Shatner, Lindelof and Braga Engage In Epic Twitter Exchange |
jump to navigation

Shatner, Lindelof and Braga Engage In Epic Twitter Exchange April 26, 2013

by Staff , Filed under: Celebrity,Web , trackback

On Thursday three Star Trek luminaries got into a funny (but pointed) exchange on Twitter. It all started with a belated Birthday wish from William Shatner to Damon Lindelof, then Brannon Braga jumped in and well you have to see it for yourself below.



Shatner, Lindelof and Braga Twitter Exchange

On Thursday Star Trek’s original Kirk William Shatner decided to give new Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof a belated birthday wish on Twitter, but he also threw in a bit of a jab about his quest to get into the JJverse.


@damonlindelofI heard it was your bday yesterday. I would have made a fuss but you didn’t put me in your movie…TWICE!#yesiholdgrudges

Lindelof then replied with the following tweets…


@WilliamShatner Bill, I am both wildly geeking out that you acknowledged my bday and wildly geeking out that you hold a grudge against me.


@williamshatner You know what else holds a grudge?The time/space continuum.Kirk fell off a cliff and died.#WhyWouldGodNeedAStarship


@WilliamShatner All that said, I only get to play in this universe because of YOU. And I am profoundly grateful for that. #sincere


@WilliamShatner Also, I’m getting a T-Shirt made that says —
"Shatner Has A Grudge Against Me So Why The Fuck Should I Care What YOU Say?"

It then seemingly ended with this exchange


@DamonLindelof So then we’re good? ;-)


@WilliamShatner We are BEYOND good. We are, in fact, where no good has gone before. #HolyShitBillShatnerTweetedAWinkyFaceAtMe

However, by that time veteran Star Trek writer/producer Brannon Braga was also weighing in (on the death of Kirk in Star Trek Generations which Lindelof had referred to earlier), launching another exchange…


@DamonLindelof @WilliamShatner

Sigh. We all make mistakes…


@WilliamShatner @BrannonBraga Somehow, this keeps getting better.


@BrannonBraga @damonlindelof Ahhh Brannon and Damon two of the most despised in the Kirk Universe! All we need is Orci to complete trifecta!


@DamonLindelof @WilliamShatner It was a script typo. We accidentally wrote: Killed by ‘Bridge on Kirk’ instead of ‘Kirk on the Bridge.’

That seemed to be the end of it, but a few hours later Shatner offered this.


I abandoned you all just as soon as things got interesting on here but we finally addressed the Kirk issue on the perfect date, no less!


Thanks to Jason


1. toasteroven - April 26, 2013

Technically… Kirk was under the bridge when he died. But we was on it just before.

2. nscates - April 26, 2013

Hmm… I’m not sure I understand Bill’s reference to ‘the perfect date’. Sounds like everybody’s pretty cheerful about it all though…

3. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

Kirks death is totally underrated. I actually liked it. He dies in a very heroic way, by saving millions. The only bad thing is that we actually never see those people he is saving, and we do not care about them. They could have fixed that, but that would have been a totally different movie then.
They made the most of the death the flawed Generations-script could offer. They actually improved it. Dying by a bullet in the back would have been muc worse.
The falling of the bridge was way better. And as many haters always wrongly point out, it was not like a happy accident, that he fell from the bridge. He knew, that going back to the doomed bridge would actually result his death. So it was no accident, but a sacrifice.
Deal with it, the death was quite decent.

4. peb - April 26, 2013

^^ you…you liked it? whaaat?

5. Coastie Trekker - April 26, 2013

I agree I liked that we got to see Capt. Kirk on last time on the big screen making a difference I mean TNG was 80 years after his ship we wouldn’t have wanted to see him an Ancient admiral like McCoy, and they couldn’t have two legendary Captains fighting for the big chair on the Enterprise E. He got to die saving lots of lives and saving the Enterprise B. Made me sad back then but now it’s just part of history as far as Star Trek (2009) that scene they wrote would have been AWESOME but in the big picture kinda unnecessary .

6. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013


” ^^ you…you liked it? whaaat?”

He actually dies 2 times in a heroic way. How much more do you want?

7. Nick - April 26, 2013

I think Mr Shatner wrote Kirk back into life in his excellent series of books.

We just need to get that established as canon fact somehow.

Love this!

8. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013


Those books are just fan-service. Let him rest in peace.

9. Dave H - April 26, 2013

Shatner is being disingenuous here. Obviously that death scene was lame, and we all know now that he and Malcom McDowell both felt that way at the time. They should have made a fuss over it and demanded for the writers to come up with a different approach to Kirk’s death.

I am not a big Bragga fan, but I don’t like Shat essentially throwing Bragga under the bus and taking no responsibility for it himself. He had no problem cashing the check for that lame Kirk death scene.

10. Legate Damar - April 26, 2013

I actually liked Generations. It was far from the best Star Trek movie, but it certainly wasn’t bad. Both of Kirk’s deaths were well done. That doesn’t mean they can never bring Shatner back though. They just have to make him an older version of Chris Pine’s Kirk.

11. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

Let me correct my previous statement. I still like the death, but hated the funeral. Burried under a few rocks of an uninhabited world. As Mr Plinkett from RedLetterMedia pointed out, the wolves are probably gonna have a nice meal. Gross.
But despite that, i liked the death.

12. NCC-73515 - April 26, 2013

Remember this. If Kirk would have failed, Soran would have destoyed the Veridian system including the D and her crew. Then the E with the same crew would not have been in the temporal vortex following the Borg sphere, and the Borg would have successfully assimilated 2063 Earth. No Starfleet, no Federation. All that, the entire future of the Federation, was saved by Kirk’s sacrifice.

13. Commodore Adams - April 26, 2013

Lol that was amazing.

@ Exverlobter well he does save the enterprise crew as well.

It pisses me off that they killed Kirk, but it would have been more acceptable if Picard didn’t leave the body on that planet. it’s James fuck!ng Kirk thought dead ages ago instead trapped in temporal nexus, you get him out, helps save millions in his last heroic effort before taking his last breath and you leave his body on the planet rather than the heroes burial back on Earth. That is f@ucked up.

14. Factchecker - April 26, 2013

When I made Star Trek II, I thought Spock was dead. And I think everybody making the movie thought he was dead, when he was dying in his big scene with Kirk, there were people standing around the sound stage in tears. It was very final to us. It was too final to me…to come back and bring him back. Resurrections are beyond my…..they’re out of my bailiwick. So I didn’t.

– Nick Meyer (on why he didn’t direct Star Trek III)

15. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

@ 10

Yes, 50% of Kirk is still in the Nexus.
If Abrams wants he can bring him back for the third film. I guess the Nexus also exists in the alternative timeline.

16. Dru - April 26, 2013

This is all just so geekfully juicy!

17. Dave H - April 26, 2013

Kirk’s mastery in Trek battles was always tricking his opponent into letting his guard down. Please don’t tell me that they couldn’t have come up with a scene, on the planet surface, where Kirk gets Soran to let his guard down, and then Picard destroys that missile while Kirk and Soran each exchange mortal phaser blasts.

See how easy this scene was to come up with!


18. Curious Cadet - April 26, 2013

@16. Dave H,
“Please don’t tell me that they couldn’t have come up with a scene, on the planet surface”

Moreover, it occurs to me now that they never really made a good connection between Soran and Kirk. Kirk ended up in the Nexus as a direct result of Soran’s attempt to get there. Yet there was never a feeling that Kirk was pissed off about that, and that would have also upped the stakes for Kirk as he sought to shut down Soran.

@13. Factchecker,
“Resurrections are beyond my…..they’re out of my bailiwick.”

Well at least there’s one Star Trek director willing to admit this was a bad idea.

No wonder Abrams and Nimoy get along so well.

Doesn’t matter what the movie is about, bringing people back to life never feels quite right. It just kind of feels kind of like the Changling.which became TMP. Yikes — you would have thought eh would have learned their lesson by now …

19. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 26, 2013

Shat’s Kirk gave his proverbial life to stop what has happened to Trek today.


20. Thomas - April 26, 2013

I wish Shatner could be gracious about this. I mean, I can understand his desire to be a part of the new movies, but they’re not beholden to him. It’s not the job of Bad Robot to correct the poor decisions of the previous creators.

Besides, I’ve tried to read the Shatnerverse novels; I couldn’t finish the first one. I don’t think I got a quarter of the way into it.

21. The Keeper - April 26, 2013

Yawn….slow news day huh?

22. Punkspocker - April 26, 2013

What is the “perfect date” Shat speaks of?

23. Dave H - April 26, 2013

#18. You got it all wrong, which “makes we wonder” if you are smoking crack or something? :-)

He gave his life so that we could have a series of really bad NG movies, First Contact excepted. Insurrection and Nemisis — that is what he gave his life for. LOL

24. marty - April 26, 2013

every party involved could make this better if they went and used the alternate ending to generations, and threw in Q.. just saying.

25. Dave H - April 26, 2013

@21 “What is the “perfect date” Shat speaks of?”

Pamela Anderson and a bottle of Viagra?

26. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 26, 2013

Long Live the Shat!!!!!!

27. Shannon Nutt - April 26, 2013

That “Bridge on the Captain” joke is Shatner’s…he’s used it as far back as the release of GENERATIONS. Further proof that Braga can’t come up with original. :)

28. kmart - April 26, 2013

Kirk’s death carried zero emotional content (unless you count my embarrassment at how badly Shatner played it … you’ve just been CRUSHED BY A BRIDGE … you’re not going to Disneyland … and you can not just still talk, but make normal facial expressions? Try doing any of that while you have just a routine GALLSTONE ATTACK!!!!!)

I think it was about as engaging as when Jeddah got phasered by Terrell in TWOK, if you even remember that.

But this was KIRK! How could they have screwed it up So SO badly?

29. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

You have to admit “Bridge on the Captain” is way better than Bullet in the back.

30. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

Maybe the BOBW theater presentation?

31. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#27. kmart – April 26, 2013

Not to mention a simple thing called having the wind knocked out of you.

32. Sil - April 26, 2013

@2. nscates

About the “perfect date”:

33. Keachick - April 26, 2013

Damon Lindelof was born on 24 April 1973, which makes it his big 4-0 birthday.

Happy Birthday, Damon Lindelof. Have a wonderful new year and many more as well… Love those gorgeous brown eyes, btw.

Oh and very cool tweets…LOL

34. Tom - April 26, 2013

Bob Orci nailed it with the Shatner scene. I hope he and Damon sneak it in the next film. Would be awesome to see Bill and Leonard for the 50th anniversary

35. Lookatallthewords - April 26, 2013

Silly me, but isn’t there some remnant of Kirk still in the Nexus? An “echo” of Guinan was still in there to direct Captain Picard. He might not be able to leave, but he’s still in there. I’m sure he would love for someone to stop in and say hello sometime.

36. Chris Roberts - April 26, 2013

I actually wouldn’t mind owning an alternative edit of Generations, with all the deleted scenes and original ending restored.

Morbid curiosity about what that test audience rejected, I guess.

