
.. Obviously you don't understand my point, but from your reply that is really not that surprising.
I'll just continue hoping that this turns out to be rumour and rumour alone.
-
Quote:
Quote:In the case of what was shown in GEN, it wasn't any of the sort at all.
Why? Because he fell off a bridge? As I said, human beings die in unfortunate ways sometime. Why would Kirk be any different?
Because contrary to popular belief, James T. Kirk is not a real Human being. He is but a personification of one to be used for story-telling purposes.
And so like the Vulcans having been originally used as 3rd-party contrast commentary characters, a role that has subsequently been removed in ENT... ORIGINAL Star Trek story-telling devices, whether they be CHARACTERS ("Scotty", "Kirk") or "abilities" that these characters possess (eg., "telepathy", "mind melds"), have been systematically DESTROYED and ELIMINATED - one after another after another by THESE show-runners and writers.
Quote:
Quote:Nothing because Kirk became a cardboard cutout thanks to Moore and Braga.
Or perhaps you could just use your imagination.
What? And ignore the idiocy of what they put in the canon? Something that needs to be de-canonized?
Quote:
It's fairly obvious if you just watch the film that at that moment, Kirk focuses on something that we aren't shown, and then dies.
Obviously, there was a SCENE that had been written and FIMLED the first time around, a test audience saw it and rejected it, and they re-wrote the whole scene again to get the even CRAPPIER result we finally saw. And the question is - whether what was finalized was ever "tested".
And someone here had posted a link to another Trek website that had a copy of that deleted original "death" scene, which I and many others viewed.
Quote:
If Moore & Braga didn't write him to do that, at least Shatner knew enough to put it in there himself. It's a great moment.
It's a horrid moment, particularly if you ever had the opportunity to see the ORIGINAL scene that was written where Kirk was shot in the back.
However MY POINT has been this:
WHO REQUIRED THAT KIRK DIE AT ALL?
Was it Berman?
Was it Braga?
Was it Moore?
And from what I understand, it was Moore.
Why was this a criteria for a film?
Quote:
Quote:And what source within ANYTHING that resembled Star Trek, did you get THAT from?
Well, that'll be the end of Star Trek 1 (I think) that says "The Human Adventure is just beginning..".
And that's not what I'm talking about. ;-)
Quote:
And Gene Roddenberry often described it as "The Human Adventure".
Ummm... yeah, but again, I'm not talking about that point. I'm talking about "death" bit. ;-)
Quote:
And if you don't think "The Human Adventure" includes death, you must have some issues with it. Every human being dies. That's fact. So why can't it be explored?
And let me ask you this - WHERE IN GEN was "death" explored? Seriously? WHERE?
In TVH, McCoy bemoans the fact that Spock refused to discuss what it was like to have "died" and been "resurrected" (where McCoy had carried around Spock's katra during the entire time of TSFS), UNLESS McCoy could do so from "a common frame of reference". Ie., McCoy would have had to have experienced a similar fate in order for both to be able relate to the subject.
So I ASK AGAIN - WHERE in GEN is death explored?
Quote:
People get saved from the clutches of death every day, but all it is is an extention of life. Just because its taken a lot for any character in Star Trek to FINALLY die, doesn't mean it can't ever happen, and it had to happen one day to lend credability to the series. People would die in these events, and it won't always be the unimportant people like the red-shirts.
Yet one of the MAIN POINTS of Star Trek is to EXPLORE these things.
So once more - WHERE in GEN is death explored?
Quote:
I can't imagine anything in Star Trek saying that a human can become immortal. Point me to something that says otherwise.
Watch TNG "Hide and Q" where Q gives Riker his power. Also the most obvious so-called "reality" example, since so many devotees of DS9 claim it's "real" - see the finale - DS9 "What We Leave Behind... I & II" as Sisko BECOMES A PROPHET, now supposedly dwelling in a place where time has no meaning and as the Borg might say DEATH is irrelevent.
See also any Wesley-Traveller episodes, from TNG "Where No One Has Gone Before" all the way through to TNG "Journey's End", where Wesley goes off with the Traveller, finally reappearing in NEM.
Also see one of the most popular TNG's that goes into the subject of LIFE AND DEATH, again using the Q plot device - TNG "Tapestry".
