Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Characters dieing in stupid ways
Topic Started: Nov 17 2004, 07:04 PM (289 Views)
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I here complaints about the stupid way Kirk bought it and now the stupid way Data got killed. Someone also mentioned Yar.

Aside from dieing of old age and disease, most other people who don't die this way die a stupid senseless way like in a car accident or something.

Star Trek would seem to be more realistic if the characters who get killed, get killed in a senseless way, don't you think.

When I finally take a dirt nap, I hope it is not because of a stupid car accident. That is just so pointless, but it happens. It happened here last night. There are tens of thousands of senseless fatality car accidents in the US per year. There are very few heroic deaths in the US per year.

Why do we have this standard that the ST characters have to go out in a blaze of glory every time?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gdog243
Rear Admiral
Where do you get that standard. Most of the characters who passed on died in stupid ways. Dax did, Data did, Kirk did, and Yar did. Also, most of the non-names die senslessly as well. The only character who I thought went out with a blaze of glory was Eddington.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
^^^
Spock, in "TWOK", but maybe that doesn't really count since he got better...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
38957
Nov 17 2004, 07:04 PM
Star Trek would seem to be more realistic if the characters who get killed, get killed in a senseless way, don't you think.


Only if they were ensigns who I had seen no more than twice.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
Yeah there is always some criticism but a glob of black Tar goo? Come on.
Then the crew wept passionately.

Armus was at the top of the sucking entities, let alone a way to wipe out a Lead Character. :no:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Data didn't die senslessly - he saved his ship and crew. Kirk saved millions in the Veridian system. Yar and Dax were the only true senseless deaths in your list.
| Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Why do we have this standard that the ST characters have to go out in a blaze of glory every time?

I do not have this standard. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Neither do i, people die in 'non events' all the time, no matter who they are.
| Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I liked Spock's death (in retrospect); I have yet to see the other 'death' of Kirk.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

You mean the one where he was shot in the back? You ain't missing much!
| Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I suppose that is the one. I'm referring to the alternative ending, which I think is on the DVD release.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
and I think that's even worse then the final cut. also consider that there are major plot problems- they had shut all of soran's stuuf down, yet picard didn't try to signal the enterprise. surly they would have had enough reserve battery power for a single transport and medical care... after all, the scaucer was designed to be able to do that. If you read the technical manual (written mid series) it incluedes a complete profile of how it's supposed to work.

The shot in the back would have been better plpothole wise, but you have to consider that kirk was an experienced fighter who had gone through this kind of thing before.

So basically, they screwed generations up big time. it wasn't just that kirk died, it was the way they killed him, and the lack of effort to save him that really got me. I guess that's why I side with the bring back kirk people.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
The saucer section was crash landed on the planet. I don't know if they had power to do anything.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
that was acccually a controled landing (okay, controlled crash) but the saucer is designed to handle that so if on a hostile world there would be defence or if the planet isn't habiatble it can provide long term life support. It should have been able to handle it...

But again, it was a plothole. also consider that they have transporters in the shuttles... not to mention medical kits.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sophie
Member Avatar
Keeper of the spider-cats
cptjeff
Nov 18 2004, 07:00 PM
also consider that they have transporters in the shuttles... not to mention medical kits.

but on which part of the ship were the shuttles and medical kits located?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Trek · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus