King Daniel wrote:
I don't believe Kirk's offer was insincere at all. If it were, he'd not have explained his reasoning to Spock. It was "either surrender, or we will make sure you can't hurt anyone else."
Then why wasn't that line in the movie? Let's just say his offer doesn't fit well with his reaction and flys in the face of past examples.
Set Harth wrote:
If only Kirk had access to the war excuse. Damn it!
PIKE: You've declared war against the Federation. Withdraw. I'll agree to arrange a conference with Romulan leadership at a neutral location.
The difference being that for nuKirk and Co, the "war" was over. Except for the Borg Queen incident, Picard was in the heat of battle. And the "Borg Queen" looked like a remotely controlled interface for the rest of the collective. She obviously wasn't a drone whose mind was still biological.
I wouldn't concede that both of those two situations are unnecessary. But the solution is easy: arrange matters so the emotional response is part of the battle, not an after match gloat fest. What was Nero supposed to say: "Well played sir, fair cop"?
You are not going to suggest he should have used the stun setting are you?
If not, I see no problem with his action.
Well it was no Death Star. In fact it really just seemed to crumple up and fade away.
I can't recall anyone arguing for that. Blowing up the bad guys after
they had saved the day on the other hand ... . As I have said, have a look at TWOK to see how it should have been handled.
Again: The heroes have no way of knowing that this will do the trick. What they know his that Nero has a immensely powerful ship that can survive a blackhole. From their POV whose to say the ship can't survive what's happening, even in it's battered condition. It was the proper decision to eliminate the possible future threat of the ship returning.
Of course they knew the Narada was finished. How is a ship supposed to fly around
a singularity when that singularity is positioned inside
said ship? Even nuKirk could have worked that out. What he actually said suggested he was well aware of it and he said nothing to the contrary.
And it fits just fine with the TOS version of Kirk. He was the man that doomed two worlds to the potential of a interstellar war to save 1 ship. Threw an primitive culture to the wolves by destroying their God--which happened to control the climate of their planet--then leaving. TOS Kirk would have pulled the trigger too.
No, Kirk believed, rightly as it turned out, that threatening interstellar war was what was needed to stop the perpetual clinical slaughter that was taking place. He was, after all, risking his own life as well. And as we all know Kirk destroyed that culture's "god" to give them back their lives as much as to free himself and his ship. And why would you assume there was no follow up? As a fan of Star Trek do you really believe Kirk was the kind of monster you now find it convenient to portray him as? Might I ask how long you have thought that?
But lets try our best to ignore the barrage of false analogies and concentrate on ones that were legitimately similar, such as when he didn't respond with phasers when the Romulan ship was defenceless in "Balance of Terror" (I note you didn't mention that one). As far as I can recall, in truly similar situations, he didn't "pull the trigger". Heck, until the Klingon commander who ordered the death of his son tried to kill Kirk as well, he was even prepared to save him!
I find it sad that so many seem not to know the kind of person Prime Kirk actually "is", or now feel compelled to paint him in an inaccurate and unfair light. Doesn't that give anyone pause for thought?