I don't know WHAT Star Trek you have been watching, but I have them all and the explorations of IMMORTALITY are there.
And in the case of TNG "Tapestry", which the self-same Ron Moore wrote, one wonders WHY this sort of thing hadn't been done with Kirk in GEN?
Because like his attitude towards the original BSG, he thought that TOS was campy, despite the crap about being a "fan". It's BULLSH*T.
Quote:
..did I say that? I specifically said "why can't death by a happy ending?".
And "I" said that what was shown in GEN was NOT such.
Quote:
Just because humans (generally) aren't fixated on death, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Assuming Kirk is a real human being in the future, why can't he die in an accident? It makes him more human.
But THAT IS JUST IT. Kirk is NOT a "real Human being".
It boggles my mind that so many posters here claim this universe is "fictional" in one breath, yet the characters are somehow "real" out of the other breath. 
Quote:
So why even make it canon that his actually still alive when all you're expecting is more novels, which are already being made by Shatner himself?
Because however this is crafted, the ENT episode could come any time AFTER his books (with Archer being moved around) or Kirk could be resurrected offscreen per the books, and end up back in the ENT timeframe BEFORE the time of GEN or any variety of permutations that keep the books intact.
Quote:
If Kirk does appear on Enterprise, all his previous books about Kirk's Return become completely negated.
Ummmm why?
Quote:
Is it worth that?
Again, why are you assuming that? You're assuming that whatever happens in ENT would be THAT era's folks who "resurrect" him.
No one knows HOW he comes back as yet. It all depends on how they do it. And if Shatner and the Reeves-Stevens are involved, they may well write Kirk's APPEARANCE on ENT completely around the books, leaving their events intact. Especially since his books take place in the future of ENT.
Quote:
Well you need to "deal with" the fact that the very post in the forum that generated THIS news item, has well over 2000 views as of my posting here, something not that common for the average thread at all. Meaning that there is interest out in the fandom about this character and his ultimate disposition.
.. Obviously you don't understand my point,
Nor do you understand mine.
Quote:
but from your reply that is really not that surprising.
Nor has your response been very surprising at all.
Quote:
I'll just continue hoping that this turns out to be rumour and rumour alone.
The RECENT meetings between Shatner and Berman have been posted about and mentioned in interviews BEFORE, including in mainstream media outlets, so this is NOTHING new.
--------
"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701
-
Death is a major theme in Generations.
I didn't say Generations was the best Trek movie, and certainly death has been "explored" far better than we see in GEN in other movies.
Also, characters should have some kind of reality to them otherwise they're pointless charicatures. Humans die, so why can't Kirk? It seems all anyone wants is for Kirk to just always be alive and never be allowed to die.
This whole "resurrecting Kirk" thing is very depressing to me. They're going to take a character I've loved for as long as I've been alive and piss all over it. Oh well, I guess it goes in the "non-canon Trek" pile that Voyager and Enterprise are in for me. No big deal. Enjoy it.
-
Quote:
Death is a major theme in Generations.
Really? Where is "death" a "major theme"?
And I say this because of the out-of-nowhere insertion of a couple "deaths" of Picard's family as a lousy plot device, which was NEVER explored by Picard other than his brief beweeping to Troi, all in order to make him ripe for supposedly wanting to stay in the Nexus.
Yet once IN the Nexus, he was too easily permitted to want to leave it, which reduces the entire thing to nothingness.
Quote:
I didn't say Generations was the best Trek movie, and certainly death has been "explored" far better than we see in GEN in other movies.
And since "death" was what they had planned all along with Kirk, then THAT should have been a major theme. But it wasn't.
Quote:
Also, characters should have some kind of reality to them otherwise they're pointless charicatures. Humans die, so why can't Kirk? It seems all anyone wants is for Kirk to just always be alive and never be allowed to die.
But now you are making an assumption that no one else has... Ie., you TOTALLY RULE OUT that Kirk could just assumed have died of OLD AGE just like many "real" Humans do.
Wow. Imagine that.
What is wrong with THAT option? Certainly he almost "died of old age" in TOS "The Deadly Years", yet ANOTHER treatment of mortality and what might lead to it, etc.
Quote:
This whole "resurrecting Kirk" thing is very depressing to me. They're going to take a character I've loved for as long as I've been alive and piss all over it.