37. CaptainKirok - April 26, 2013

The worst thing about Generations, by far, is that Picard stupidly exited the Nexus with Kirk at a time when Soran already had the upper hand. I just don’t believe that the clever Picard would so foolishly decide to travel back in time for a redo, but begin his redo at such a dangerous time, thereby leading to the death of the awesome Captain Kirk. They wrote Generations in such a way that Picard’s stupidity is to blame for Kirk’s death.

38. Dave Thornton - April 26, 2013

Generations was rushed as well as heavily flawed and
There was no reason to kill off Kirk.

Just as the begining of Generations with The Enterprise-B with Kirk,Chekov and Scotty , was far more entertaining and Interesting then the Picard and Crew along with Soran part.

If Picard could come out of the Nexxus at anytime he choose,, why didn’t he just come back out when they first discovered Soran and
“clobber” him? instead of coming out with only a few minutes left before the launching of the sun killing missle?

Furthermore,,, did anyone even consider contacting Joan Collins to get her to do a cameo as Kirks true love (Edith) while in the Nexxus?

Finally,,, Shatner was informed by Berman,,, that He was going to kill off “Captain Kirk ” whether Shatner agreed to be in the movie or not.

So other than thinking, planning and taking the time to write a better story/Script…..

Nothing could have prevented the disaster,,,, that Generations became.

39. Khan 2.0 - April 26, 2013

better ways fo Kirk to die than shot in the back/falling off a bridge:

#1 After defeating Soran Kirk and picard make their way to the crashed Ent D when kirk suddenly slips on a rock and falls hitting his head. he dies in Picards arms..

#2 Kirk and Picard get to the remains of the crashed Ent D and are beamed up to the obiting ships. Unfortuantly Kirks 23rd century DNA structure dosnt tally with the 24th century ships transporters and the computer recognises him as a virus and beams him into open space..

#3 Kirk and Picard defeat Soran, Kirk thinks for a minute and realises they must still be in the nexus.. He picks up sorans gun and shoots Picard in the head and then himself ….

40. Khan 2.0 - April 26, 2013

@38 – regarding Joan Collins reprising her role as Edith as Kirks true love in the nexus.

nice idea but the majority of people in theatres wouldve been going ‘WTF?! Kirks one true love is Alexis Carrington?!’

but yeah better to have had it as Edith or Carol (no need to show the actress- as in the film) than Kirks well known all time love…..Antonia..

41. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

“After defeating Soran Kirk and picard make their way to the crashed Ent D when kirk suddenly slips on a rock and falls hitting his head. he dies in Picards arms..”

That reminds me of the true story of german U-Boat Ace Otto Kretschmer, who survived the horrors of WWII as the most succesful ace of that war, just to die on his wedding-day by slipping during a pleasant boat-tour and subsequently dying of head-injuries.

42. Khan 2.0 - April 26, 2013

wouldnt it have been more of a shock/twist if they hadnt killed Kirk?

everyone was expecting him to die – the secret was out of the bag even before they started shooting the movie. plus everyone knew it was gonna happen anyway as theyd killed spock in Trek II and blown up the enterprise in III – it was time for another big death.

so in that case wouldnt it have been more of a shock for audiences if he hadnt died? like if hed been ‘killed’ in the opening saving the Ent B (like spock was ‘killed’ in the opening of Trek II) but unlike spock he lives at the end.

e.g. they defeat Soran and he goes back with Picard to the Ent D. film ends with Picard and Kirk (rather than Riker) beaming up together. he wouldnt have had to appear in any of the sequels if Paramount chose not to, and itd have meant he could have appeared in JJ Abrams movie.

alternatively he could have been sucked back into the nexus somehow and would remain in there (and since wed never see the nexus again would be as good as dead anyway)
e.g. Soran is defeated/killed and Kirk and Picard are high fiving, think its all over etc then the nexus (which was visible in the sky) sort of swoops down and Picard and Kirk dive for cover in sorans workshop…everything turns orangey…then its over…Picard calls Kirks name…no answer…goes out of where they went for cover and sees the nexus leaving the atmosphere…no sign of Kirk…hes gone
(sort of like the Close Encounters abduction scene where the mother loses her kid)

the explanation could be – as theyd already been in the nexus it was somehow drawn to them so as a result it got closer to the planet than it should have (otherwise Soran had no need to destroy the star in the first place!)

it would’ve also avoided the rather ridiculous Picard carries Kirks dead body up the mountain and buries him thing (ok i know that was due to the original ending of kirk being shot in the back at the top being redone but its still there on screen making no sense) plus itd have been quite cool having Picard know kirk was still alive in the nexus…and only told Starfleet top brass and others like Spock – Kirks actual fate wouldve been classified Area 51/Raiders style (which i imagine it was with him being out of the nexus and dead anyway)

of course there is the explanation that Picard and Kirk never actually left the nexus , therefore Sorans defeat and FC, INS and NEM all take place in Picards nexus. but anyway thats a different subject altogether (and the filmmakers certainly didnt intend for it to be like that)

43. ksmsscu - April 26, 2013

@37 – very good point

But, come on! “Second star to the right, and straight on till morning” and the final Captain’s Log. THAT’S how TPTB should have dealt with the ‘end’ of James T. Kirk.

Others think he should have died on the Enterprise’s (or another ship’s) bridge, valiantly maneuvering, scheming and WINNING his final test while saving something very, very important (which could have also been the lives of his crew). That could easily have meant dying at the onslaught of Chang in TUC before the rest of the two crews saved Khitomer and peace.

Alternately, the overlords could have always offered Shatner the chance to return for a VERY good reason. Then, live or die? If death, an extremely heroic, meaningful, no-ways-to-nitpick, only-Kirk-could-beat-this-scenario crisis; not the rough equivalent of Tasha Yar being slapped by the Slime Creature.

But by the end of TUC, Kirk had at last completed the long arc of his emotional life journey from brash, prejudiced, fools-rush-in leader, to being satisfied with his life, accepting of change, and fully giving to family and friends. Of course, he could still kick ass as needed. I’d have much preferred to let the subsequent mystery be.

44. Navy - April 26, 2013

There were other flaws with Generations that didn’t make sense.

For example, Soran got into the Nexus while waiting for rescue. Why exactly didn’t Soran just use another ship to get back into the nexus? It doesn’t make sense.

The other things to think about: What about the other 50% of Soran? Perhaps his remaining half would have helped to stop the destruction of the planet.

In the end it’s a moot point.

What I’d really like to see is a proper restart of the prime universe, thoroughly researched and thought out before any production started. It’s time to have as close to a real Enterprise as possible, make the new Star Trek feel more like a documentary. Seeing as Starfleet losses were so high in the prime universe they commissioned the full documentation of the travels of every starship to learn from their mistakes, the viewers just get to see the Enterprise.

By having three seasons worth of stories to work with as part of the restart, a larger portion of the budget can be used to establish a strong technical backing that would gain the support of Trekkies and ensure another generation of children become completely engrossed in Star Trek. To the people that have never seen Star Trek, they would be new episodes, to those of us who can recite some episodes line for line, minor continuity errors could be corrected to increase the over all immersion into the Star Trek universe.

45. Son of Jello - April 26, 2013

#25 Dave H

Good luck with the Hep C

46. Dave Thornton - April 26, 2013

@40 – Nice idea but the majority of people in theatres wouldve been going ‘WTF?! Kirks one true love is Alexis Carrington?!’

Well instead we had a bunch of Trek fans asking
“‘WTF?! Kirks one true love was someone we had never seen or heard of before named “Antonia??”

LOL ;-)

47. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

““‘WTF?! Kirks one true love was someone we had never seen or heard of before named “Antonia??””

Why not? Between Star Trek 1 and 2 is a 15 year gap we know nothing about.

48. JimJ - April 26, 2013

#42-Ironic and kind of sad thing is…I like ALL of your “endings” better than the way they did it in the movie. And, they got paid to write that LOUSY script/death!

49. dayxday - April 26, 2013

Star Trek Generations: The Laundry List

Dear writers,

1. Destroy the TV Enterprise so we can make a new one worthy of the big screen.

2. Write a time travel story so that the old characters can pass the baton.

3. Literally kill off the leader of the TOS characters, (Kirk) so that moviegoers will embrace the Next Gen crew.

Paramount suits

50. Butch Allen - April 26, 2013

#12 continued
No 24th century federation,, Nero has no one to blame for his wife’s death.
No hunt for red matter,, (no red ball in JJ movie)
No destruction of Vulcan.
No “Nero Back to the Future” Samuel Kirk lives to see him graduate the
academy .
So,, his little heroics cost him his father and his best friends planet.
Not to mention his brother Sam is his best friend Jimmy???? (possibly

51. Navy - April 26, 2013


I think it is reasonable to assume that the Enterprise E would have still been built and given to a different Captain. So if the Enterprise was still built she would have been at the battle with the Borg and had as much opportunity to stop the Borg. Who knows if a different crew commanding the Enterprise would have been successful or not though.

52. SAVETHEHORTA - April 26, 2013

“I think this would be a time for a colorful metaphor ” ????

53. Erik Parrent - April 26, 2013

It’s not that hard to get Shatner in a new Star Trek movie. They already introduced alternate timelines into the 2009 movie. Just tell people that Shatner’s Kirk is from a timeline where Kirk didn’t die on Veridian. You don’t even have to reference it in the movie, you can just tell people the rationale in interviews.

54. Magic_Al - April 26, 2013

^38 I don’t know how they would have killed Kirk without Shatner’s participation. I don’t think the audience would have accepted it. He’d be missing and presumed dead at worst, and by now he would have popped up again. Either Voyager or Enterprise would have done that story for sure. (I know getting Shatner to guest star on Enterprise was attempted and failed, but if he had been able to play the real James T. Kirk without some convoluted workaround to being dead, it would have been a more compelling idea and might have been more likely to happen.)

55. Dom - April 26, 2013

3. Exverlobter: ‘Kirks death is totally underrated. I actually liked it. He dies in a very heroic way, by saving millions. The only bad thing is that we actually never see those people he is saving, and we do not care about them. They could have fixed that, but that would have been a totally different movie then.’

And there’s the problem: movies are meant to show, not tell. It was terrible, amateurish writing. In a parallel universe where the studio took more than a couple of weeks to rush Generations into production, we might have had a story where some citizens of Veridian get involved in the adventure and we actually grow to care about them. Instead, we get very lazy scripting and a rubbish death scene.

Speaking as a Star Trek original series fan, Generations felt like the TNG mob walked in, stole the Star Trek films from the people who loved them and killed off the lead character just to make 100 per cent sure that there could never be another original series cast film. There was a nasty feeling of a behind-the-scenes power grab about Generations.

Thankfully I have no interest in all the canon crap, so, as far as I’m concerned, Generations never happened and Kirk and his crew sailed away at the end of Star Trek VI into the unknown. It was the perfect way to go out!

56. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

@56 Dom
Yes, the abscence of the Veridians was a bummer. But the death-scene itself was good. And for all those who complain that we never see the people that Kirk saves, just rememeber that there was a second death scene at the beginning, where Kirk saves the Enterprise, with Scotty, Chekov, Harriman, Guinan, Sulus daughters and countless others.
So yes, that might compensate for the flaws in that other death.

57. MelyBelle44 - April 26, 2013

Here is the issue with using Shatner, and it’s not that it is unexplainable, because in an AU, anything can happen.

