Deledrius wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:27 am
That is the given motive, yes, and to their credit it's a strong one. How convincing of a motive this is will definitely vary for different members of the audience.
As I said, for me, it's just a bit off. I don't have trouble with taking the film at face value that this is the reason, but it does seem harder to justify if taken as a whole since his relationship with David was equally weak. After all, it's entirely possible and realistic for someone to behave this way, even for someone who has always been perhaps too good at burying his personal feelings if they conflict with upholding his values.
In the end, it's all in the service of telling a positive character arc for Kirk in how he deals with the conflict and works through his own doubts and shortcomings, so I think it's a worthwhile bending of the characterization.
It may have been better if we had more than what we had with David to get to know him better. His character is pretty thin IMO through the two movies he was in. And Kirk was only in scenes with him for one movie. Maybe that would have played better for us in how Kirk was in ST6
I do think his anger with the Klingons felt thin and even how the crew acted during the dinner scene felt off.
I do take the movie at face value as well. It's a good movie. Maybe they could have done better with the whole post Cold War aspect they were going with.
The death of Kirk's son works as a motive. The problem I have is that Kirk knows David for like five minutes. Seriously, for what we see, he comes aboard the Enterprise at the end of Star Trek 2, leaves at some point before Star Trek 3 (which can only be a couple of days to a week considering that the ship is limping back home) and then gets assigned to the Grissom where he dies.
Kirk is the very definition of an absent father. He COULD have been in David's life - Carol had no issue with that. The issue was that they were both unwilling to give up their careers. He didn't care about David at all during his five year mission for all we see and yet he cares now?
I know Star Trek 5 isn't a good film... but it is canon. And what we see is him managing to share a drink with the Klingons at the end of the film just fine. To go from that to ''let them die'' seems a bit off.
Carol Marcus absolutely had an issue with Kirk being in David's life. It is in the dialogue of the movie, explicitly.
"I did what you wanted, I stayed away". Kirk says that directly to Carol's face, and she does not disagree with that at all. Kirk was absent from David's life because Carol wanted him absent from his life.
clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 11:45 am
The death of Kirk's son works as a motive. The problem I have is that Kirk knows David for like five minutes. Seriously, for what we see, he comes aboard the Enterprise at the end of Star Trek 2, leaves at some point before Star Trek 3 (which can only be a couple of days to a week considering that the ship is limping back home) and then gets assigned to the Grissom where he dies.
Kirk is the very definition of an absent father. He COULD have been in David's life - Carol had no issue with that. The issue was that they were both unwilling to give up their careers. He didn't care about David at all during his five year mission for all we see and yet he cares now?
I know Star Trek 5 isn't a good film... but it is canon. And what we see is him managing to share a drink with the Klingons at the end of the film just fine. To go from that to ''let them die'' seems a bit off.
If you go by how Chuck sees STV as you could easily skip that movie as ST6 seems to be a continuation of ST2, 3 and 4.
ST5 has many issues but at least it really didn't add anything truly problematic to the Canon lore. Beyond the fake God thing, Kirk and the Klingons, going to the center of the galaxy in hours. We'll it did introduce the Movie era shuttlecraft, cool I guess.
That was my point, we barely knew David. Interactions with David and Kirk wasn't so in depth to get a feel for the relationship. Kirk barely knew David as did we. Kirk did have that breakdown when David was killed. So there is that.
CrypticMirror wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 1:26 pm
Carol Marcus absolutely had an issue with Kirk being in David's life. It is in the dialogue of the movie, explicitly.
"I did what you wanted, I stayed away". Kirk says that directly to Carol's face, and she does not disagree with that at all. Kirk was absent from David's life because Carol wanted him absent from his life.
I was misremembering. She didn't tell him about David at all.
I stick by what I said though. He doesn't know this kid long enough.
clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 11:45 am
The death of Kirk's son works as a motive. The problem I have is that Kirk knows David for like five minutes. Seriously, for what we see, he comes aboard the Enterprise at the end of Star Trek 2, leaves at some point before Star Trek 3 (which can only be a couple of days to a week considering that the ship is limping back home) and then gets assigned to the Grissom where he dies.
Kirk is the very definition of an absent father. He COULD have been in David's life - Carol had no issue with that. The issue was that they were both unwilling to give up their careers. He didn't care about David at all during his five year mission for all we see and yet he cares now?
I know Star Trek 5 isn't a good film... but it is canon. And what we see is him managing to share a drink with the Klingons at the end of the film just fine. To go from that to ''let them die'' seems a bit off.
If you go by how Chuck sees STV as you could easily skip that movie as ST6 seems to be a continuation of ST2, 3 and 4.
ST5 has many issues but at least it really didn't add anything truly problematic to the Canon lore. Beyond the fake God thing, Kirk and the Klingons, going to the center of the galaxy in hours. We'll it did introduce the Movie era shuttlecraft, cool I guess.
That was my point, we barely knew David. Interactions with David and Kirk wasn't so in depth to get a feel for the relationship. Kirk barely knew David as did we. Kirk did have that breakdown when David was killed. So there is that.
Its kind of interesting that Star Trek 5 is the only film that doesn't follow the ''Kirk's mid-life crisis theme'' of the movies. You can even twist Star Trek 1 into also having it given how Kirk does everything he can to try and steal his old ship back ''reliving the past''. He actually is a liability several times given how he knows nothing about this new ship.
clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 11:45 am
The death of Kirk's son works as a motive. The problem I have is that Kirk knows David for like five minutes. Seriously, for what we see, he comes aboard the Enterprise at the end of Star Trek 2, leaves at some point before Star Trek 3 (which can only be a couple of days to a week considering that the ship is limping back home) and then gets assigned to the Grissom where he dies.