A LARGE group of fans believe that he was ALREADY "PISSED ALL OVER" and "SH*T ON" AS WELL, THANKS to GEN.
Quote:
Oh well, I guess it goes in the "non-canon Trek" pile that Voyager and Enterprise are in for me. No big deal.
As far as many of us are concerned, GEN WAS non-canon to begin with, EXPLICTLY inserting Guinan back into Kirk's time to be known as an El-Aurian (rather than when she was "undercover" in the 1800s on Earth) and thus moving the knowledge of the EXISTENCE OF THE BORG, BACK THAT FAR into the 23rd century BECAUSE OF those El-Aurian refugees... and other such nonsense.
GEN basically makes the 24th century crew look like IDIOTS when they encounter the Borg in TNG "Q Who?" because guess what? Guinan and her people "met" the Federation in the 23rd century and were considered "refugees" and as such, and should have TOLD the Feds about WHY they were refugees (because of the danger).
And so now with GEN, the POWER and JEOPARDY and MEANING BEHIND TNG "Q Who?" was subsequently DESTROYED.
GEN was the BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE TREK FRANCHISE and I have written post after post after post about this on this BBS.
Quote:
Enjoy it.
I'll "enjoy it" ONLY when the CRAP of GEN is rectified.
--------
"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701
-
Whether you ultimately enjoyed GEN or not, it's difficult to escape the other poster's argument that the theme of GEN is dealing with death and loss. Picard must come to terms with the loss of his family line. We must come to terms with the loss of the ENT-D. Soran unhealthily refuses to come to terms with the loss of his family (and the comforts of the Nexus). Guinan reveals her pain of living without the Nexus. We have to lose Kirk. Data has trouble coping with his negative emotions, too.
Kirk didn't die for nothing, and it wasn't an unhappy death. While I felt that the reason for his death lacked an emotional "punch" because we have no emotional connection to the people in the Veridian system that he died to save, one must concede that he gave his life to save an entire planet. Also, while dying and pain was no picnic, the "It was fun" comment was meant to convey that Kirk died doing what he loved doing---risking his life for justice and good causes. He was a hero.
Death was explored in GEN----a better word for it would be "loss." How we DEAL with the death of others---not what it's like to die ourselves. Picard's resolution that time is what defines us, and we need to cherish what we have while we have it is the theme. And looking to what is left that is good. Whether you LIKED it or not (I'm not saying it was a perfect film), this is undoubtedly the theme the writers ATTEMPTED to convey. Whether they succeeded is a matter of opinion and cause for debate.
As for de-canonizing GEN...that'll never happen. There will never be some sort of press release from Paramount saying that movie should be considered never to have occurred.
There are many sci-fi plot devices available to the writers to have a short adventure for Kirk with Archer. I'm excited to see what they come up with. I thought Unification was great.
--------
Click here to check out my band, ego tree , and the Ego Tree site at myspace. Listen to/buy the CD for $9.99! ALSO AVAILABLE ON iTUNES!!
-
Quote:
Whether you ultimately enjoyed GEN or not, it's difficult to escape the other poster's argument that the theme of GEN is dealing with death and loss. Picard must come to terms with the loss of his family line.
But he never does. That plot line is dropped after the Amargosa star explodes.
Quote:
We must come to terms with the loss of the ENT-D.
But the crew doesn't. We're not in the movie. Most folks could care less about the Enterprise-D. Frankly, I don't care that much about it. I care more about the USS Enterprise CVN-65, because it has real people aboard her right now (and because I'm only 15 miles from her at this point). I care more about that ship because it's real. And since when did movie producers really care about what the fans feel anyway?
Quote:
Soran unhealthily refuses to come to terms with the loss of his family (and the comforts of the Nexus).
It was a throwaway line by Dr. Crusher just to get Gates McFadden some screen time. Yes, it was discussed in the novelization, which technically is not canon. And, to him, it was not "unhealthy." That sense of "loss" you refer to never came through in Soran.
Quote:
Guinan reveals her pain of living without the Nexus.
Which she says she learned to deal with. Story over.
Quote:
We have to lose Kirk.