Leonard Nimoy and his Spock Prime character worked SO well in the 09 movie. It was nostalgic and touching to have his character a part of it. I think having Shatner (or Nichelle Nichols or George Takei or take your pick) come aboard may cross the line from a nice touch to gimmicky.

And, if his performance was not spot on, just as Nimoy’s was…if it was anything less than flawless, it would be very sad. As it is now, we have Spock Prime as our link to the Prime universe, and it works.

Which makes me sad, as this is a character and series that he has devoted much of his adult life to, and I know he wants very much to be a part of it. But, sometimes it’s better to just let things be.

58. KHAAAN, the weasel - April 26, 2013

@44: wut? I definitely hope that there’s no truth to that. Sounds like the lamest script idea ever.
However that also sounds like a kick-ass opportunity to slip a Charlie Sheen quote into a Star Trek movie:
Khan: “I’ve got tiger blood and adonis DNA!”
Bones: “Yeah right, now hold still, goddamnit. We need a sample in order to revive Jim… who just got killed by a bridge…”

59. Son of Jello - April 26, 2013

They should have gone with the holographic birthday greeting from Kirk to spock at the end of ST 09. It would have solved the problum of shatner being in ST09 and ended the argument 4 years ago. To shoe horn the guy into Abrams ST now would be a lttle forced. Personaly I wasent to keen on Spock being in ST 09. Sometimes I wish the original cast would just go away and let the new ST be what it needs to be. Its not a criticism of them but I think its time to just let go.

Reading a lot of these post and you get the feeling that some people think STTOS is still being made and all this new ST stuff is all a dream that they will wake up from.

60. Kev - April 26, 2013

You killed my Kirk and my Enterprise I grew up with in the same day, you bastards you finally did it, you finally BLEW IT UP!!!!


Serously guys though, next time have the enterprise blow up by 3 large warbirds shooting the hell out if it with no shields by having them take out the deflector first

like you were supposedly planning with the romulan connection I think, and have them severly damage enginnering, not have the same damn faulty cooling system and ejector system like the one from yesterdays enterprise go out YET AGAIN.

and from a few puny shots from a 20 year old Bird of prey that the enterprise and A had previously more or less beaten no less, I mean the DS9 Odyssey had a more honorable death with the shields down again against the dominion like a half a season before generations

and it only got blown up because someone RAN INTO IT!

I mean Military Craft do have BACKUPS guys, and I think you should have saved loosing the D for the FINAL TNG movie, not the first.

the Enterprise D was TNG’s home and if you wanted it more war like you did make a badass version of it for the final episode so it was kind of a WTF moment really with the ugly on the bottom and overly art deco on the top enterprise E that looked like an overdone modern excelsior.

not to mention all that dark red leather, not very inviting and not very starfleet looking, looked more like an upscale Klingon ship from the future.

Sorry its an old wound and I miss TNG, the actors and the old sets and the ship bottomline.

61. ScottC - April 26, 2013

They are still going at it today:

@WilliamShatner: “@BrannonBraga: Guys, Kirk isn’t dead. Haven’t you ever read WS & @ReevesStevens STAR TREK: THE RETURN? It’s canon” Nice CYA maneuver..Not

62. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

The destruction of the TNG-Enterprise was spectactular. Way better then the one of the Enterprise C, which was off-screen!

63. Marja - April 26, 2013

I think Shatner just enjoys tweaking them :)

Y’know the part of Kirk’s death at the Nexus I liked?

His last words: “Oh my.”

Surprised but traditionally understated, like a true hero.

I also thought it was a fitting end for heroic Kirk, not only to have saved the Enterprise, but a group of people he could not even see. That’s a hero worthy of today’s military, bless them all.

I’m not sure it would honor Original Kirk’s legacy to bring him back now. I say let the hero rest in peace; Prime Spock is carrying on his legacy, as befits Kirk’s loyal friend. JMHO.

64. Legate Damar - April 26, 2013

Why does anybody care what Picard did with Kirk’s body. He buried him on the planet that he was on. The alternative would really just to have been to launch him off one of the ship’s that picked him up in a torpedo casing like they did with Spock, and it’s not as if many of Kirk’s friends and family were alive to attend the funeral. Spock and Scotty are the only ones who were still alive, and Spock wouldn’t have been able to get away from Romulus for a funeral for a man who he has assumed to be dead for decades anyway. Really, what difference does it make if his corpse is on Veridian III or Earth or in space? He’s dead whatever they do.

65. George Zip - April 26, 2013

Kirk’s death in “Crucible: Kirk: The Star to Every Wandering” was great. Read that series (there’s one for McCoy and Spock as well).

66. Danpaine - April 26, 2013

Love it.

67. Danpaine - April 26, 2013

Marsha – great, agree entirely.

68. Melonpool - April 26, 2013

I really like the idea of Shatner coming back as the Mirror Universe villain in the Abrams universe. That seems to be a good way to appease everyone. He could have not died – and Kirk, not Spock was the one that was thrown back in time in that universe.

69. JøhnRambø - April 26, 2013

Kirks death still makes me angry!:-(
Good thing we have another Kirk:-)

70. GarySeven - April 26, 2013

#59 wrote:
“Reading a lot of these post and you get the feeling that some people think ST:TOS is still being made and all this new ST stuff is all a dream that they will wake up from.”
Very close!
This new Star Trek stuff does indeed feel like a dream people will wake up from. A Dark Dream. A Dumb Dream. Actually, it feels like a nightmare.
Star Trek: Into Darkness, and Dumbness.

71. rm10019 - April 26, 2013

Sorry, no matter how many times one poster repeats that Kirks death was done well it doesnt make it any more true. Where is that ignore button!

72. kmart - April 26, 2013


How’s that any different than what Spock & Abrams caused with the 09thing?

73. ME!! - April 26, 2013

@3 & 5: You can try to excuse it any way you like. The fact of the matter is, it was a piss poor way to kill off one of the most iconic characters in the franchise. Words like pathetic & stupid do not even begin to describe the entire incident. The Kirk we know from the Original Series would NEVER have done any such thing. He knew and remembered what Spock always said…”there are always possibilities” and he would find and exploit them. Even if he’d have been on the bridge of a starship and they wrote in that he sacrificed himself by ramming the ship into the bad guys or whatever, he’d never have done it. Doomsday Machine, anyone?

74. VOODOO - April 27, 2013

I will go to my grave saying Kirk’s death was the worst ending of any major /iconic fictional character in the history of the medium. I mean why was Shatner even in Generations except to be killed off…TWICE!

But the beauty of it is that Shatner’s version of Kirk can easily be given the ending he deserves in the next film. If ST 3 is to be Abrams and co. last Trek film what a way to end the series by having Shatner + Nimoy restored to their proper universe alive and well. The image of those two icons riding off into the sunset together would surely bring a tear to every ST fan in the world, right the wrong of Generations and give ST 3 a huge emotional core.

Bring back Shatner + Nimoy one last time for ST III even if for a single scene. It would be huge and a great way to end Abrams + co tenure on ST. You guys would be heros to nerds everywhere LOL!!!

75. Exverlobter - April 27, 2013

I guess what you guys all would say, if they had actually used the original death, and shot Kirk in the back!

C’mon, the improved version is not perfect, but still ok.

76. Son of Jello - April 27, 2013

I think the whole point is Kirk didnt waste his life.

Wanting him to have a glorious death that people will talk about for ages kind of misses the point of being alive and what is accoumplished during this time. He basically got killed by a dodgy bolt and some poor masonary work. A bit ordinary but a very human way to go.

77. me - April 27, 2013

“generations” was meant to be about death and time, loss and decay and how to handle it, but it showed senseless death – just for the sake of a big show.

78. K-7 - April 27, 2013

Others have echoed this here — two key points:

(1) Despite Generations having many issues, most of here could have writtern a better death scene that the awful Bragga bridge death fiasco. Something is wrong if we all could write a scene much better than that in 20 minutes. For instance, I like Dave H’s idea for this scene:

“Kirk’s mastery in Trek battles was always tricking his opponent into letting his guard down. Please don’t tell me that they couldn’t have come up with a scene, on the planet surface, where Kirk gets Soran to let his guard down, and then Picard destroys that missile while Kirk and Soran each exchange mortal phaser blasts. See how easy this scene was to come up with!”

(2) Shatner should have complained and made a fuss over the death scene way back when he saw the script. He is partly to blame for going along with he — he should have had more integrity and fight in him to save the legacy of James T. Kirk. So Shatner should not get the free pass he that he is seeming to infer in these twitter posts, where he is pretty much throwing Bragga under the bus.

79. Tiger - April 27, 2013

I’m just going to say it and I know I will get flamed for saying it, but people got to get over it!! Its litterally been almost 20 years now and thats it! I get it, everyone probably wanted a WOK Spock death where not only did he die to save the ship but everyone KNEW thats what he did. Well guess what, in the 23rd century thats basically how Kirk died and yes it was a heroic death even though it wasnt a real death. The actual death the one everyone naws at, couldve been better, but its done. Its been done for a very long time.

And yes, Shatner didnt complain because they were paying the guy MILLIONS to do about 10 days worth of work. As far as he was concerned Kirk was already over when the last TOS film premiered so what did he care? Who knew nearly 20 years on there would still be Trek on for him to guest star in? There was no Enterprise series and there certainly wasnt a TOS reboot film. So the guy didnt complain because he got paid handsomely for it. Now he wants to sulk about it, well thats life buddy. Hindsight is 20/20.

All that said, the twitter exchange between them was great. It was fun to see all these different eras of Trek just laying it all out there. Its fun to listen to them talk like fanboys talk here lol. Nice to see these people can have a sense of humor.

80. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - April 27, 2013

How do we know for certain Kirk remained buried on Veridian III? You’d think Starfleet would have given him a more proper burial on Earth at some point (ignoring the book series).

A further thing to point out…Kirk is responsible for the events of Star Trek: Nemesis, something we could have done with out. You’d figure that if Picard died, Shinzon would have resigned to his fate since he wouldn’t have Picard’s DNA to go after.

81. Kirk's coffin was empty - April 27, 2013

Kirk’s death was never a satisfying one because he died saving a bunch of people that we don’t care about, that we never see in the movie.

He might as well have died saving Rwanda.

82. -H- - April 27, 2013

Another alternative ending for Generations:

After Kirk’s death in Veridian III the screen fades black, and then we hear a familiar voice saying «He’s awakening Doctor».

The voice is that of former nurse Chapel, now a Doctor as we already know from TMP. And she is speaking to, of course, Doctor Leonard “Bones” McCoy.

The screen then starts to fade in, as Kirk open his eyes, from his point of view. All his former crewmates are there: Chekov, Uhura, Scotty, and even Spock, Sulu and Rand, among other familiar faces from TOS.

Then McCoy tells Kirk that he was bad injured when he was modifying the main deflectors of the new Enterprise, and that he has been unconscious since then for weeks.

Kirks asks them if they were able to release the Enterprise from that extrange energy ribbon. Spocks answers him that they don’t know how, but the modifications that he did to the deflector also destroyed the ribbon. Scotty incide in that they are still wondering what he really did down there. And Uhura and the rest express their joy to see him fine again.

