I hope for more traditional space battles

[Squiggy]

I guess by "traditional" he means 4 identical ships flying in close formation.

[Ovation]

UFO wrote:

---

Right, so you are saying he was still "emotionally compromised" and shouldn't have been on duty?

No. I'm saying I understand his reaction.

Is that even possible?

Yes. Yes it is.

But I guess you are saying, when it comes to fictional material at least, nothing is important.

Popcorn entertainment like Star Trek? Nothing worth losing any sleep over.

[Nerys Myk]

Squiggy wrote:

---

I guess by "traditional" he means 4 identical ships flying in close formation.

It's between a boyship and a girlship.

[-Brett-]

It's tough to judge the morality of the execution scene when the circumstances are so ambiguous.

What exactly is a "black hole" in the Abramsverse? It clearly has no relation to anything in real science. Sometimes it sends you back in time without a scratch, other times it kills you. Why does it do one thing one time and the other thing another time? Space magic, I guess.

If it was unclear to me, it was probably unclear to Kirk too. So he made sure that the genocidal war criminal didn't survive to fuck up the universe again. Given what he knew and didn't know, I don't see any moral issue at all with it.

[anh165]

When the OP says traditional, he means the style you see in First Contact, Voyager and DS9.

Essentially a matt grey ship flys around the enemy and fires its phasers half a dozen times with little consequence before a minor plot-twist occurs.

Not at all exciting.

[Sindatur]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

It's between a boyship and a girlship.

Yea, none of that perverted multiple ship stuff, and especially not identical ships

[UFO]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

So it was irresponsible for Kirk and friends to make sure that none of Nero's pals got out of the black hole. With future tech. Hellbent on making trouble. Riiiight.

And

-Brett- wrote:

---

It's tough to judge the morality of the execution scene when the circumstances are so ambiguous.

What exactly is a "black hole" in the Abramsverse? It clearly has no relation to anything in real science. Sometimes it sends you back in time without a scratch, other times it kills you. Why does it do one thing one time and the other thing another time? Space magic, I guess.

If it was unclear to me, it was probably unclear to Kirk too. So he made sure that the genocidal war criminal didn't survive to fuck up the universe again. Given what he knew and didn't know, I don't see any moral issue at all with it.

That has been the standard explanation. However as mentioned up thread, red matter black holes can act like wormholes when you are able to enter them and (as mentioned in the commentary) navigate around the singularity. Buy when they ignite within an object (eg a planet) they behave as one might expect. In this case it was within the Narada which gave it no escape. This is generally confirmed by the swirling debris field before it disappears. Granted it would have been even more conclusive if the debris had "collapsed" in on itself the way Vulcan did, but from what we saw, there was nothing coherent there capable of causing further trouble.

A gifted character like nuKirk, trained by Starfleet, shouldn't have had much difficulty understanding that what was going on I feel. He saw what happend to Vulcan. Or perhaps that is something he would have learnt in his forth year at the academy? In any event, nothing was said about not being able to allow Nero a chance to escape, which would have been helpful. As it was, I got a different impression.

King Daniel wrote:

---

Kirk Prime was never confronted with the man who killed his father. Never confronted with a guy who murdered six billion Vulcans.

Kirk Prime did meet the Klingon who murdered his son. He shot him instantly, without a word.

Oh for the love of space! Did you not notice that that Klingon drew his weapon and was about to fire at Kirk and his party? Contrast that with the fact Kirk didn't kill the defenceless Klingon on the Bird of Prey after Kirk and young Spock beamed up to it. Besides there were two Klingons on the surface and Kirk couldn't have known which killed his son. I can't understand why these obvious distinctions are consistently not being taken into account, especially when much more dubious arguments are being raised in favour of nuKirk. They are afterall vital considerations when making moral judgements. Thanks for giving me an excuse to rewatch TSFS though.

Set Harth wrote:

---

I'm not sure how something really counts as a "war crime" if those killed were faced with imminent "inevitable demise" anyway.

It is a matter of intention. Besides, he may have caused a few "premature" deaths.

Kruezerman wrote:

---

...
Picard broke, with his own two hands, the neck of the Borg Queen. He also ordered his crew to fight hand-to-hand against those same Borg.

Earlier he said that a lone drone should be killed. Why? Because he was Borg.

So really, Kirk was vengeful and racist to the point of sitting back and watching the Empire burn and Picard was vengeful and racist to the point where he wanted to commit genocide, with him at the front of the battle if need be.

So nuKirk, compared to these two and from what we've seen so far, is far more compassionate to his enemies than they have ever been.

Picard didn't have too many options. It was war and the Borg are not your ordinary enemy. Regarding the Queen, while it is contentious, making sure there was nothing left of the Borg may have been necessary. It was certainly sensible. And just what was the Borg Queen anyway? A remote terminal of some sort? I am sure Picard would have taken a different route if one had been available. He wasn't racist (the Borg aren't a race anyway, even though they include many races), he was pragmatic. Vengeful to the point of suicide perhaps, but he got over that didn't he?

Rarding Kirk, the whole point was he didn't sit back and watch the empire burn. His position evolved. That is a part of the optimism of Star Trek I am talking about. It is not that any one person at any given time is perfect but that but that their society as a whole is an improvement. Though the individuals usually do pretty well at conquering their demons.

