I hope for more traditional space battles

[BillJ]

The Stig wrote:

---

It's a shame they cut the Klingon prison scenes. They explain the 25 year gap quite well.

But unfortunately presents its own set of problems.

[Set Harth]

Praetorian wrote:

---

Thing is, crazy villains tend to be uninteresting, at least for me. But then, we have the Joker in TDK. I guess it's all a matter of presentation.

"I'm not. No, I'm not."

[UFO]

SeerSGB wrote:

---

1) The Romulan ship in Balance of Terror hand't torched dozens of ships and an entire planet. Narda on the other hand had shown she could survive a black hole, not reason to assume she could--in some form--do it again.

Yes, I guess Nero "wins" if numbers are our primary concern.

It is not a case of whether the Narada could survive transiting a black hole (though that is itself extremely doubtful in the state we last saw it). It is a question of whether there was a black hole it was in a position to enter, rather than the reverse. Ie. It was the black hole that had entered the Narada, which makes going through it impossible, despite the halo effect (which is notably different to the first one we saw. This one was just a ring around the Narada. An optical effect. The other only showed the part of the Narada that had entered the alt universe, not the part still in the "wormhole").

And as yousirname made clear, Kirk knew the score:

yousirname wrote:

---

But on the issue of destroying the Narada:

There doesn't seem to be any doubt in Kirk's mind that the Narada is utterly boned.

SeerSGB wrote:

---

2) Show me one episode or movie that followed up on Taste Of Armageddon or The Apple. Not books or comics* once televised or film CANON follow up. We know he didn't follow up on Khan, so it's not out of the realm that he didn't follow up on those to
civilisations either.

True, someone should have checked on Khan, if only to put warning buoys around the system. But that one always came off as rather unofficial anyway. It says nothing about whether Starfleet followed up on the other occasions where it would be prudent to do so. In both "Taste Of Armageddon" and "The Apple", I think those episodes pretty much implied there would be follow up, though not by Kirk and co.

3) Granted Kirk offered to help Kruge after he tricked Kruge's crew into beaming aboard Enterprise and then blowing up the ship with them on it with no chance to escape a fiery death.

Of course not, it was effectively war and Kirk wasn’t the aggressor. If you want blood, that would be another "acceptable" way to get it. The most you can get Kirk on is "lying" to an enemy.

My opinion of Kirk has always been that I like the character, but yeah he's probably got a lot of blood on his hands. He has been shown that when it comes to the Enterprise 400 people matter more than a population of millions or billions.

Without going case by case I can't agree that's fair. His job often stirred things up but there were usually problems to begin with. I would go as far as to say the "right solution" usually "coincided" with Kirk saving his ship and crew, but in the case of "Taste Of Armageddon" I believe the Enterprise and the bulk of its crew weren’t at risk by the time Kirk made his threat. As I said, he was prepared to sacrifice himself and those of his crew on the planet.

* The comics did a follow up to The Apple land it was pretty much a two issues of "Kirk mad a big ass mistake and Spock has to clean up his mess". Granted it's not canon, but it just shows that the ideal that Kirk was screwing people over has been around a lot longer than the reboot.

I am not saying Kirk couldn’t make mistakes, but I am not aware of him doing anything reasonably comparable to what nuKirk did.

yousirname wrote:

---

... Ethically, since we're told the Narada's destruction is certain, I see no significant difference between watching it happen and helping it along.

But of course the real reason they pull the trigger is that it's cooler that way. With no ethical barrier, I've no issue with it at all.

Your conclusion is remarkably logical, but I think you are getting a little side tracked by the fact Nero and Co are such a nasty bunch of villains. I mean, would it be OK to "help it along" if the people on the Narada were in the same situation but innocent of any crime? I'm thinking not. So there is something a little dodgy about the principle that it is OK to kill someone (especially when at your mercy) if they are going to die soon anyway. Interesting ethical point though.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's hysterical that people think it's worthwhile to nitpick and critique a movie made four years ago that's completely reinvigorated a dead franchise like Star Trek.

[junxon]

i'm sure when trek is rebooted again in 25 years by someone else they'll bitch about it and squeal that it's not proper star trek without lens flares

[BillJ]

UFO wrote:

---

I am not saying Kirk couldn’t make mistakes, but I am not aware of him doing anything reasonably comparable to what nuKirk did.

Neither Kirk or Sulu offered Chang a chance to surrender. They continued to bombard his ship with photon torpedoes until it was destroyed.

I'd say that was comparable.

[yousirname]

UFO wrote:

---

Your conclusion is remarkably logical, but I think you are getting a little side tracked by the fact Nero and Co are such a nasty bunch of villains. I mean, would it be OK to "help it along" if the people on the Narada were in the same situation but innocent of any crime? I'm thinking not. So there is something a little dodgy about the principle that it is OK to kill someone (especially when at your mercy) if they are going to die soon anyway. Interesting ethical point though.

