NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

[King Daniel]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

To pursue Gaila?

Or maybe Worf from the little people dimension...

[Pauln6]

RPJOB wrote:

---

The end of the movie was actually a fairly close parallel of the end of Balance of Terror up to the point of Spock advising that Nero should be killed. In both, the Romulan turned down the offer of assistance, although in radically different ways.

Even though, since the shields were down as Pauln6 said, they should have simply beamed them aboard. The point of the scene was to show that in this universe, our enemies are much less likely to be as noble as they were in TOS. Also, that this is not the 1960's version of the show, it's Trek for a post 9/11 world. There is no redemption. There is no alternate viewpoint. It's a black and white world now. At least on the screen. Enemies are to be destroyed, not simply stopped and captured. Vengeance is understandable and even admirable. After all, Vulcans were the wronged parties. Let one of the last survivors judge Nero.

That's very true, in the early episodes, Spock did advocate killing if he felt it was logical, albeit that may have been as devil's advocate, knowing that Kirk needed alternatives in order to reach the right decision. If logic had been applied in the final scene e.g. We cannot take the risk that any of Nero's crew or their advanced technology might survive a trip through another wormhole, the execution would have been more incidental. We also have to consider Kirk's moralising about capital punishment with Trelane compared to Spock's trial in the Menagerie. TOS was never very consistent - lol.

[Pauln6]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Or maybe Worf from the little people dimension...

That really is too much woman to ignore!

[RPJOB]

Pauln6 wrote:

---

That's very true, in the early episodes, Spock did advocate killing if he felt it was logical, albeit that may have been as devil's advocate, knowing that Kirk needed alternatives in order to reach the right decision. If logic had been applied in the final scene e.g. We cannot take the risk that any of Nero's crew or their advanced technology might survive a trip through another wormhole, the execution would have been more incidental. We also have to consider Kirk's moralising about capital punishment with Trelane compared to Spock's trial in the Menagerie. TOS was never very consistent - lol.

In Devil in the Dark, Spock gave orders to the search parties to capture the Horta. Kirk countermanded him rather strongly. Later, when Kirk Encountered the Horta their positions immediately reversed. Spock calling for Kirk to kill it and Kirk taking a more wait and see attitude.

With no indication at all that anyone thought Nero was either a threat at that point or that he might escape, the "Fire everything" command does come across as simply vengeance. You killed X so I get to kill you. In previous examples "an eye for an eye" was shown as wrong in Trek. Now it's accepted, even admirable, based on the look on Kirk's face when Spock tells Kirk that the possibility of peace with the Romulans isn't worth letting Nero live.

[Pauln6]

RPJOB wrote:

---

With no indication at all that anyone thought Nero was either a threat at that point or that he might escape, the "Fire everything" command does come across as simply vengeance. You killed X so I get to kill you. In previous examples "an eye for an eye" was shown as wrong in Trek. Now it's accepted, even admirable, based on the look on Kirk's face when Spock tells Kirk that the possibility of peace with the Romulans isn't worth letting Nero live.

Yes, it was as much in the way they delivered the scene. I certainly got a very strong vibe that they were very happy to kill Nero. It may be less controversial in the USA where gun ownership may lead to a cultural expectation of lethal self defence and where capital punishment still exists in some states I suppose. We're largely liberal pinkos in Europe.

[Christopher]

Oh, I agree, the way the scene was directed and presented did give an unfortunately bloodthirsty impression. It's just that if you think about it, you can rationalize it as being more of a military necessity rather than the vindictive act it seemed to be at first blush.

[Therin of Andor]

RPJOB wrote:

---

Now it's accepted, even admirable, based on the look on Kirk's face when Spock tells Kirk that the possibility of peace with the Romulans isn't worth letting Nero live.

But it is not proof that this timeline's Kirk or Spock will always react this way in every situation. These were extraordinary circumstances.

[RPJOB]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

But it is not proof that this timeline's Kirk or Spock will always react this way in every situation. These were extraordinary circumstances.

Yes they were but it was also the first time we've seen these characters. You know the expression "You never get a second chance to make a first impression?"

Spock still could have spoken against trying to save Nero. He had more than enough reason for wanting him to pay for his crimes and he was emotionally compromised. For Kirk, however, it could have been a growth moment. A time to move beyond the bar fighting of his youth. The cocky grin and the command to "fire everything" showed too much relish for the moment when just moments before he'd been talking about the possibility of peace with the Romulans. Makes you wonder just how sincere the offer was.

[Pauln6]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

But it is not proof that this timeline's Kirk or Spock will always react this way in every situation. These were extraordinary circumstances.

The comic writers have done a remarkably good job of rowing away from that kind of approach to the characters while retaining a semblance of the nu-personalities. The comic has a lot of potential, particularly if they're going to give each character decent story chunks to flesh them out a bit like Scotty in this month's issue.

Uhura had a decent contribution to make to the Mirror Mirror story so maybe we'll see a more interesting dynamic there in the new version.