Ovation wrote:

---

No. I'm saying I understand his reaction.

Yes. Yes it is.

Popcorn entertainment like Star Trek? Nothing worth losing any sleep over.

Well yes, we all understand Spock's reaction. My view is that in ST it should be questioned instead of being reinforced though. While I don't lose too much sleep over it, I do believe Star Trek is more than popcorn entertainment, until recently of course. I guess that's where we differ.

[BillJ]

We really need a masturbation emoticon in this forum...

[UFO]

BillJ wrote:

---

We really need a masturbation emoticon in this forum...

Hold on ...

[King Daniel]

UFO wrote:

---

Oh for the love of space! Did you not notice that that Klingon drew his weapon and was about to fire at Kirk and his party? Contrast that with the fact Kirk didn't kill the defenceless Klingon on the Bird of Prey after Kirk and young Spock beamed up to it. Besides there were two Klingons on the surface and Kirk couldn't have known which killed his son. I can't understand why these obvious distinctions are consistently not being taken into account, especially when much more dubious arguments are being raised in favour of nuKirk. They are afterall vital considerations when making moral judgements. Thanks for giving me an excuse to rewatch TSFS though.

And Kirk didn't stun him because...?

Any excuse to watch TSFS is a good one, in my book

Picard didn't have too many options. It was war and the Borg are not your ordinary enemy. Regarding the Queen, while it is contentious, making sure there was nothing left of the Borg may have been necessary. It was certainly sensible.

Sensible? Hmmm. Sounds a lot like opening fire on the Narada. With the Queen (and by extension her collective) clearly crippled as she was before her spine was snapped, why didn't Picard have all the immobilized Borg rushed to sickbay and deBorgified? Many of them were his crew, after all.

And just what was the Borg Queen anyway? A remote terminal of some sort? I am sure Picard would have taken a different route if one had been available. He wasn't racist (the Borg aren't a race anyway, even though they include many races), he was pragmatic. Vengeful to the point of suicide perhaps, but he got over that didn't he?

He seemed over his vengeful Borg hating by "I, Borg". Major relapse in the interim.

Rarding Kirk, the whole point was he didn't sit back and watch the empire burn. His position evolved. That is a part of the optimism of Star Trek I am talking about. It is not that any one person at any given time is perfect but that but that their society as a whole is an improvement. Though the individuals usually do pretty well at conquering their demons.

But at that point, he would have let the Klingons burn. At the end of XI, Kirk offered to assist the crippled Narada in the hopes of making peace with Romulus. He tried!

[UFO]

King Daniel wrote:

---

And Kirk didn't stun him because...?

(A) Too chancy, especially with Klingons.
(B) It doesn't work well at long distance (that's why the Enterprise doesn't stun other star ships )
(C) Stunning Klingons just makes them angry.
(D) Its dishonourable. Klingons would prefer to be dead.
(E) Kirk: Stun? Shit, I didn't think of that!

Sensible? Hmmm. Sounds a lot like opening fire on the Narada. With the Queen (and by extension her collective) clearly crippled as she was before her spine was snapped, why didn't Picard have all the immobilized Borg rushed to sickbay and deBorgified? Many of them were his crew, after all.

Maybe he did, after the battle, although I seem to remember that wasn't considered an option in the movie when the fighting was happening (don't make me watch that too).

The "Queen" does raise some issues, but till then the Borg were more a force of nature. Never the less, the Borg were always an on going risk, unlike the Narada, as far as I can see.

He [Picard] seemed over his vengeful Borg hating by "I, Borg". Major relapse in the interim.

I guess having your ship almost Borgified out from under you will do that.

But at that point, he would have let the Klingons burn. At the end of XI, Kirk offered to assist the crippled Narada in the hopes of making peace with Romulus. He tried!

Prime Kirk maybe, but obviously not the Federation. Besides there is still a significant gap between "letting them burn" and "fanning the flames". Moreover it is obvious he made the offer for the wrong reasons. Ie. out of political expediency rather than humanitarianism and just how serious was it anyway. It is a very different scene to the one in "Balance of Terror" where for one thing Kirk doesn't say: "You are dying but you refuse my help? You ungrateful SOB. Fire everything!

How was he going to help anyway? Could Nero abandon ship in life rafts? Could Krik beam them off, in which case he should have done that whatever Nero wanted. These guys were just criminals not honourable enemy soliders. If there was the slightest doubt of escape you would think they would do that if they could rather than risk not killing them. On top of everything there just didn't seem time to make other than an apparently insincere offer (given what followed).

[King Daniel]

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."

[Set Harth]

UFO wrote:

---

Besides, he may have caused a few "premature" deaths.

Yes, he took away those precious last few seconds of life that those guys who were going around imploding planets had coming to them.

UFO wrote:

---

Picard didn't have too many options. It was war

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.

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, anyone who thinks that Kirk's offer of rendering aid was insincere saw a different film than I did.

Kirk was willing to suck it up and render aid in the name of galactic peace, for the good of the Federation, but Nero would have none of that. And Spock's feelings on the matter, which Kirk didn't expect, weren't the deciding factor. That's the film I saw.

[Nerys Myk]

No! No! Kirk and Spock were blood thirsty, drooling maniacs in the film!!!!!