Their guilt isn't really a factor in my thinking. Obviously if Nero is prepared to accept their assistance, then they're obliged to provide it. But he isn't:

Nero wrote:

---

I would rather suffer the end of Romulus a thousand times. I would rather die in agony than accept assistance from you.

Given Nero's situation, his death is inevitable without outside assistance. Assuming that his co-operation is required for that assistance to be provided, there is no helping him so long as he feels the way his lines there indicate. Since assisting him will almost certainly mean at least dropping the shields, and since it's reasonable to assume that at least some of his weapons remain both online and operable by him, there is no reasonable path open to Kirk that ends with rescuing Nero. Hence the deaths of Nero and his crew are inevitable and hence my indifference to the firing.

If the ship were crewed by a posse of fanatically suicidal innocents who are willing and able to prevent their own rescue, I still see no significant ethical distinction to draw between watching it happen and hurrying it along. It all hinges on the feasibility of forced rescue. If you can persuade me that they could have forced Nero or some of his crew to be rescued without exposing the Enterprise to grave risk, I'll have to change my mind. On the other hand, if you accept that their death was inevitable, you have some work to do to justify distinguishing between watching and firing (IMO at least).

[UFO]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

It's hysterical that people think it's worthwhile to nitpick and critique a movie made four years ago that's completely reinvigorated a dead franchise like Star Trek.

Well speaking solely for myself I cannot tell you how much your kind words of encouragement light up my heart. Of course I wouldn't tell you if I could. But that confirms it. "Nitpick" had definitely been redefined while I wasn't looking.

junxon wrote:

---

i'm sure when trek is rebooted again in 25 years by someone else they'll bitch about it and squeal that it's not proper star trek without lens flares

True, but I couldn't wait 25 years for an issue of that magnitude to become fashionable again.

BillJ wrote:

---

Neither Kirk or Sulu offered Chang a chance to surrender. They continued to bombard his ship with photon torpedoes until it was destroyed.

I'd say that was comparable.

You almost make me doubt that my previous answer to this very question was adequate. No, its about right. I would only reiterate that the torpedo appeared to do more damage that anyone in-universe probably realised.

In any event, Chang didn't surrender (he was probable dead of course) and the good guy's couldn't risk secondary power systems reinstating the cloak at any moment or the BOP getting in a luck shot etc so they reacted quickly. Granted that would have made it necessary for Chang to surrender even more rapidly if he could have. But lets face it, he was never going to and everyone knew that so making sure he was out of action ASAP was imperative. Nothing wrong with that I can see. Not the same situation either given the unknowns and timing.

Nor is such behaviour uncommon in navy tradition. Enemy ships are often pounded into submission, if they don't surrender. Besides in Chang's case it was only about four to six shots and barely lasted eight seconds. As I said, not a lot of time for chit chat.

yousirname wrote:

---

Their guilt isn't really a factor in my thinking. Obviously if Nero is prepared to accept their assistance, then they're obliged to provide it. But he isn't:

Given Nero's situation, his death is inevitable without outside assistance. Assuming that his co-operation is required for that assistance to be provided, there is no helping him so long as he feels the way his lines there indicate. Since assisting him will almost certainly mean at least dropping the shields, and since it's reasonable to assume that at least some of his weapons remain both online and operable by him, there is no reasonable path open to Kirk that ends with rescuing Nero. Hence the deaths of Nero and his crew are inevitable and hence my indifference to the firing.

You perhaps recall the phrase" "Fire everything"? Nero's previous sucessful missile attack had punched right through the Enterprise's shields. Had Nero had anything left to hurt Kirk with, however feeble, I'm sure he would have used it. So we are left with a completely defenceless Narada. But you say, perhaps he was playing possum. That turned out not to be the case, though Kirk, despite sensors, may not have known that. But then why offer help in the first place if he wasn't confident of his safety? You seem to be saying he wouldn’t or shouldn’t take that risk.

If the ship were crewed by a posse of fanatically suicidal innocents who are willing and able to prevent their own rescue, I still see no significant ethical distinction to draw between watching it happen and hurrying it along. It all hinges on the feasibility of forced rescue. If you can persuade me that they could have forced Nero or some of his crew to be rescued without exposing the Enterprise to grave risk, I'll have to change my mind. On the other hand, if you accept that their death was inevitable, you have some work to do to justify distinguishing between watching and firing (IMO at least).

Do I? So you are saying that, as a principle, if someone's death is inevitable, it should be ethically OK to kill them, irrespective of that person's ethical status? I would caution you to think about that before answering.

[yousirname]

UFO wrote:

---

You perhaps recall the phrase" "Fire everything"? Nero's previous sucessful missile attack had punched right through the Enterprise's shields. Had Nero had anything left to hurt Kirk with, however feeble, I'm sure he would have used it. So we are left with a completely defenceless Narada. But you say, perhaps he was playing possum. That turned out not to be the case, though Kirk, despite sensors, may not have known that. But then why offer help in the first place if he wasn't confident of his safety? You seem to be saying he wouldn’t or shouldn’t take that risk.