Again, we are not in the movie. And if you look at the movie objectively, using the criteria you mention, nobody lost Kirk. There was nobody for him in the 24th Century, and Antonia was in the Nexus and not real. Kirk died because Moore, Braga and Berman wanted to kill him, pure and simple.
Quote:
Data has trouble coping with his negative emotions, too.
And this involves loss how? He actually gained something, which was an understanding of how difficult human emotions could be.
Quote:
Kirk didn't die for nothing, and it wasn't an unhappy death. While I felt that the reason for his death lacked an emotional "punch" because we have no emotional connection to the people in the Veridian system that he died to save, one must concede that he gave his life to save an entire planet. Also, while dying and pain was no picnic, the "It was fun" comment was meant to convey that Kirk died doing what he loved doing---risking his life for justice and good causes. He was a hero.
He didn't die a hero's death, and he didn't die for "something." As stated above, the character was killed because TPTB didn't like him. But you're right about one thing...there was no emotional "punch" to his death because it was meaningless! The "It was fun" comment was another throwaway line, meant to appease the fans of the original series.
Quote:
Death was explored in GEN----a better word for it would be "loss." How we DEAL with the death of others---not what it's like to die ourselves. Picard's resolution that time is what defines us, and we need to cherish what we have while we have it is the theme.
No, the "theme" was "passing the torch" from one generation to another. Otherwise, why the title? The "time" device was simply meant to tie everything together, and it didn't really become a device until sometime after the discovery of the Amargosa observatory.
Quote:
And looking to what is left that is good. Whether you LIKED it or not (I'm not saying it was a perfect film), this is undoubtedly the theme the writers ATTEMPTED to convey. Whether they succeeded is a matter of opinion and cause for debate.
And my opinion is that the writers, if they indeed attempted to convey those themes, failed miserably.
Quote:
As for de-canonizing GEN...that'll never happen. There will never be some sort of press release from Paramount saying that movie should be considered never to have occurred.
That didn't happen with TFF, either, but Roddenberry himself disliked it so much he declared that it should be considered "apocryphal." That, in one bold stroke, rendered TFF non-canon. It wouldn't take much for someone involved with the movie to do the same thing. Paramount doesn't have to issue a press release or anything like that...they don't care one way or the other.
Quote:
There are many sci-fi plot devices available to the writers to have a short adventure for Kirk with Archer. I'm excited to see what they come up with. I thought Unification was great.
"Unification" lacked a true reason for Spock and Picard to join together. Sela was nothing more than a throwaway villain, and frankly, the episode itself could have been much better. The death of Sarek was unnecessary.
--------
A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Robert Heinlein
PCLinuxOS
falcon
-
Quote:
Whether you ultimately enjoyed GEN or not, it's difficult to escape the other poster's argument that the theme of GEN is dealing with death and loss.
And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question as to WHERE IN GEN is the issue of DEATH explored.
Quote:
Picard must come to terms with the loss of his family line.
And WHERE is he SHOWN "com(ing) to terms with the loss of his family line"?
Seriously. He sits with Troi bemoaning his nephew - a photo of which looks nothing like the original little actor who played Rene in TNG "Family"... An episode that DID deal with "death" - ie., the GUILT that Picard had with the DEATHS of all those crew who perished at the Battle of Wolf 359, an ATROCITY that HE lead, unable to control his own actions.
Quote:
We must come to terms with the loss of the ENT-D.
Yet there was NOTHING in GEN as powerful as that when McCoy and Kirk exchanged words when the 1701 was destroyed in TSFS, where Kirk cries out:
"My God Bones, what have I done?"
And where McCoy responds:
"What you had to do. What you always do. Turned death into a fighting chance to live."
Now YOU show me ANYWHERE in GEN where you have THAT kind of conversation - let alone this dealing with the loss of a ship.
Quote:
Soran unhealthily refuses to come to terms with the loss of his family (and the comforts of the Nexus).
Nimoy has been quoted in interviews about GEN and I agree with his comment about Soran being someone "who we don't care much about". And we don't.
Despite dialog that describes his BORG troubles, which again, makes the 24th century crew look like IDIOTS, because the 23rd century Federation should have KNOWN about the Borg because they picked up El-Aurian refugees who had been made HOMELESS because of the Borg. And thus Soran is NOT a sympathetic character.