In the end, in another scene with Kirk already in his apartment in Earth, is talking with his friends McCoy and Spock, and telling then the «dream» he has had when he was unconsciuos. They talk about a new Enterprise in the future, with a new crew, exploring the galaxy, doing the same as they did before. And then, the scene fades into the D’s main bridge, where the are receiving a distress call. Worf informs Picard about that, and that appears to be injured people in need. Picard alerts Doctor Crusher, queries Laforge about the warp core status, instructs Riker and Troy to form an away team to be ready when the reach the distress origin, and gives Data and young Wesley the coordinates and the instruction to go maxium warp with his accostumed “Engage!”.

Then the scene agains fades into Kirk’s apartment , where Kirk acknowledge that the time for his retirement has come, that is time to pass the con to a new young crew, so that they will extend the history of the Enterprise, the fleet, and the exploration.

83. heyberto - April 27, 2013

You gotta give Braga credit for calling Kirk’s death in Generations a mistake. I’m o e of his toughest critics, but I gotta give credit where it’s due.

84. Son of Jello - April 27, 2013

81 -H- –

Nice :)

85. Khan 2.0 - April 27, 2013

@81 – sound like something out of Inception

86. Son of Jello - April 27, 2013

# 80
You would think with all the starfleet ships in the area scanning and collecting all the pices of wreckage and starfleet tech they would have found Kirk by accident. You would think that Picard may have mentioned that he had come across one of the federations most famous starship captains that had gone missing decades erlier. He had to wright a report did he not mention it?. Im pretty sure that Sorans equiptment and body were gathered up and taken back to Earth they would have seen Kirks grave during the cleanup. It makes no sence that they just ignored him and left him there. conspiracy or professional jealousy?

87. Khan 2.0 - April 27, 2013

‘Ive always known…I’ll die alone..’ – that was a good scene around the campfire with Kirk talking about his mortality in TFF, sort of a set up for a tremendous death scene in a future film. id always imagined it to be something like – Kirk….alone……on the bridge of an empty enterprise…saving his crew/earth somehow…the captain going down with his ship…sorta like This Side of Paradise’s alone on the bridge scene mixed with Picard on ‘Yesterdays Enterprise’ & Star Trek IIIs destruct scene (and ultimately similar to what we saw with George Kirks in ST09), so its abit of a shame they didnt kill him on a bridge instead of falling off one.

e.g. Kirk and Picard could’ve defeated Soran, beamed up to the Ent D after the klingon battle. They go to evac but this time they cant separate the saucer section. Picard goes to sort it out (like Harriman)but as at the start of the film Kirk stops him and goes instead, winds up on the battle bridge* buying the crew the time to get to the escape pods/shuttlecrafts. Picard watches from an escape pod as the Enterprise falls into the atmosphere (like Trek III). Therefore it would’ve tied in with the opening on the Ent B – ending as it began – only this time Kirk really does die (it would be another action climax after the soran defeat which might’ve been too much – but then James Cameron does that in all his films) Kirk wouldve interacted with the TNG crew and Enterprise D (not just Picard in a kitchen/riding horses/fighting on a rock planet) so it would’ve felt more like a crossover (and why didn’t they have part of Kirks nexus on the Enterprise A? would’ve been cool to see Kirk and Picard on the Ent A bridge – again would’ve really felt like a crossover movie)

(*the battle bridge set was originally the bridge of the original Enterprise so it would be almost like Kirks bridge in a way. Kirk would die alone on the familiar Enterprise movie bridge …. saving the crew)

88. Son of Jello - April 27, 2013

86 Khan 2.0

Dying alone.. I always thought Kirk ment that metaphoricaly.

89. porthoses bitch - April 27, 2013

Generations should have ended with Kirk and Picard doing a “Flash jump”.

In ’70 Heston agreed to Beneath the Planet of the Apes with the understanding that Taylor died, and the Earth was incinerated. That was it…done. I sometimes feel Kirk’s death was an action by Paramount to make fans accept TNG as the only Trek out there.

90. Khan 2.0 - April 27, 2013

i like the original ending – Kirk running away in fear from Soran, then shot in the back – then Picard shoots soran and cradles a weeping Kirk in his arms who begs Picard for urgent medical assistance and keeps repeating ‘i dont wanna die please dont let me die!’

91. Khan 2.0 - April 27, 2013

Picard then leaves Kirk saying ‘i will come back for you’…he gets back to the Ent D and is so shocked/angry at his ship having crashed he forgets all about Kirk who he left dying ontop of the mountain

92. -H- - April 27, 2013


To me sounds more like the same thing they did with the holodeck and, for instance, Enterprise, and a bunch of episodes in TNG, DS9 and VOY. But instead of letting both crews stranded somewhere, or, as in Enterprise series finale, with really no moral behind, it gives a meaning to the story.

In this case Kirk’s character evolves from last film, where he uses an known quote from Peter Pan, stating his will to not to grow up after receiving the decommission order. In my alternative ending for Generations, Kirk understands that his time is over, that it’s time for others to start their new journey. Maybe also quoting “as one journey ends, another begins”.

This would have stated a continuity, not a rupture.

93. Dunsel Report - April 27, 2013

A more fitting death for Kirk would have been the one from the beginning of ST09: living, as he died, making decisions on the bridge of “that ship up there.” To die on some random planet being crushed by metal objects is even less cool than Yar’s exit in “Skin of Evil.”

94. Phil - April 27, 2013

Generations edges out ST5 as the worst of the movies. Just a shockingly bad story from start to finish………

95. - April 27, 2013

Abrams made up for the death of Kirk by giving the character such a great entry into the universe.

That opening of the last trek film covered over a multitude of sins.

Plus I expect Kirk won’t die like that in the new universe.

Dare I suspect that was the real reason that the current team wanted to reboot the entire universe. Not to get away from Canon but to find a way to erase the death of Kirk in Generations.

They actually did Shatner a huge favor.

96. - April 27, 2013


You’re Rick Berman aren’t you?

97. Curious Cadet - April 27, 2013

@76. Son of Jello,
“Wanting him to have a glorious death that people will talk about for ages kind of misses the point of being alive and what is accoumplished during this time.”

You mean like knowingly sacrificing yourself in a radiation chamber so your crew and your best friends will live, and living long enough afterwards to say goodbye to them, before being jettisoned onto a planet where you are resurrected like Jesus and all of your friends risk life and limb to restore you, over not one, but two movies? A death like that?

That’s just silly. Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be for that to have happened to Kirk? I mean watching Kirk die and then finding some “fountain of youth” hours after brain death that they can expose Kirk to that completely restores his life without any brain damage? Why then Kirk would be resurected like Jesus too! Never mind that Starfleet would then have everyone carry around a supply of this “fountain of youth” resurrection formula and nobody in Starfleet would ever die again.

But I digress … The problem is, unlike Sock there were no glorious eulogies for Kirk, he was just left under a pile of rocks on a mountain top. No big send off and jettisoned into the great unknown, no reflection of his service and the ultimate sacrifice he made, just wham, bam, thank you ma’am, NEXT!

There are several fantastic ideas for how they could have killed Kirk, mentioned right here, but ultimately, no matter how he died (and yes even under a bridge), it was the lack of commemoration that really killed Kirk. Imagine if TWOK just witnessed Spock dying in Engineering, and then they cut to Kirk on the bridge giving orders to launch probes and warp out, without ever mentioning Spock again. Audiences thought this really was the end of Spock, it would have destroyed the ending of the movie. Kirk never got that in Generations, and ultimately that may be the biggest mistake they made.

98. Paul - April 27, 2013

@94: Not bad. Just pointless. That seems to be the curse of modern Trek: Rampant pointlessness. Script after script full of pointless, uninspired stories that did not need to be made.

99. Phil - April 27, 2013

Though it was off screen, I suspect that JTK was brought home and given a proper burial. Leaving Kirk under a pile of rocks would speak poorly of Starfleet, and of Picard, one so driven by duty, that he would ignore the final duty to one who proceeded him in death….the duty to bring Kirk home.

100. The Sinfonian - April 27, 2013

@97 Wow, Curious Cadet. Nicely played.

101. Buzz Cagney - April 27, 2013

I hated the death at the time, it really depressed me for some time after. But hey, it was a long time ago now. Its done and, when all is said and done its just a TV show! I’m slightly embarrassed that it bothered me as much as it did.
I can’t blame Bill for wanting to play a death scene- all actors do- but his Kirk is finished now, there’s no way back that I can see.

102. BH - April 27, 2013

@74 – I’ve often believed that the last scene in the trilogy will be the repairment of the timeline, and we’d have the NEW cast sitting on a redux TV set to show all is back to normal.

Just a hunch.

103. Admiral_Bumblebee - April 27, 2013

It is never too late to bring back (Prime) Kirk!

104. Red Dead Ryan - April 27, 2013

I totally agree with K-7 and Dave H. There were a number of folks equally responisible for Kirk’s lame death in “Generations”. The head of Paramount. Rick Berman. Ron Moore. Brannon Braga. And yes, William Shatner.

At least one of these people should have listened to Leonard Nimoy’s objections. No one did, especially not Shatner, who decided to cash the big cheque instead.

You would think that, after the fiasco that was “The Final Frontier”, Shatner would have had the good sense to listen to his friend Leonard Nimoy and realize just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

105. K-7 - April 27, 2013

@102 ” I’ve often believed that the last scene in the trilogy will be the repairment of the timeline, and we’d have the NEW cast sitting on a redux TV set to show all is back to normal.”

Huh? Then every episode would be a remake from that point forward? Who would want to see that?

The whole point of the new universe is to open up the storytelling and not have to repeat all the Trek episodes from before.

Sorry, but regarding your well-meaning idea here, this would be a horrible direction for the franchise to take.

106. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#99. Phil – April 27, 2013

One would imagine. He already had a full Federation honors funeral when he was believed dead in the Enterprise B incident. I wonder if they’d bother again? Can’t see why not but sometimes politics gets in the way of such things.

107. porthoses bitch - April 27, 2013

Of course there’s always the scene in “Relics” to explain away. Where Scotty thinks that Capt. Kirk got the “old girl” out of mothballs to rescue the Janolin.

108. The Sinfonian - April 27, 2013

@107 Memory degradation from being stored in a transporter pattern buffer for 87 years’ll mess with your memory. And hitting your head hard on that beam in ST5.

109. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

Time for a resurrection roundup.


1. Died at age of 7 in YESTERYEAR (TAS)
2. Died fixing the ship in THE WRATH OF KHAN (film)


1. Died fighting for T’Pring in AMOK TIME
2. Declared dead in THE THOLIAN WEB
4. Declared dead in Enterprise B incident in GENERATIONS (film)
5. Died fighting Soran in GENERATIONS (film)


1. Death by lance in SHORE LEAVE


1. Died in attack on NOMAD in THE CHANGELING


1. Shot dead in SPECTRE OF THE GUN.

In CATSPAW both Scott an Sulu were zombified but don’t recall if McCoy said their hearts were stopped?

110. K-7 - April 27, 2013

@107. That was another dumbass idea of Berman’s. He should have stuck with making mediocre new Star Trek, and not messed with TOS at all. His Nimoy/Spock episodes weren’t that great either. And the way he sent Sarek out was completely unnecessary and cold.

