Prime Directive violation? [Spoilers?]

I was able to watch a copy of the IMAX trailer for Into Darkness, and I don't know if this has been brought up, but in the trailer from what I could gather, the crew of the Enterprise goes to a world to try and prevent a volcano from erupting and there by killing the inhabitants of this planet. Now I'm sure most of us would agree that this would be a good thing for the federation to do, but isn't that against the prime directive? It brings to mind the quote by Picard in Insurrection saying "Who the hell are we to decide the next course of evolution for these people?" I'm sure there's more to this movie that we just don't know yet, but is this considered a violation of the prime directive?

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

You are very perceptive.
They just kept talking about the PD in those few minutes.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

Yes, and it's a better interpretation of the Prime Directive than the tiresome (and IMHO offensive) interpretations of the PD that we saw in TNG from time and time.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

What evolution is there when the whole species is dead?
I never liked the TNG version of the prime directive, it made the Federation to be a bunch of assholes.
Also, the TOS version of the prime directive was far more sane: Limited to giving the natives technology or making changes to their culture (which Kirk did anyway...). The preview seems to be more inline with the TOS version.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

No.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

It depends what the PD says in this universe and in the 23rd century. By Picard's time it could have been revised.

We know that Kirk gets in some kind of trouble with Pike which could be because of a PD violation.
So either Kirk is there without Starfleet knowing about it, which I doubt or they do know about it but are mad because he does something to reveal himself to the natives (making the Enterprise visible to save Spock perhaps?)

I guess we'll have to wait and see. But it's not like the PD has stopped our heroes from doing what they feel is right before.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

And like any directive, law, etc, things can be amended over time.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

Well considering I didn't get a chance to see the whole thing and there was no sound to the one that I saw, I think it's a decent question to ask, but hey, it's okay. You didn't know. Ignorance is bliss. But I thank you for your help nevertheless.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

So ethical values and common reason within UFP actually DETERIORATE over time? Not buying it.

Like EyalM said, how do you interfere with the species' development if you let it get wiped out? Only thing that you accomplish with that is making sure there WAS NO development. "Pen pals" as a whole was a one, big, very serious logical fallacy, just like "Dear Doctor", perhaps even worse.

Writers of nuTrek cannot be bound by the sheer idiocy of people who wrote nonsensical bullshit before them, even if it was "canon".

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

This is how they did Prime Directive stuff in The Original Series. It was The Next Generation that came up with that "we must let them die" garbage ("Pen Pals" etc), and as Janeway said in "Flashback", they'd all be kicked out of 24th century Starfleet.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

Well, it does seem to be what happened in the prime universe, going from the TOS to the TNG era...stupid as it may be.

Personally, I agree with you and how it was handled in TOS and apparently now in STID.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

...What we see in these first nine minutes is more or less a perfect match for what Kirk attempted to do in "Paradise Syndrome" (save natives from asteroid impact without telling them), down to it being left to Spock to pull off the actual rescue. Picard in "Pen Pals" also seemed to cave in fairly easily to performing a very similar secret rescue, despite agonizing over the Prime Directive earlier - thus perhaps suggesting that the 24th century PD actually is okay with such things?

One also wonders about "The Most Toys", where our heroes save a "colony" of some sort by launching a probe full of helpful but highly volatile stuff. Did they do that harebrained stunt because they couldn't expose themselves to the natives by delivering the dangerous material more gently? Later on, they check out the results, but possibly covertly as no natives take part in the checking; there is also a complete onscreen lack of communications with this "colony". Ye olde type of PD in action?

Timo Saloniemi

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

Anyone else suddenly really want to know what happened to Nibiru Prime? 2259 is still 5 years before Kirk took command of the original Enterprise (2264, according to the timeline in Voyages of Imagination, and the novel Enterprise: The First Adventure by Vonda McIntyre). It would have been during Pike's tenure as Captain.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

The TNG interpretation of the Prime Directive was seriously flawed.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

Supposedly, nuKirk saves a community from a volcanic eruption. I can't see why that would be necessary, because the community appears to possess clothing, weaponry and even some sort of holy scrolls. It's not just an isolated bunch, then, but part of a larger whole that has certainly had enough time to proliferate across the planet. Stopping one volcano from offing one village doesn't sound like a worthwhile effort by any standard; had Pike opted not to do it, Nibiru history might be different (since they were already into their historical era, apparently!), but not drastically so. NuKirk would need clairvoyance to decide that this particular community warranted saving...

OTOH, if all that was left of the Nibiru was located within the kill zone of the volcano, efforts to save them appear fairly pointless.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

So, if their number is small or they have managed to proliferate across the planet and one village won't be missed, Kirk should just tell them to go f' themselves and die because they are not worth the effort?

As for the volcano, it depends what kind of volcano it is and in what kind of geologic period the planet is.
It could be powerful enough to wipe their civilization out with tsunamis, volcanic winter etc

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

Has anyone considered that in the light of the events of the first film, the Federation may have decided to reinterpret the Prime Directive to a less 'hands-off' approach, with regards to natural disasters?

I know it doesn't fit 100%, but you can imagine that fallout from the Romulan/Vulcan incident led to a lot of panicking in the Federation Council, who decided to help out planets/polites with natural disasters rather than ignore them, lest they have any more of their own worlds blown up by annoyed people...

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

What we see in the nine minutes actually matches up with the TOS version of the Prime Directive. So there's really no need to try to explain it.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

Well considering the teaser has the Enterprise rising out of water and Spock is in the parts of the movie dealing with the bad guy I think we can make a guess at what Kirk does that annoys Pike.

 

Re: Prime Directive violation?

You just reminded me of this: http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/prime-directive-analysis-5638650