They essentially de-mystified the entire El-Aurian persona that had been put forth by Guinan, by how they wrote Soran... To the point where idiotic dialog was assigned to Soran when he was about to torture Geordi, almost as an aside, about how the El-Aurians were "a race of listeners" - literally spouting off a species archetype definition, rather than have Soran SHOW the audience what was meant by that.
It's all CRAP.
Quote:
Guinan reveals her pain of living without the Nexus.
But this has NOTHING to do with DEATH.
Quote:
We have to lose Kirk. Data has trouble coping with his negative emotions, too.
No you DON'T "have to lose Kirk". And Data's "emotions" subplot was TRULY TRULY grating. Every friggin' time I watch that scene of him at the Amagosa Observatory with Geordi, I cringe.
The film was SHALLOW. As SHALLOW as can be.
Quote:
Kirk didn't die for nothing, and it wasn't an unhappy death.
The character (and the actor who played him), had contributed almost 30 years to the franchise, with 2 series (including TAS) and 6 films prior to this. And what was done was a disgrace. Particularly in light of what the character had been quoted as having poignantly said about what would happen upon his death in TFF.
Quote:
While I felt that the reason for his death lacked an emotional "punch" because we have no emotional connection to the people in the Veridian system that he died to save, one must concede that he gave his life to save an entire planet.
Yet people refuse to look at BETTER Trek treatments of the subject that THIS film can't do.
If you want to see a film deal with "death" and "loss", go back and rewatch "Star Trek III:The Search for Spock".
The whole GEN thing was a GIMMICK.
Quote:
Also, while dying and pain was no picnic, the "It was fun" comment was meant to convey that Kirk died doing what he loved doing---risking his life for justice and good causes.
THAT is SHALLOW. And it CERTAINLY ISN'T Kirk.
One need only look at TFF, the film that fans love to hate, to see what Kirk WAS (from the Shatner point of view).
Quote:
He was a hero.
But NOT in THAT film. He was shown as a bumbling IDIOT. Racing around a kitchen cooking Ktaran eggs for some babe offcamera while Picard stands there huffing and puffing at him impatiently.
No. The DISGRACE OF GEN MUST BE RECTIFIED.
Quote:
Death was explored in GEN----a better word for it would be "loss."
Um no, "loss" can be me having lost my bracelet. Who cares?
"LOSS" and "DEATH" was explored in films like TSFS.
Quote:
How we DEAL with the death of others---not what it's like to die ourselves.
And AGAIN, NONE of that was shown in GEN.
Quote:
Picard's resolution that time is what defines us, and we need to cherish what we have while we have it is the theme.
THAT is not what was shown. What was shown of Picard in the Nexus, was TOTALLY the antithesis of WHO HE WAS and HOW he kept his surroundings. And the Nexus scene was supposed to be Picard's PARADISE. Yet the setting made absolutely NO sense whatsoever in terms of character consistency and how the character had been previously shown in TNG.
Quote:
And looking to what is left that is good. Whether you LIKED it or not (I'm not saying it was a perfect film), this is undoubtedly the theme the writers ATTEMPTED to convey.
Methinks you see things that aren't there.
Quote:
Whether they succeeded is a matter of opinion and cause for debate.
Which is why I am pointing out things based on how these characters were shown previously and how more substantive the subject was dealt with in other Trek.
Quote:
As for de-canonizing GEN...that'll never happen.
It HAS happened as many fans have tuned out from B & B Trek.
Quote:
There will never be some sort of press release from Paramount saying that movie should be considered never to have occurred.
Since they are in the habit of playing fast and loose with canon, any FUTURE show can easily claim that the events of GEN "never happened" because of the "CHANGE IN THE TIMELINE DUE TO FC".
Imagine that.
Yes, let's do that, shall we? GEN didn't happen because of FC. ;-)
Quote:
There are many sci-fi plot devices available to the writers to have a short adventure for Kirk with Archer. I'm excited to see what they come up with. I thought Unification was great.
Well we'll see.
--------
"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701
-
Wow. Another insightful "nuh-uh" reply from Jadzia. Thrilling. You know, from the way you reply, it appears that you don't bother reading an entire post before replying. You simply hit reply and start saying "nuh-uh" to every sentence AS you read it for the first time. That's why your posts are so long. You go on about "WHERE do they discuss coming to terms with death and loss in GENERATIONS??"...and I cited many examples. I didn't stick up for the movie or say it was perfect. Do I prefer ST2 and 3? Yes.