"Fire everything" was aimed at the jellyfish, before Enterprise's arrival. They fire about a dozen torpedoes, no energy weapons. I don't see any reason to assume they had no weapon capacity. (ETA by this I mean that "Fire everything" can easily be read as "Full spread, maximum yield" rather than "Empty the phaser banks and torpedo bays completely!")

As for offering help, as I said, they're compelled to provide it if Nero is prepared to accept it. They can hardly just guess that he isn't.

Do I? So you are saying that, as a principle, if someone's death is inevitable, it should be ethically OK to kill them, irrespective of that person's ethical status? I would caution you to think about that before answering.

All our deaths are inevitable. You're ignoring the stipulation that the person is actively indifferent to their impending death.

[SalvorHardin]

How about this. Kirk wasn't cruel for firing on Nero's ship, he was merciful.
Instead of leaving the Romulans to be shredded to pieces or crushed to pulp by the black hole's gravity force, he gave them a clean, quick death.

[Saul]

A clean death by shooting the shit out of them. What a kind guy.

[BillJ]

Saul wrote:

---

A clean death by shooting the shit out of them. What a kind guy.

He executed six billion men, women and children. I have no problem with Kirk giving him a parting shot.

[DalekJim]

I have uh, mixed feelings on JJ Abrams Trek to say the fucking least but it never bothered me that Kirk blows up Nero. Kirk is the gung-ho captain and was never much of a goodie-goodie. Also, having Nero Prime around would be dangerous to the timeline.

[Saul]

BillJ wrote:

---

He executed six billion men, women and children. I have no problem with Kirk giving him a parting shot.

Nor do I. Nero also was responsible for Kirk's Father and Spock's mother. Makes it very personal and if they had played it that way as revenge or pay back I think it would sit better with me. But this way is kinda played for laughs.

Kirk: We show them compassion-- it may be the only way to earn peace with Romulus. It's logic, Spock! I thought you'd like that.
SPOCK No, not really, not this time.
NERO I would rather suffer the death of Romulus a thousand times than accept assistance from you.
KIRK You got it. Lock phasers! Fire everything we've got!

[UFO]

yousirname wrote:

---

"Fire everything" was aimed at the jellyfish, before Enterprise's arrival. They fire about a dozen torpedoes, no energy weapons. I don't see any reason to assume they had no weapon capacity. (ETA by this I mean that "Fire everything" can easily be read as "Full spread, maximum yield" rather than "Empty the phaser banks and torpedo bays completely!")

It could, but as I mentioned: "Nero's previous
successful missile attack had punched right through the Enterprise's shields. Had Nero had anything left to hurt Kirk with, however feeble, I'm sure he would have used it. So we are left with a completely defenceless Narada." He never did fire anything so we can be sure he didn't have anything left. You seem to have missed that point.

As for offering help, as I said, they're compelled to provide it if Nero is prepared to accept it. They can hardly just guess that he isn't.

But you also wrote:

yousirname wrote:

---

Beaming off other Romulans who may not share Nero's appetite for destruction - well, they'd have to drop their shields, wouldn't they? Sounds risky.

However you are now saying they have to offer help no matter how risky it might be? What is wrong with saying it too damned risky for a number of reasons (blackholes included), lets just high tail it? Remember nuKirk didn't offer help because he was he compelled or obliged to. He did it for political reasons only (another issue I have with nuKirk).

yousirname wrote:

---

All our deaths are inevitable.

Exactly, so how much time is it OK to take from someone? A minute, an hour a lifetime?

You're ignoring the stipulation that the person is actively indifferent to their impending death.

There is no such stipulation. Nero didn't want Kirk's help, but would have probably been happy to accept assistence from a Romulan vessel, had one be handy. In any event, he never said he wanted to die, nor did he imply that he didn't care if he died.

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

How about this. Kirk wasn't cruel for firing on Nero's ship, he was merciful.
Instead of leaving the Romulans to be shredded to pieces or crushed to pulp by the black hole's gravity force, he gave them a clean, quick death.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to suggest that.

BillJ wrote:

---

He executed six billion men, women and children. I have no problem with Kirk giving him a parting shot.

And that is a good reason why Star Trek should continue to have a problem with it (in my opinion), as it always (previously) has, as far as I can tell. Only the scale is different. Note, I am not saying Nero couldn't come to a sticky end, just do it right, if that's what's required.

Saul wrote:

---

... But this way is kinda played for laughs.

Kirk: We show them compassion-- it may be the only way to earn peace with Romulus. It's logic, Spock! I thought you'd like that.
SPOCK No, not really, not this time.
NERO I would rather suffer the death of Romulus a thousand times than accept assistance from you.
KIRK You got it. Lock phasers! Fire everything we've got!

A good point and what exactly had Kirk done to offend Nero?