The hubris of that guy to F-around with TOS characters like he did just makes me sick.

111. Keachick - April 27, 2013

As James Kirk said, “There is no good way to die”.

112. Unwanted - April 27, 2013

@106. Yes certainly no need to give him another state funeral, but his body would be brought back to Earth if only for the same reason that the D’s saucer was being removed, to prevent possible indirect interference in the culture on the neighboring planet (no doubt when they achieve interplanetary travel having a second habitable planet so close by will be very interesting to them).

The novel Best Destiny makes a special point of noting that Picard covered Kirk’s body to keep scavengers off him and left the commbadge so that the Starfleet personnel coming to remove the D’s saucer could locate Kirk to take him home.

113. Jack - April 27, 2013

” If ST 3 is to be Abrams and co. last Trek film what a way to end the series by having Shatner + Nimoy restored to their proper universe alive and well.”

No offense, but that makes no sense. Why would that be necessary — it ain’t real. That would be a ridiculous ending.

114. Curious Cadet - April 27, 2013

@113 Jack,

100% agree. I don’t understand why the alternate universe is that hard to accept, or understand.

It allows the producers the ability to tell stories with some actual drama, since we don’t all know the principals have to turn out OK at the end in order to be alive for TNG era stories. It was perhaps the only brilliant thing these guys did.

That said, if they start killing people and resurrecting them, then I’m not sure what they’ve actually accomplished. Anybody who dies can just come back to life. Once is enough for any franchise and it’s happened twice now in the movies. First Spock, then Kirk. Surely the new guys wouldn’t be dumb enough to try that again, so soon after rebooting it, right?

115. Son of Jello - April 27, 2013

97 Curious Cadet

“But I digress … The problem is, unlike Sock there were no glorious eulogies for Kirk, he was just left under a pile of rocks on a mountain top. No big send off and jettisoned into the great unknown, no reflection of his service and the ultimate sacrifice he made, just wham, bam, thank you ma’am, NEXT!”

Reading that made me think of this. What you are describing sounds like a soldiers death. So if you think of kirk in terms of a soldier then what you have described is quite sad if you concider how solders get killed. It can be quite meningless and they very well could be saying next to the soldiers lined up behind him.

But I get your point it there was no commemoration for Kirk.

116. Beware of ABKCO! - April 27, 2013

Kirk is obviously still in the Nexus even in this new timeline. Just snatch him out and you’ve got your hero back again.

117. DiscoSpock - April 27, 2013

#116 “Kirk is obviously still in the Nexus even in this new timeline. Just snatch him out and you’ve got your hero back again.”

Yea, and perhaps the Nexus is slowing down now given how fat prime Kirk (i.e. Shatner) has gotten in recent years? I mean, of course when we first see Shatner/Kirk in the Nexus, he’s making food; its not too much a stretch to picture Shat/Kirk in his current physical condition spending his time in the Nexus deep frying turkeys, as Shatner loves to do. This could support a plot element, where Kirk is trying to eat so much that the Nexus starts slowing down.

118. TUP - April 27, 2013

Couple of points:

– I recall hearing very early story ideas for Generations includes Kirk taking command of the Enterprise D. Anyone have details?

– how about this for a scene in Abrams next movie:

Spock prime beams aboard the enterprise surprising Kirk who was unaware he was coming. Spock explains that it’s now time for him to repay a debt. He must save his James T Kirk. Commence brilliant film to do just that.

119. Phil - April 27, 2013

Come on – the Nexus, the galaxy’s giant cosmic timeline reset buttion, has the be the sh**tyist plot devise ever dreamed by a Trek script writer. Can we just PLEASE pretend it doesn’t exist at all in this universe?

Come on, I can’t be the only person here who hopes that a few of Treks less glorious features get ignored in this universe..??

120. DiscoSpock - April 27, 2013

3118 “He must save his James T Kirk. Commence brilliant film to do just that.”

Yea, and bring bat super fat Kristie Alley as well to play prime Kirk’s love interest, Savik, in the nexus.


121. Phil - April 27, 2013

@118. So, what part of ‘the Nexus is the shittyist plot device of all time’ didn’t you understand? They only way that script could be sold might be to a room full of blind and deaf people….

122. TUP - April 27, 2013

Forget the nexus. Do it a different way.

The best part of Generations was the scenes with the original crew.

123. Tom - April 28, 2013

Somehow the hologram pendant (showing the Shatner scene and adding Leonard in it) will have to show up in Chris Pines hands in the next movie

124. K-7 - April 28, 2013

I agree with the comments that bringing back Shatner, in his present physical condition and age, and have it look like the Nexus is popping him out, is perhaps the most preposterous thing I have ever read on this web site.

I can’t believe that some fan still want Shatner back in this screwed up way? This is beyond dumb. And besides that, its seriously time to move on from Shatner. Look at the buffoon version of Kirk he did and the Academy Awards. That was embarrassing!

125. Rich Civil - April 28, 2013

I always thought the problem with Kirk’s death in Generations was that he “died” twice. The “death on the Enterprise B was much more emotional. That death took away from the final death at the end of the film.

126. cyrano jones - April 28, 2013

Shatner in any form is better than your BS.

127. Admiral_Bumblebee - April 28, 2013

I can’t believe how disrespectful so-called Star Trek-fans are. Calling Shatner fat and a buffoon… You should be ashamed. Not only as Star Trek-fans who should have learned to be tolerant due to the series but also as human beings. According to your views older people and people with more weight do not have a place in society and cannot be heroes? You should really be ashamed.

Even if Shatner is not in the physical shape he was in during his “early” years – THIS IS LIFE! We all get old and some put on weight. I believe that this is the case in the 23rd century as well. Star Trek always aimed to be as close to realism as it is possible for science fiction to be so YES I want to see an old Prime Kirk who put on some weight because that is realism!

128. Dom - April 28, 2013

Actually, I would have finished the scene with the two Spocks in ST09 with Nimoy’s Spock boarding the shuttle for the Vulcan colony. As young Spock watches him, Shatner’s Kirk is briefly seen standing at the shuttle door talking to older Spock. Young Spock raises an eyebrow and leaves. Total wtf moment. Needs no explanation. Never gets brought up again. We just know that somehow Jim cheated death again.

As an alternative, take a leaf out of Disney’s Star Wars book and make a smaller interquel film between STID and its sequel where Karl Urban’s McCoy goes to the Vulcan colony and helps Nimoy’s Spock and Shatner’s Kirk against a new threat.

Simply say the Nexus exists in many universes and the original Kirk never really left it in Generations – arguably Kirks and Picards from many realities were in there at the same time, so Picard simply found a different Kirk.

Having an interquel with Urban as the lead, backed up by two grumpy aged versions of his crewmates would be great fun and allow us to see more of the best performer from the new films!

129. sob - April 28, 2013

I wish shatner would be graceful and let trek go,shtaner seems kind of mad that trek is a sucess again and he cant be a part of that sucess.

130. Ted C - April 28, 2013

Where was the “epic” part?

One other thing, am I the only one that finds Twitter incredibly stupid?

131. Disinvited - April 28, 2013

#114. Curious Cadet – April 27, 2013

Actually, the altuniverse caused a whole slew of resurrections of all those who were alive then but had died by Prime Spock’s time. Not to mention the headache of what I’ll call “sideways” resurrections of people who died then in the altuniverse but are alive now in Prime.

If you check my 109 post with the lists of first series main characters’ declared deaths, we are just going to have to accept that resurrection is a common occurrence in any incarnation of STAR TREK.

And we haven’t even discussed how time travel clearly resurrects slews of dead people from previous eras in previous Trek movies.

I think we just have to accept that the resurrection genii isn’t going back into the bottle for this franchise.

Oddly, I think SUPERMAN, a year before the first Trek film, was the first major film franchise to let him out.

132. Curious Cadet - April 28, 2013

@131 Disinvited,
“Actually, the altuniverse caused a whole slew of resurrections of all those who were alive then but had died by Prime Spock’s time.”

I don’t follow this at all. The alt and Prime universe have nothing to do with each other. And deaths restored from alternate timelines (time travel) is not resurrection.

When I use the word resurrection, I mean that in the Jesus sense. The body, mind and soul are reanimated hours or days after they ceased all biological activity with no deleterious effects.

As for your list of “resurrections”, well most of them are fake deaths. Kirk was never dead in most of those examples. He and Spock both only died once in the Prime timeline. And even Spock technically did not die, depending on how you define death — his Katra was alive and well and was able to be put back into his body. Chekov was an illusion. McCoy may have been revivable, i would have to see how long his body laid there. And Scotty may have likewise been revivable (again depending on how long he was deprived of oxygen). However, is this the level of writing you would suggest Abrams’ aspire to?

And no, I’m not willing to accept resurrection as an acceptable plot device based on my last point alone, nor do I care what they do in other movie franchises.

133. Unwanted - April 28, 2013

@132. There are a whole lot more examples, Worf died on the operating table, Neelix was dead for 19 hours, when Nomad killed Scotty McCoy said he couldn’t revive him, and there are more from each chapter of the franchise. IMO ressurection or cheeting death is a core part of the franchise, but ymmv.

134. Curious Cadet - April 28, 2013

@133 Unwanted,
Star Trek is full of bad writing. Not that this is what you are doing, but there are a lot of arguments made here to justify a particular position based on the fact that “Star Trek has always been this way, therefore what’s the problem?”

Obviously just because something was done in the past doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to do today. Case in point, Orci said there will be no more sling-shoting around the sun to restore the timeline, as the new film uses the latest science with respect to time travel, despite that being the standard method in TOS.

So ultimately, I expect more from Abrams than I came to accept from Roddenberry or Berman.

BTW, for me brain death is the definition of death. Once the brain is damaged, then it doesn’t matter if the body can be repaired. Brain death takes anywhere between 5-10 minutes depending on temperature. Scotty at least seems to have fallen in that window of recovery — McCoy could not repair Scott’s body therefore he could not revive him, Nomad could (if we want to try to make sense of it. However, Uhura’s brain wiping in that episode was just stupid.

135. Unwanted - April 28, 2013

@134. I totally agree about the Uhura bit in that episode. As far as the brain death aspect you mention I can see your point but both Worf and Neelix would still count on that one, Worf’s cause of death was “total synaptic failure”, which means brain death to me, and I already noted how long Neelix was dead (brought back by Seven’s nanoprobes). Would you count when Picard got shot with an arrow by the Vulcanoid primitives? His heart did stop before he was brought back to the ship. What about when Harry Kim was killed by the alien funerary mechanism? What about the woman in the “space africans” episode of TNG, who was poisoned in combat with Tasha then revived by Crusher.

I’m not asking to start an argument, I am just curious given what you have stated as being your prerequisite for “death” which incidents you would count as such and which ones you wouldn’t. If nothing else it’s interesting to me just to learn why someone holds the opinions or beliefs they do.

136. Disinvited - April 28, 2013

#132. Curious Cadet – April 28, 2013

You are just splitting hairs favoring one type of resurrection over the other. And you are being even more disingenuous claiming recourse to Jesus’ resurrection which took place in an era in which the definition of dead was far less stringent than the one you are now espousing, so much so that many of those “fake” deaths you cite qualify as much as Lazarus’. Or in other words, even in Jesus’ time they had more than one resurrection.