It's totally not worth debating anything with you. You SAY you're here to discuss things...but you're not. Not really. You don't have an open mind about anything, and you don't really listen to an argument before you start responding to it.
Thanks for wasting more of my time. Notice how many posters leap to your defense?
--------
Click here to check out my band, ego tree , and the Ego Tree site at myspace. Listen to/buy the CD for $9.99! ALSO AVAILABLE ON iTUNES!!
-
Quote:
Wow. Another insightful "nuh-uh" reply from Jadzia. Thrilling.
What's wrong Terry? Just debate the subject or be done with this thread.
Quote:
You know, from the way you reply, it appears that you don't bother reading an entire post before replying.
On the contrary, the fact that I quote every single thing that you wrote and respond to each section of it says otherwise.
However it's obvious that you are in fact the one not reading.
Quote:
You simply hit reply and start saying "nuh-uh" to every sentence AS you read it for the first time.
Case in point about your not reading. ;-)
Quote:
That's why your posts are so long.
Really? Does what you just wrote make any sense? Of course not. If I did like you, with sound-bite comments with nothing to back them up, then my posts would be as sound-bitish as yours.
You skip over my references to support what I write but I shouldn't be surprised. ;-)
Quote:
You go on about "WHERE do they discuss coming to terms with death and loss in GENERATIONS??"...and I cited many examples.
You didn't cite a damn thing that I didn't counter. I actually gave you descriptions of scenes out of GEN to contrast with descriptions of BETTER scenes from other Trek that actually deal with the themes in a substantial way. But you don't want to see it.
Quote:
I didn't stick up for the movie or say it was perfect. Do I prefer ST2 and 3? Yes.
I didn't say you DID and I personally don't care.
But I DO care how the movie portrayed this character and it is quite dramatic when you compare how he was shown in GEN, with how he was shown in the previous 6 films.
Quote:
It's totally not worth debating anything with you.
Of course it isn't when you're lazy.
Quote:
You SAY you're here to discuss things...but you're not. Not really. You don't have an open mind about anything, and you don't really listen to an argument before you start responding to it.
On the contrary, by having the background of this franchise as I do, I've been there done that with the arguments and even USE arguments that I have picked up over the past 15 years or so. This may be "new" to you but certainly not to me.
Quote:
Thanks for wasting more of my time. Notice how many posters leap to your defense?
No - I'm afraid that you wasted MY time by even bothering to reply to my message. I have plenty of meaningful discussions with OTHER posters here and I'm afraid that you just don't pass muster. ;-)
You claim you are a lawyer? I wonder.
--------
"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701
-
Quote:
Wow. Another insightful "nuh-uh" reply from Jadzia. Thrilling.
Well, you joined in the discussion between her and DevlinC and didn't really contribute much.
Quote:
You know, from the way you reply, it appears that you don't bother reading an entire post before replying. You simply hit reply and start saying "nuh-uh" to every sentence AS you read it for the first time. That's why your posts are so long.
And you still haven't addressed her point.
Quote:
You go on about "WHERE do they discuss coming to terms with death and loss in GENERATIONS??"...and I cited many examples. I didn't stick up for the movie or say it was perfect. Do I prefer ST2 and 3? Yes.
Those weren't examples of fact. They were presented as personal opinions. The only "theme" present in ST:G was "passing the torch," because Berman, Moore and Braga were adamant that Star Trek be erased from everyone's memory and TNG replace it as the Star Trek that everyone loved. You've no doubt read Braga's quote about having hated Star Trek when he was in film school. That was the main reason why Kirk was killed.
Quote:
It's totally not worth debating anything with you. You SAY you're here to discuss things...but you're not. Not really. You don't have an open mind about anything, and you don't really listen to an argument before you start responding to it.
I don't sense "debate" here, I sense "argument." The two are different. One can disagree without getting personal. And in my experience, a personal attack means the attacker doesn't have the facts to back up his argument (sorry, "debate").
Quote:
Thanks for wasting more of my time. Notice how many posters leap to your defense?
Consider me leapt. And if you don't want to waste your time, don't post. But don't jump into someone else's discussion and then trash someone because they don't agree with you. Grow up.