Kirk is the very definition of an absent father. He COULD have been in David's life - Carol had no issue with that. The issue was that they were both unwilling to give up their careers. He didn't care about David at all during his five year mission for all we see and yet he cares now?
I know Star Trek 5 isn't a good film... but it is canon. And what we see is him managing to share a drink with the Klingons at the end of the film just fine. To go from that to ''let them die'' seems a bit off.
If you go by how Chuck sees STV as you could easily skip that movie as ST6 seems to be a continuation of ST2, 3 and 4.
ST5 has many issues but at least it really didn't add anything truly problematic to the Canon lore. Beyond the fake God thing, Kirk and the Klingons, going to the center of the galaxy in hours. We'll it did introduce the Movie era shuttlecraft, cool I guess.
That was my point, we barely knew David. Interactions with David and Kirk wasn't so in depth to get a feel for the relationship. Kirk barely knew David as did we. Kirk did have that breakdown when David was killed. So there is that.
Its kind of interesting that Star Trek 5 is the only film that doesn't follow the ''Kirk's mid-life crisis theme'' of the movies. You can even twist Star Trek 1 into also having it given how Kirk does everything he can to try and steal his old ship back ''reliving the past''. He actually is a liability several times given how he knows nothing about this new ship.
Too be fair, Star Trek Five IS an awful film.
Science Fiction is a genre where anything can happen. Just make sure what happens is enjoyable for yourself and your audience.
clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 11:45 am
The death of Kirk's son works as a motive. The problem I have is that Kirk knows David for like five minutes. Seriously, for what we see, he comes aboard the Enterprise at the end of Star Trek 2, leaves at some point before Star Trek 3 (which can only be a couple of days to a week considering that the ship is limping back home) and then gets assigned to the Grissom where he dies.
Kirk is the very definition of an absent father. He COULD have been in David's life - Carol had no issue with that. The issue was that they were both unwilling to give up their careers. He didn't care about David at all during his five year mission for all we see and yet he cares now?
I know Star Trek 5 isn't a good film... but it is canon. And what we see is him managing to share a drink with the Klingons at the end of the film just fine. To go from that to ''let them die'' seems a bit off.
If you go by how Chuck sees STV as you could easily skip that movie as ST6 seems to be a continuation of ST2, 3 and 4.
ST5 has many issues but at least it really didn't add anything truly problematic to the Canon lore. Beyond the fake God thing, Kirk and the Klingons, going to the center of the galaxy in hours. We'll it did introduce the Movie era shuttlecraft, cool I guess.
That was my point, we barely knew David. Interactions with David and Kirk wasn't so in depth to get a feel for the relationship. Kirk barely knew David as did we. Kirk did have that breakdown when David was killed. So there is that.
Its kind of interesting that Star Trek 5 is the only film that doesn't follow the ''Kirk's mid-life crisis theme'' of the movies. You can even twist Star Trek 1 into also having it given how Kirk does everything he can to try and steal his old ship back ''reliving the past''. He actually is a liability several times given how he knows nothing about this new ship.
clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 11:45 am
The death of Kirk's son works as a motive. The problem I have is that Kirk knows David for like five minutes. Seriously, for what we see, he comes aboard the Enterprise at the end of Star Trek 2, leaves at some point before Star Trek 3 (which can only be a couple of days to a week considering that the ship is limping back home) and then gets assigned to the Grissom where he dies.
Kirk is the very definition of an absent father. He COULD have been in David's life - Carol had no issue with that. The issue was that they were both unwilling to give up their careers. He didn't care about David at all during his five year mission for all we see and yet he cares now?
I know Star Trek 5 isn't a good film... but it is canon. And what we see is him managing to share a drink with the Klingons at the end of the film just fine. To go from that to ''let them die'' seems a bit off.
If you go by how Chuck sees STV as you could easily skip that movie as ST6 seems to be a continuation of ST2, 3 and 4.
ST5 has many issues but at least it really didn't add anything truly problematic to the Canon lore. Beyond the fake God thing, Kirk and the Klingons, going to the center of the galaxy in hours. We'll it did introduce the Movie era shuttlecraft, cool I guess.
That was my point, we barely knew David. Interactions with David and Kirk wasn't so in depth to get a feel for the relationship. Kirk barely knew David as did we. Kirk did have that breakdown when David was killed. So there is that.
Its kind of interesting that Star Trek 5 is the only film that doesn't follow the ''Kirk's mid-life crisis theme'' of the movies. You can even twist Star Trek 1 into also having it given how Kirk does everything he can to try and steal his old ship back ''reliving the past''. He actually is a liability several times given how he knows nothing about this new ship.
Too be fair, Star Trek Five IS an awful film.
It also had Shatner's ego all over it.
Which is probably why it's such an awful film. Or one of the major contributing factors.
Which is probably why it's such an awful film. Or one of the major contributing factors.
The book about the making of the film suggests that it was a lot more about how the fact that the crew actually got conned and all of the special effects budget embezzled with more ambitious scripts as well as shots all taken away. I mean, the script was awful and Shatner was protected from editors but they could have done much better if they'd had more time as well as had gone with their original established people.