And I’ll state this more clearly: time travel within the Prime universe resurrects the dead. Edith Keeler had two separate deaths. The second one couldn’t have happened if she did not exist and she couldn’t have existed unless she was resurrected.

People going into the transporter of any Trek universe has their physical body destroyed – by your own definition dead (all biological activity ceased) – and are then duplicated at some distance away (resurrected?) and are considered the same person. Duplication by transporter is not sufficient to declare people separate from their destroyed originals in the Federation body politic so how can we declare duplicates created in an alternate universe of Prime Spock’s own making and artifice anything less? This is not a parallel universe that sprang into existence at the same “time” as Prime in the Big(ger?) Bang and just happens to mirrors the Prime. It’s one that exists directly as the result of a man’s actions as directly his hands activate a transporter.

137. Curious Cadet - April 28, 2013

@135 unwanted,

My criteria for death has nothing to do with what has gone on before in TNG, I really don’t even remember any of the examples you gave. I was sort of making a case for Disinvited’s examples in TOS, but let’s face it, as I said before — there’s been a lot of DUMB writing in Star Trek, especially TNG.

Bottom line for me, once a person’s brain dies, so does everything that makes them that person. Doesn’t matter if you bring their body back to life, or clone them, what made them that person is gone. With that in mind, any episode of Star Trek that fails this test comes off as dumb to me.

@136 Disinvited,
“You are just splitting hairs favoring one type of resurrection over the other.”

No you are. The term resurrection in this context has a very specific meaning — bringing the dead back to life. I could care less whether Jesus really was dead when they allegedly put him in the tomb — when I use the term resurrection it is the implicit meaning of what people believe happened, whether it did or not. Your use of the term is figurative not literal.

Kirk was never resurrected. Period. There was always a logical explanation for why he appeared to die. I don’t care what the audience thought, the fact is Kirk was never really dead (and neither was Spock for that matter), and therefore could not be resurrected.

And time travel does NOT resurrect the dead, because in the earlier timeline, the person was NEVER dead in the first place. They were saved from death and thus remain alive in the future, and has absolutely nothing to do with my point. There was no literal resurrection.

The transporter is FICTION. It doesn’t exist. I’m not going to argue philosophy about the operation of something that is made up, the theoretical physics for which is UNKNOWN. The conceit is that the people who step into the transporter are the same people that materialize on the other end. Period. And your point about the alternate universe being created by Spock totally eludes me … How can we not declare duplicates in the alternate universe anything less than the same person in the Prime? Because they are different people. Spock Prime is not the same person as Alt Spock. Wherever you are obtaining these rules regarding transporter duplicates, it is a specious argument to apply them to the formation of a splintered parallel universe. And what does this have to do with resurrection?

138. Dave H - April 29, 2013

#137. Uh, Curious Cadet, physicists have already transported micro particles across many miles using quantum teleportation:

Please make sure you know what you are talking about before you make up bold unequivocal proclamations like you just did here. You are dead-wrong.

139. K-7 - April 29, 2013

Dave H and Curious Cadet,

DARPA has been experimenting with micro-level teleportation as well. This is an emerging area of science, and is hardly “made up” fiction.

140. Unwanted - April 29, 2013

@137. The “space africans” ep on TNG is widely acknowledged as one of the worst, even by the cast, but Worf’s death and return was a really good story about medical ethics, respect for the culture and traditions of others (Riker agonizing over helping a crippled Worf kill himself as Klingon Honor demands), learning to face and overcome our fears, and is one of my absolute favorite TNG episodes (title is Ethics, season 5).

Likewise the Voyager incident with Harry was not a great episode, but the episode with Picard dying was a great Prime Directive story, looking at many of the reasons for it, and what can happen when it is broken, even unintentionally. Picard was shot after all by someone who believed Picard to be a god and wanted to prove it to force Picard to bring his wife back to life. Titled “Who Watches the Watchers”, season 3.

I will have to politely disagree with your assessment of the writing on TNG, it is hands down my favorite series of the franchise, personally I think TOS has far and away the worst writing, but I chalk a lot of that up to it being made in the 60s, cause I don’t find a lot of shows from that era to have what I call good writing.

I also have to disagree, respectfully, with your view on death, I believe we all have a Katra, or Immortal Soul in the words of James Kirk, and that whether brain activity has stopped or not if the person was somehow revived their Katra/Soul would still be a part of them, and they would not be a different person afterwards because it is their Katra/Soul that makes them who they are to begin with, not their body or brain.

Perhaps though I should just say that it was interesting exchanging views with you and I appreciate and respect yours even if I don’t agree with them, thank you for the conversation.

141. Disinvited - April 29, 2013

#137. Curious Cadet – April 28, 2013

This thing about the transporter being fiction is specious. Being science-fiction things have to work within the rules of the narrative’s own logic and mores regarding same as much as possible with regards to these FICTIONal characters even if you weren’t wrong. Plus, if we go down that rabbit hole it can only degenerate to: it’s all fiction and none of the deaths are real and resurrection is always a mere pen stroke away.

We have evidence in the narrative that altKirk is the same as Prime Kirk. When Prime Spock, who has more than enough experience with duplicate Kirks to know when one is is friend and a propensity for literal exactness, says to him in the cave “I have been, and always shall be, your friend. ” and “It is remarkably pleasing to see you again, old friend.”

We have evidence Prime Spock regards altSpock to be himself in his constant turn of phrase:

“I am not our father.” instead of “I am not your father.” which also indicates he regards altSarek as his his father.

“And yet, you can be in two places at once.”

“Since my customary farewell would appear oddly self-serving…”

Clearly in the last sentence Prime Spock believes he is talking to himself for how could it appear “oddly self-serving” if altSpock is not him?

I also love your contradictory attitudes.

“…when I use the term resurrection it is the implicit meaning of what people believe happened…” – Curious Cadet

“I don’t care what the audience thought, the fact is Kirk was never really dead (and neither was Spock for that matter), and therefore could not be resurrected.” – Curious Cadet

A difference that rightly or wrongly makes no difference to the audience en masse is no difference in the marketplace. And I submit that regardless of your stricture as to a what a resurrection really is, that audience sought by STID has come to expect it as part of the Trek franchise’s DNA which gets us back to your original query.

142. Curious Cadet - April 29, 2013

@140 unwanted,
“whether brain activity has stopped or not if the person was somehow revived their Katra/Soul would still be a part of them, and they would not be a different person afterwards because it is their Katra/Soul that makes them who they are to begin with”

Well, with all due respect to your beliefs, medical science will not back you. Those who have been brain dead longer than 3-10 minutes and revived always suffer brain damage and most definitely do not behave like the same people they were prior to that damage, assuming they are not merely vegetables. If their Katra or soul is still a part of them it makes no difference in their outward engagement with others and that is the point I am trying to make. Perhaps they would internally be the exact same person they were before, unfortunately, no one else will be able to see that. Jesus’ would have been a totally different story had his “resurrection” been one of a speechless, immobile, brain damaged vegetable now wouldn’t it?

It is TNGs disregard of this medical fact that I consider poor writing. One need not throw the baby out with the bath water when criticizing the series’ writing, so I don’t understand why you feel the need to defend the honor of the entire series when I am clearly attacking by example only those aspects that constitute poor writing, such as reviving a person to their normal pre-death selves who by all medical science should be nothing more than vegetables, Katra notwithstanding.

143. Curious Cadet - April 29, 2013

@138 & 139 Dave H and K-7,

Can you without a shadow of a doubt confirm unequivocally that the transporter technology used in Star Trek works exactly as the sources you both reference?

If not then my point stands. And it does, because you can’t. The transporter was “invented” long before the physics that might enable such technology was understood. It was and is complete fiction, until the experimental technology you both refer to is incorporated into a device that does EXACTLY what the transporter does on Star Trek.

144. DiscoSpock - April 29, 2013

@143. Calling the transporter “complete fiction” is utterly ridiculous. You can extrapolate the ability to transport people based on the laws of science, and you could do this in the 1960’s as well. It’s science fiction — based on at least a plausible case that it could potential become a future technology — rather than “complete fiction”, which would be just making shit up in a fantastical story, like “the force” in Star Wars.

145. Dave H - April 29, 2013

“It’s science fiction — based on at least a plausible case that it could potential become a future technology — rather than “complete fiction”, which would be just making shit up in a fantastical story, like “the force” in Star Wars.”


146. Curious Cadet - April 29, 2013

@141 Disinvited,

It is impossible for Prime Spock and Alt Spock to be the same person, as they occupy two different points of space and time.

They were the same person until the universe splintered. Then they became two different individuals. This was a deliberate effort on the part of Orci in adopting this QM many worlds theoretical model of time travel, to avoid the grandfather paradox in which Spock would be the same person, and as such, Prime Spock could kill Alt Spock and thus himself. The two live independently of each other, ergo not the same person.

As for your continued and seemingly deliberate effort to misunderstand me to prove your point, let me try to clear this issue up at least:

Christians believe that Christ was dead and rose from the dead, literally came back to life days afterward to resume the exact life of the person he was before his death. No tricks, no gimmicks. Nor was he a brain dead Zombie. It is understood this is what happened, whether it did or not. This is the meaning of the word resurrection in its most common and literal usage — life from death. Regardless if Jesus was actually dead or not, this is what the word means.

In the case of James Kirk, who is no Christ, every time the audience presumed he was dead, it was demonstrated after he was revived that he was not dead at all but given a drug, or otherwise, to simulate death. A trick. He was never actually dead. The audience knows this. Therefore, no resurrection. He could lay in state for days under whatever fiction allows for the simulated death and still return to his former state. But the audience is in on it, unlike Jesus.

You see the difference? Unless Jesus was a complete charlatan, and faked his death without anyone’s knowledge, then he was resurrected in the truest sense of the word. But even if he was and did, it’s different than Kirk’s deaths, because the Trek audience was informed of the deception, whereas the Christians are otherwise still living duped after 2000 years. If Kirk simply came back to life unexpectedly and McCoy exclaimed ‘praise Jesus it’s a miracle Jim has come back to life after two days of brain death which is medically impossible’, then yeah, we’d probably have a resurrection on our hands and Kirk would be Jesus Christ.

Now that I have cleared that up, Star Trek’s DNA is irrelevant here going forward as Abrams has said this film is not made for fans, something that Lindeloff has echoed, and therefore the general audiences sought who will drive any box office success this film has, will have no awareness of said DNA. They will not be expecting characters that clearly die will be resurrected. Such ideas are preposterous on their face, just as they were in TOS and I suspect the TNG era as well — there was always an explanation, however badly conceived and written, which is why wholesale resurrection was rarely, if ever suggested. For Abrams to subject a modern audience to such an idea under the assumption they are expecting it from 50 years of clumsy Star Trek bait and switch story lines is absurd.

147. Curious Cadet - April 29, 2013

@144. DiscoSpock,
“Calling the transporter “complete fiction” is utterly ridiculous.”

Fine, it’s complete “SCIENCE fiction”. That does not change the fact that the device itself is fiction as it does not exist, nor that the “technology” seen in Star Trek is based on anything we understand today. The fact is, whether or not a lot of thought went into the science behind such a device, Roddenberry needed a cheap way to get people from the ship to the planet without the time or expense of a shuttle flight to do it. It wasn’t Barbara Eden blinking her eyes, or Elizabeth Montgomery wiggling her nose, but it wasn’t far off in 1965.