--------
A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Robert Heinlein
PCLinuxOS
falcon
-
My hero! 
(tries to make sure falcon's wife doesn't see... 
)
--------
"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701
-
I think with the Reeves-Stevens, Coto and Sussman involved they, along with Shatner, will come up with something worthy of the character.
We don't see the final fate of a lot of great fictional characters, I think there is a lot to be said for letting some of them ride off into the sunset.
Shatner is still active, I would love to see him play Kirk again.
I was wondering how long it would take for a News item here that would say in essence:
"Slashdot reported that TrekToday reported that our BBS reported that... "
considering that all sorts of sci fi-focus sites are pointing back here. LOL
(personally, I think it's a done deal and is a matter of dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s and trying to time the promotional releases over a specific range of months and/or over a longer period of time so it doesn't overshadow the other guest stars scheduled on the show during the fall. ;-))
--------
"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701
-
There's really not too much to comment on, other than we do have reason to believe this thing really exists. But that doesn't mean a deal is signed. It means we have something NEW to speculate about. Is this a survey on whether or not to do it? Or is it a survey on how to advertise it? All it really shows is that they are fairly serious about doing it--but we knew that.
-
Quote:
There's really not too much to comment on, other than we do have reason to believe this thing really exists. But that doesn't mean a deal is signed. It means we have something NEW to speculate about. Is this a survey on whether or not to do it? Or is it a survey on how to advertise it? All it really shows is that they are fairly serious about doing it--but we knew that.
Since it was done at a CBS facility, I really really don't think they would put anything like that out there unless it was all but a done deal. Particularly since they already had Spiner signed as a done deal publicly and could have put THAT fact in a commercial instead.
--------
"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701
-
Quote:
Since it was done at a CBS facility, I really really don't think they would put anything like that out there unless it was all but a done deal. Particularly since they already had Spiner signed as a done deal publicly and could have put THAT fact in a commercial instead.
That is a great point about Spiner. It seems that with discussions already taking place with Shatner, it is late in the day to be doing research on whether or not to bring him back. The mention of Kirk is great news, as long as we don't start hearing about parallel tests for ads for "William Shatner returns to the Star Trek Universe - as Chef!" ;) I guess they could be deciding how much money it is worth spending, I hope it is more certain than that.
I think we will see Shatner return as Kirk on Friday, February 4 and 11, 2005 the first two Fridays of February sweeps. If it happens it will be done during sweeps. November sweeps is too full and too soon, May is too late in the season to take advantage of the new potential audience.
Of course if the guy who scheduled Nemesis is in charge, it will run on Friday, May 20, 2005 - the day after Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is released!
-
Quote:
That is a great point about Spiner. It seems that with discussions already taking place with Shatner, it is late in the day to be doing research on whether or not to bring him back.
Right... And not only that, the fact that the "discussions" between Shatner and Berman had already been reported in such fare as the NY Post, where the Starr Report article claimed one of the final "hang ups" of bringing Shatner on was whether ABC would allow Shatner time off of his upcoming series with them, to do such an ENT stint.
Quote:
The mention of Kirk is great news, as long as we don't start hearing about parallel tests for ads for "William Shatner returns to the Star Trek Universe - as Chef!" ;)
Exactly.
Quote:
I guess they could be deciding how much money it is worth spending, I hope it is more certain than that.
And considering that they have brought in the Reeves-Stevens, at least something plausible is possible now, IF it isn't hacked apart from "above".
Quote:
I think we will see Shatner return as Kirk on Friday, February 4 and 11, 2005 the first two Fridays of February sweeps. If it happens it will be done during sweeps.
I believe that too.
Quote:
November sweeps is too full and too soon,
AND Spiner's 3 episodes will air during that time - at least the last 2 parts of it, with the first part supposedly due a week before November sweeps begin.... UNLESS they throw a repeat in there in the last week of October. Ie., Spiner's eps were originally numbered as "4, 5, 6".
Quote:
May is too late in the season to take advantage of the new potential audience.
Correct.
Quote:
Of course if the guy who scheduled Nemesis is in charge, it will run on Friday, May 20, 2005 - the day after Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is released!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
--------
"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701
I'm surprised no one has commented anything on this yet!
(1)
| 