[JD]

RPJOB wrote:

---

Yes they were but it was also the first time we've seen these characters. You know the expression "You never get a second chance to make a first impression?"

Spock still could have spoken against trying to save Nero. He had more than enough reason for wanting him to pay for his crimes and he was emotionally compromised. For Kirk, however, it could have been a growth moment. A time to move beyond the bar fighting of his youth. The cocky grin and the command to "fire everything" showed too much relish for the moment when just moments before he'd been talking about the possibility of peace with the Romulans. Makes you wonder just how sincere the offer was.

I think it's also worth keeping in mind that this was modern American action movie, and as a general rule in these kinds movies the hero kills the villain at end, unless they're going to be an ongoing enemy, like Magneto in the X-Men movies.

[Therin of Andor]

RPJOB wrote:

---

For Kirk, however, it could have been a growth moment. A time to move beyond the bar fighting of his youth.

The whole movie was about that.

I came out of movies like ST V, Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis feeling quite depressed and disappointed. I came out of ST 2009 feeling thrilled, nostalgic and exhilarated. If, somehow, this new timeline's Kirk was diminished and ruined forever by the ending, I truly didn't notice. I was cheering Nero's demise along with the rest of the packed cinema. All seven times I saw it.

If that's a modern young person's movie, they count this 50+ fan as an honorary modern young person.

[Christopher]

^Despite how Kirk and Spock were portrayed, I never got the sense that Abrams wanted us to cheer Nero's demise. The music and direction at that point weren't triumphant, they were tragic. We were given a portrait of Nero as a defeated, grieving man, and visually and musically his death scene paralleled George Kirk's in the opening. It was reminding us that, whatever their differences, both men were ultimately driven by love for their wives -- and while that didn't remotely forgive what Nero had done, it did serve as a reminder that his death wasn't some unambiguously happy thing to be cheered over, that the situation was more nuanced than that.

So yes, JD is right -- the idiom of American action movies demands the villain's death at the end, and franchises that normally wouldn't go there (like ST or superhero comics) are generally compelled to when they go to the big screen. And this film fell prey to that as well, but that was mollified by the fact that Kirk at least attempted to offer mercy (which Nero rejected, let's recall), and that the director chose not to portray Nero's death as a triumph but instead make it a more mournful, sympathetic moment. So despite its imperfections (which I blame on the industry and culture overall), I think that on the whole, the climax comes out in the plus column.

Anyway, isn't this thread supposed to be about the comic?

[Therin of Andor]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Despite how Kirk and Spock were portrayed, I never got the sense that Abrams wanted us to cheer Nero's demise. The music and direction at that point weren't triumphant, they were tragic.

Well, I exaggerated. Yes it was tragic, but audiences still got a bit of a thrill from seeing Nero gone for good.

[Pauln6]

Christopher wrote:

---

Anyway, isn't this thread supposed to be about the comic?

The comic suffers a bit from maverick syndrome where crew disobey orders but are instantly forgiven a bit too often but they do seem to be taking a more balanced approach to homicidal tendencies so far.

Looks like the next two stories will be single issue stories. I want them to tell 3 issue stories but it looks like these might be lighthearted filler.

[RPJOB]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

The whole movie was about that.

I came out of movies like ST V, Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis feeling quite depressed and disappointed. I came out of ST 2009 feeling thrilled, nostalgic and exhilarated. If, somehow, this new timeline's Kirk was diminished and ruined forever by the ending, I truly didn't notice. I was cheering Nero's demise along with the rest of the packed cinema. All seven times I saw it.

If that's a modern young person's movie, they count this 50+ fan as an honorary modern young person.

I don't see Kirk as ruined forever. Neither do I see him as having grown though. He's still the cocky, go it alone maverick. Kirk should be a leader, inspiring his crew to follow him and trust in his judgement. Grinning when he's given the chance to fall back on his baser instincts didn't feel like growth to me. Wether it's because Spock has thrown off his Vulcan heritage of logic and Suark's teachings or because he gets to kill the bad guy, it didn't feel like Kirk. In TSFS Kirk tried to save Kruge and only killed him when Kruge tried to pull him off the cliff as well. In TWOK, Kirk's first order after the battle was to ordder Khan to prepare to be barded instead of simply finishing him off.

"Am I doing the right thing, Bones? Once I said that man rose above primitiveness by vowing, 'I will not kill, today.'" - Kirk (One of our planets is missing)

Nero can still die at the end but it would have been more heroic to have Kirk trying yo save him and Nero choosing death over life. By having Kirk order the Enterprise to fire on him at the end he's basically taken on the role of the man who killed his father. As Christopher said, the end mirrors the beginning but in both cases we're not supposed to be cheering toe one who's doing the shooting.

Should Trek simply follow the pack or should it try to offer another way? Do we want Kirk shouting "Yippee-ki-yay, m-----f-----"?

It's not enough to simply win, it's how you do it. I expect more from my heroes.

We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill - today! - Kirk - A Taste of Armageddon