In the context of my original argument, debating what actually happens to Kirk when he beams down to a planet, is pointless.

148. Unwanted - April 29, 2013

@142. Well I’m not sure you understood my point. I was not talking about if someone was revived after 10 minutes or whatever by modern 21st century medical technology, but by medical technology so advanced as to repair the damage the time passed before their revival had done to their physical body.

It is this kind of technology that we are shown to be operative in these stories and I am not sure why you would perceive a science fiction show presenting such a possibility as bad writing,

It remains for future generations to see if that kind of technology will ever become possible in the real world, but I imagine by the time the 23rd century rolls around hospitals will be completely different from what they are today, just as today’s medical care is nothing like what it was in the 19th century, and Jules Verne dreamed of Holograms, telivised newscasts, electrically powered submarines, video telephones, instantaneous intercontinental communications, and many other things deemed simple flights of fancy, and certainly not “serious” literature. Verne was often dismissed as a simple “genre” storyteller, and commercial author (he also wrote plays) and was denied literary recognition, to the point that he stated his only regret in life was never contributing to French literature.

Without fiction to spark our minds and fire the imagination we will never know what we can accomplish. What if the guy who could create a real life “cortical stimulator” or “dermal regenerator” decided not to try because it just “couldn’t work”

This is the point I am getting at, I don’t have a problem with them bringing people back to life in Trek, nor do I consider it bad writing when they did so, instead a logical extension of the thought “what will technology be like in 300 years, and what will we be able to do with it”.

I don’t really know if I cleared things up any, but I tried, so LLAP.

149. Disinvited - April 29, 2013

#142. Curious Cadet – April 29, 2013

I’m not sure your definition of “brain dead” accounts for the mammalian diving reflex and suspended animation in humans:

What’s even more puzzling is you acknowledge death has been defined differently across the ages as human knowledge expands but you chauvinistically defend your definition as if somehow you just “know” its the right and final one with no escape clauses.

150. Damian - April 29, 2013

12–That story was actually a novel by Gene Deweese (Engines of Destiny). Scotty actually goes back and prevents Kirk from dying on the Enterprise B (Scotty from the 24th century after he was brought back in “Relics” but before “Generations”). After he saves Kirk everything changes, there is no Federation but the Borg have taken over Earth. We find out by saving Kirk, he was not available to help Picard stop Soran. So Picard and the crew of the Enterprise-D are destroyed and are not available to stop the Borg in “First Contact.” Actually a very good book, especially how he ties it all together. Kind of like “Tapestry” you pull on one thread and all of history came apart.

Makes you wonder, would you really go back in time and stop Kennedy’s assasination, or go back and kill Hitler before he takes over Germany? Hard to fathom, but you could actually make things worse.

151. Curious Cadet - April 29, 2013

@148 Unwanted,
“I was not talking about if someone was revived after 10 minutes or whatever by modern 21st century medical technology, but by medical technology so advanced as to repair the damage the time passed before their revival had done to their physical body.”

Think of it like this — the brain’s memory is like RAM in a computer. As long as it is powered up the contents of memory are maintained. However, when the power switch is flipped, all the memory is gone forever. I have great faith in medical technology for the future. However, medical technology cannot restore what is not there. That being said, far be it from me to deny the inspiration for a future medical advancement from Star Trek. However, that being said, I’d rather not see an episode like Spock’s Brain again, which by your own admission may in the future actually be possible exactly as depicted.

@149 Disinvited,

I am well aware of the effects of hypothermia on brain death, which I address in response to Unwanted @134 with respect to Scotty’s death in the Changeling. At least one person has been revived after 80 minutes of being submerged in icy water. Again this is a “trick”. Under normal circumstances the breakdown and dissolution of the brain cells is irreversible. While not literally computer RAM as the information is encoded biologically, once that cell begins to breakdown, so does the information and is lost forever.

Look, I am happy to admit at some point in the future we may find that life hinges on something entirely different than what we understand today, however, getting this back to Star Trek, we are watching these things from the perspective of today’s understanding of the world. Unlike cavemen, we can accept almost anything given an explanation — the Achilles heal of TNG era writing (too much explanation which itself wasn’t real). But honestly, once you start literally resurrecting people, then where does it stop? No one ever has to die again. Actions must have consequences, and death is an enivitable consequence of life. You want to trick the audience as in Amok Time? Fantastic — Kirk was not really dead. You want to revive someone hours after they have suffered clinical death following running out of oxygen in the cold of space? Knock yourself out, science supports that. But don’t just resurrect somebody without explaining why, or at least make it plausible — and more importantly not easily repeatable. One has to appreciate the depiction of Prime Spock’s restoration, whether his Katra was his soul, a backup copy of his mind, or some combination of both, it wasn’t just reinserted into his restored body weeks later like nothing had happened — there was an adjustment period which helped sell the concept to what contemporary audiences expect. In other words, it wasn’t easy, it wasn’t magical, and perhaps most importantly, not easily reproducible.

152. DiscoSpock - April 29, 2013

@151, Your are ignoring the possibility that in a revived body that is brain dead, that advanced machinery could have been used to “record” the brain before the person died, and that a clone brain could then be grown, and then nanotech used to “set” the synapses and other dynamic conditions in the clone brain to be that of the original, and then the brain would be reconnected to the individual.

153. Unwanted - April 29, 2013

@151. But that is exactly what a cortical stimulator is supposed to do, keep the power on to the hard drive (using your analogy), so that memory is not lost, Its all part and parcel of the same thing, Additionally your theory does not account for people who have been revived after more that 30 minutes underwater in freezing water, and have recovered completely, like these two boys from Austria (clinically dead for over an hour).

There is a reason after all that paramedics say “they aren’t dead until they are warm and dead”.

There have also been people found in snow drifts with no pulse or respiration who have recovered fully, several of whom have woken up on an autopsy table, which is why paramedics have the saying.

There was also a man named Ward Krenz who plunged through the ice on a snowmobile and was clinically dead for more than an hour, revived without brain damage.

These things are real and your opinions on brain death and how long it takes do not have any effect on whether or not they exist.

154. DiscoSpock - April 29, 2013


You may have figured it out by now, but Curious Cadet is a bit of a know-it-all, who digs his/her heels in and always insists they are 100% right. There is not much room for any give and take or exchange of ideas with this person.

155. Curious Cadet - April 29, 2013

@152. DiscoSpock,
“Your are ignoring the possibility that in a revived body that is brain dead, that advanced machinery could have been used to “record” the brain before the person died …”

No I’m not. But that is a “trick”. The information in the brain is preserved and restored. It is not resurrection. It is the exact same “trick” used in TSFS. It is transference. The rest of your opinions about me are not worth addressing.

@153. Unwanted,
“But that is exactly what a cortical stimulator is supposed to do, keep the power on to the hard drive (using your analogy), so that memory is not lost, Its all part and parcel of the same thing, Additionally your theory does not account for people who have been revived after more that 30 minutes underwater in freezing water…”

The cortical stimulator is another “trick”. And yes my theory does account for hypothermia, I addressed it in response to you @134 and in detail in my response to Disinvited @151. And it is also a “trick”.

Look, all I have ever said is that under normal circumstances when clinical death has occurred, within 5-10 minutes brain death will commence, and while the body might be revived after that point, irreversible brain damage is always the result (this is NOT my opinion). I have acknowledged the reality of extenuating circumstances all through this debate (which is likely to become highly relevant very soon), as in the instance of hypothermia where literal resurrection is not the case since the brain was in a state of preservation and therefore capable of being returned to a fully functional state much later than usual.

However, the longer the brain is deprived of oxygen the more irreversible the damage, cold preservation or otherwise. At a certain point the information encoded on the neurons is lost as the biological material breaks down (again not my opinion). And that for me is death — no possibility whatsoever the mind can be revived to its former state, either directly or via transference. Resurrection then is the act of reanimating the tissue and brain cells to the exact state they were prior to irreversible death, which would otherwise be impossible.

156. Disinvited - April 30, 2013

#146. Curious Cadet – April 29, 2013

It took me a while rereading what you’ve wrote to finally see where we are diverging. But I see you are trying to take one religious sect’s most recent update up of resurrection, and give it science cred over all the others in your own brand of “creation” science reasoning about life and death while I’m trying to skirt that and stay on the side of science.

It is really odd that you allow yourself to call on me to accept a particular Christian sect’s most recent update to resurrection, when I could just as easily take that as a reason to call on you to accept a largely held Christian belief that 3 distinctly separate beings can be one and the same.

Would you at least acknowledge that a large part of Christians, which also comprise a significant part of Trek’s audience, don’t cotton to your definitions of when life begins, when life ends, and what can pass for “miraculous”. And they also don’t have your problem with seeing Prime Spock and altSpock as one and the same?

How about also acknowledging that while you think you’ve come up with some clever way to scientifically baptize these concepts you really aren’t playing in science’s sandbox. At least, not in the way you began this conversation.

157. Disinvited - April 30, 2013

#151. Curious Cadet – April 29, 2013

Finally, something I get. You don’t want it to be easy. I get that. But is it really reasonable to expect such from the same group that pulled transwarp transporter out of thin air?

How many years of televised Treks pontificating that immortality and the pursuit of it are horribly corrupting influences on humans? How many seasons of Picard pontificating on how his Federation had risen above the pursuit of it only to have NG retread it, yet again, in the series and on film?

If this film dare goes there again, easily, then you are correct that that would take some exceptional skill to navigate around the premise whose currents have been rendered weak by the constant recourse to it.

158. Unwanted - April 30, 2013

@155. How in the frikin h-ll can something that happens in real life be a “trick”? I linked to a story about REAL people that were clinically dead, utterly deprived of oxygen since they were underwater, and recovered without ANY brain damage after more than an HOUR without oxygen and you call it a trick. Whatever dude, I’m done, just done, f–k this crap.

159. Curious Cadet - April 30, 2013

@158 Unwanted,

I’m using “trick” in the sense that there is an explanation.

Why are you getting upset? Putting quotes around a word is a common literary convention indicating the word has meaning beyond its actual definition.

In this case, you even called attention to the “trick” in your own post: “There is a reason after all that paramedics say “they aren’t dead until they are warm and dead”

So yes the brain was deprived of oxygen, but there were extenuating circumstances — preservation by cold, and there are scientifically defined limits as to how long this is possible. You want to bring somebody back to life on Star Trek? OK then explain the “trick” that allows it. Hypothermia is one. But don’t stick a body under a pile of rocks in 70 degree weather for three days after decomposition has really taken hold, and bacteria has eaten away at the brains neurons, and then restore the individual to fully functional state prior to their death without some explanation as to how that’s possible. Because otherwise that’s Jesus territory.

I don’t see what the problem is.

160. Curious Cadet - April 30, 2013

@156 Disinvited,

I don’t know what the issue is with Christianity. Christians come into play only in that Christ is the most famous of all humans resurrected in the literal sense of the word. I’m merely using that as an example as it is understood (by everybody actually, not just Christians). Look up the definition of resurrection, most probably even mention Jesus. Resurrection is literally life from death. Have you been debating the definition with me all this time?

The definition being debated by me with you and Unwanted is that of what constitutes death. My definition is that death is irreversible brain death, I.e. when the information stored in brain cells is broken down and lost, preventing restoration because the information is gone and cannot be reconstructed naturally.

As for your later point @157 about Star Trek in general, you and a lot of others continue to make it — that we must accept the same sort of mistakes Star Trek made in the past going forward, simply because that’s how it has always been done. The basic flaw in this logic is that Star Trek is no longer about the fans who are intimately familiar with all that has come before. Abrams is clear about his goal, to expand the franchise to a wider audience. Must they be subjected to the same leaps in illogic that we have been subjected to since the 60s? Should the franchise not endeavor to improve itself over time? What I should expect from one group of producers to another should have no impact on what I personally can hope for.

161. DiscoSpock - April 30, 2013

@158 ” How in the frikin h-ll can something that happens in real life be a “trick”? I linked to a story about REAL people that were clinically dead, utterly deprived of oxygen since they were underwater, and recovered without ANY brain damage after more than an HOUR without oxygen and you call it a trick. Whatever dude, I’m done, just done, f–k this crap.”

I hear you and agree with you completely! Like I said above: “Curious Cadet is a bit of a know-it-all, who digs his/her heels in and always insists they are 100% right; there is not much room for any give and take or exchange of ideas with this person.”

162. Dave H - April 30, 2013


Resurrection happens, albeit very infrequently, in today’s medical world as some have mentioned here, and is part of natural processes — there is now magic trick involved as some have suggested.

And resurrection also happens quite frequently in science fiction, base on extrapolating very likely advances in today medical and IT and nanotechnology over time.

Resurrection ain’t all that. 1000 yeas from now, it will be commonplace.

163. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 30, 2013

Curious Cadet,

Characterizing resurrection as a magic trick is just plain wrong. resurrection is either derived from God, or it is derived from science. Magic tricks have nothing at all to do resurrection.

164. Curious Cadet - May 1, 2013

@162 Dave H & 163 Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle,

Both of you please tell me where I ever suggested resurrection was a “magic trick”.

The “trick” I was referring to was technology, or extenuating circumstances. in the absence of technology or unusual conditions, there are some pretty hard and fast rules about death, which after a certain amount of time elapses, no technology can reverse.

In fact Dave H, please tell me how nanotechnology can restore information stored in the brain that has degraded into its constituent elements? It can’t any more than an image can be restored from a photograph eaten by termites. Once information that makes up a person’s memories, experiences and personality are gone, so are they.

And I say again, resurrection is defined as life from death. Death is the issue here — if death is suspended by hypothermia, or a “cortical stimulator” then how can it be true resurrection, since the key tissues are not really dead, they can be revived without side effects. And I define dead as beyond any natural or artificial ability to recover.

The word resurrection can mean a lot of things. You can resurrect a career, a reputation, a car, a style. Those are all figurative uses of the word. In literal terms, well there’s Jesus. Three days after he died he was up walking and talking as if he never died. What about poor Aunt Martha who died in the bathtub last Tuesday in Miami but was not revived by paramedics for half an hour and suffered irreversible brain damage? She is now totally dependent on external life support to keep her alive and cannot communicate or wilfully control her body in any way, but she nonetheless lives. Is that resurrection? Seriously, how can the same word apply to both situations? Technically I suppose it does, but in practice it means something far greater to most than simply reanimating tissue — I don’t hear a lot of doctors in Hospitals talking about how they just resurrected a patient in the ER.

165. Silvereyes - May 1, 2013

Ressurection is a magic trick?

No Way!

166. K-7 - May 1, 2013

I agree with the general consensus here in response to Curious Cadet. Resurrection has nothing to do with trickery. Never has, never will.

167. K-7 - May 1, 2013

I agree with the general consensus here in response to Curious Cadet. Resurrection has nothing to do with trickery. Never has, never will.

In fact, this is one the most ridiculous things that I have ever read on this website.

LOL :-))

168. Curious Cadet - May 2, 2013

Final word on this —

Nowhere did I ever write that Resurrection was “trickery”. You guys just enjoy beating your strawman to your hearts content.

Love this website. When you can’t rationally discuss, bring on the strawman and insults.

169. Disinvited - May 2, 2013

#160. Curious Cadet – April 30, 2013

First, I agree I want Trek storytelling to improve overtime by evolving past what has gone before, on this we agree.

Back to your definitions of death and defeating it. You are trying to believe that they are testable and therefore scientific but you are acting like a casino owner who keeps changing the odds so he can stay in business and labeling anything not covered in the rules that improves the winnings odds for the players against the house as “tricks”, i.e. cheating. While this is good business it most definitely isn’t good science.

170. Curious Cadet - May 3, 2013

@169 Disinvited,

I absolutely am not acting like a casino owner. I’m saying there’s the natural threshold of what science calls death, and then there’s the things that cause the natural threshold to be extended. They are absolutely testable, as evidenced by the links provided by Unwanted.

If you actually read what I wrote (to everyone debating this), I have made that point from the beginning.

If you are hiking in the middle of the forest in Summer, and your friend is attacked by a bear and loses an arm, bleeds out and clinically dies, and you hike him out of the forest on your back and reach a hospital several hours later, they may be able to reattach his arm, they may even be able to resuscitate his body, but the information in his brain will be gone (that battle was probably lost in the first 10 minutes of clinical death). Your friend will never be the same again, and no amount of technology will change that.

Now take this exact same scenario and put it in Alaska in the Winter, and you submerge your friend in ice water and sled him back to the hospital an hour later … Well science tells us his brain was preserved and he therefore might be revivable with no ill effects. Two hours later and maybe not.

Take this exact same scenario and introduce a cortical stimulator, or nanobots, or digitally transfer the contents of the brain for later download into a clone, or any other non-existent futuristic contrivance to repair a damaged body, well then we’re no longer talking about death in the same terms. Depending on how a person decides these things work, there is no actual death, and in particular … Brain death. Talk about untestable!

No it’s you guys who are like gamblers trying to change the rules complaining it isn’t fair, when the “odds” were laid out from the beginning.

When suspended animation becomes a reality, and brain cells are preserved for a long period of inactivity; when the person is revived will they be presumed to be resurrected? No that’s silly. Despite possibly being technically dead, they weren’t. They were “suspended”. This is a vastly different thing than irreversible death when the cells physically begin to break down and can no longer be revived except by extraordinary means (like transferring the data from the brain to a new body!). If your buddy who died in the bear attack in the first example gets up off the operating table as if nothing ever happened, then you bet he was resurrected in the truest sense of the word.

I believe death is brain death, and I define that death as when the condition is irreversible. The bar for that changes depending on the circumstances, which is all you guys have been doing, changing the placement of the bar.

Let’s get this back to Star Trek, one of your original examples from Amok Time, which sets up your entire argument. When Spock came into sickbay to place himself under arrest and discovered Kirk was alive, he burst out into a spontaneous show of emotion. Why? Because he thought Kirk was dead, despite all the futuristic technology that could have otherwise saved him. Given the circumstances of his death, logical, intelligent Spock knew Kirk could not have survived. But Spock, being logical wants to know how this was possible, because he knew it should not be. He knew there must be some “trick” and there was — McCoy had given him a drug that simulates death, yet somehow preserved Kirk’s tissues and brain cells despite the heat of Vulcan. Spock should have known the answer when he saw Kirk, but he was speaking for the audience. Because we were all asking how, even in the 60s before we knew about all the extreme ways bodies might survive the normal parameters of death, we knew there were limits to the ability to revive someone without side effects. You say he was resurrected, I say he was not. You say he died, I say he didn’t. I’ve proven why I believe this to be the case, you’ve accused me of changing the odds.

Actually, I have to thank you. I’ve learned something I didn’t know about brain death before thanks to your challenges, that the 3-10 minute limit for neurons to die at room temperature does not necessarily have to cause brain damage when the body is revived if extraordinary methods are used, like cooling the body, or introduction of certain experimental drugs when blood flow is returned. So despite how frustrating it has been debating the strawman of whether I have been “changing the odds”, or parsing the meaning of words instead of my actual position, I walk away having gained something.

171. Disinvited - May 3, 2013

#170. Curious Cadet – May 3, 2013

If death is well-defined and it has to be to be scientifically testable, then the way a person dies won’t change any “bars”. Your are inferring that the way a person dies changes your definition of death and thus justifies the casino owner seeing “the bar” moved.

If you had bothered to read my cited article on suspended animation in humans you would also have noted that brain death as defined by science had been induced in dogs and brain dead dogs were revived hours later with no brain damage. So your whole death definition has been decimated by scientific experimentation using dogs as test subjects.

172. Disinvited - May 3, 2013

#170. Curious Cadet – May 3, 2013

And to be clear, in the dog experiments:

“Clinical death occurs when the heart stops pumping, breathing stops and brain activity ends. “

173. Curious Cadet - May 5, 2013

@171 Disinvited,

I wrote a long retort which has evidently vanished.

Suffice it to say, I did read the article you linked to, better than you did yourself. And you were wrong: some of the dogs did suffer brain damage.

Perhaps you should govern your passions better.

Enough said.

174. Disinvited - May 5, 2013

#173. Curious Cadet – May 5, 2013

I never made such a contention that “all the dogs had no brain damage” as that would be ridiculous as only one had to survive with no brain damage to disprove your contention, which in spite of the fact that you knew “few” in no way equates to “all” you still tried to repair by making it appear otherwise.

My understanding is that it is your contention death is represented by the cessation of all brain activity, and that necessarily results in irreparable brain damage after a few minutes which seals the deal via permanent irretrievable memory loss. That some dogs can be revived hours after “the ending of all brain activity” with NO brain damage throws the “irreparable damage after a few minutes” contention of yours out the window. You must adjust your hypothesis to account for the contraindicative experimental results, if you wish it to survive peer review. That “some” dogs had minor brain damage in the experiment is irrelevant, and had absolutely no bearing on those that didn’t which were all that were necessary and sufficient to disprove what you had contended.

175. Disinvited - May 6, 2013

#173. Curious Cadet – May 5, 2013

Look your “trick” contention is the equivalent of Sir Isaac Newton trying to label time dilation effects, that keep the speed of light unexceedable in spite of my heading head-on into the light beam at 100mph (His theory predicts the light beam should appear to me as having the speed of c+100mph), “tricks”. It doesn’t matter what the phenomena that doesn’t fit is called the theory doesn’t account for the observed phenomena and must be replaced with something that better does.

176. cherry blossoms meaning - May 7, 2013

You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be
actually something that I think I would never understand.

It seems too complex and very broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!

177. Curious Cadet - May 7, 2013

@174 Disinvited,
“My understanding is that it is your contention death is represented by the cessation of all brain activity, and that necessarily results in irreparable brain damage after a few minutes which seals the deal via permanent irretrievable memory loss.”

Your “understanding” is wrong.

This is abundantly clear by what I have actually written throughout this thread to you and others addressing this issue. No more needs to be said. At this point I am only concerned about those who perceive this upon future readings. Those who don’t, likely never will.

This entire debate is going to split wide open in less that two weeks on other threads anyway. This one has gone off the rails. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.