I hope for more traditional space battles

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

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.

The timeline? How would he be dangerous to "the timeline"? He doesn't really have time travel powers.

[yousirname]

UFO wrote:

---

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.

It punched right through the shields but it didn't destroy the Enterprise. Sulu says: "Shields at 32%. Their weapons are powerful, Sir - we can't take another hit like that."

Now, given that it's torpedoes being fired, how exactly that works, I confess I don't know. It seems to imply that the shields are a factor, though, or why would Sulu report their status? Presumably maintenance crews have been at work in the interim. The Enterprise remains manoeuvrable, while the Narada is not. Why is Nero bothered firing if it won't destroy the Enterprise?

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).

Offering help is not the same as providing help. They are obliged to offer help; if it's accepted, then having offered it they must provide it. That's what I meant by:

As for offering help, as I said, they're compelled to provide it if Nero is prepared to accept it.

I realise certain stock phrases like "offering assistance" are generally understood to entail providing it, but I assumed from the context that there's cause to distinguish here.

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

Any amount of time is fine so long as the conditions can be expected to remain the same if the events are allowed to play out without pulling the trigger - ie, if Kirk has some reason to suppose that if he doesn't fire, after a few seconds Nero might hail him and say You know what, I changed my mind, then he shouldn't fire.

All of which is to say that this isn't a license to kill people who are currently down in the dumps, since I assume that's what you're worried it might be.

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.

Counterfactuals don't apply. It doesn't matter if Nero would be happy to be rescued by Romulans - there are none around. He has two options: Be rescued by Kirk or die. There is no third way available. Given that reality, Nero makes it abundantly clear that he strongly prefers death.

[Praetorian]

SeerSGB wrote:

---

Would 25 years in a Klingon prison calm you down?

That wasn't in the movie. While it would probably explain his madness, it also raises other issues, as was mentioned in this thread.

Awesome Possum wrote:

---

Nero could have just been an asshole. There are plenty on Earth, stands to reason the galaxy is infested with them. I don't think Trek as ever had an asshole as a villain other than that guy in The Voyage Home who let the whales go early.

There's being an asshole and then there's blowing up entire planets, killing billions of innocent people.

King Daniel wrote:

---

Saying Nero "should have calmed down" in 25 years... haven't you people looked around at some of the mindless hate on Earth today? Rational, sane people see the error of their ways. Sadly there aren't enough of them on our planet, let alone Romulus.

It's true that throughout history there have been some very disturbed people, namely Nazis, Stalinists and others of the kind. Nero could've been a Romulan Hitler or Pol Pot, that's for sure.

I do think those kind of people are rare though, and I didn't believe what Nero went through was enough to put him in a state where, after 25 years, he would still be raging mad and willing to murder billions of people.

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.

Yes, it's quite hysterical to discuss a Star Trek movie in a Star Trek dedicated forum.

[SalvorHardin]

Praetorian wrote:

---

That wasn't in the movie. While it would probably explain his madness, it also raises other issues, as was mentioned in this thread.

His madness is already explained by him watching his family and entire planet die.
People have gone mad for a lot less.

[Praetorian]

That is true! I guess it's such a OTT event that I suppose it's hard for me to relate to. I do think Nero makes a hell of lot more sense than Shinzon, and is on par with Soran. As was said, as far as villains are concerned, he's quite standard when it comes to Trek movies. That doesn't mean he's a good villain though, just that most of the villains are bad, at least to me.

[BillJ]

UFO wrote:

---

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.

This is what's wrong with Star Trek, or more exactly a portion of the Star Trek fanbase. They bought Roddenberry's 'perfect human' non-sense hook, line and sinker. As much as I love The Next Generation, the characters are mostly unrecognizable as human beings. Thankfully, DS9 and the two other spinoffs did a bit to reel it back in.

What we got from Kirk was an offer to save his father's killer, likely through gritted teeth and he was promptly told to go fuck himself. Him giving Nero a sweet kiss goodnight with a bucket of photon torpedoes was an incredibly human reaction. A reaction those sitting in the theater seats could understand. Likely the reason the movie was a hit was because the characters in a Trek movie acted like humans again for the first time in a long time.

[Praetorian]

True, I'm not just seeing how Kirk's actions are somehow imoral. He offered help, but it was refused. Nothing else to do except make sure the threat is eliminated.

[Ovation]

BillJ wrote:

---

What we got from Kirk was an offer to save his father's killer, likely through gritted teeth and he was promptly told to go fuck himself. Him giving Nero a sweet kiss goodnight with a bucket of photon torpedoes was an incredibly human reaction. A reaction those sitting in the theater seats could understand. Likely the reason the movie was a hit was because the characters in a Trek movie acted like humans again for the first time in a long time.

Exactly.

[Awesome Possum]

Praetorian wrote:

---

There's being an asshole and then there's blowing up entire planets, killing billions of innocent people.

He's an asshole with a weapon. Like Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars. He didn't have to blow up Alderaan, but he did because that's what assholes in positions of power do.

Thankfully in fiction they get blow up by the good guys. That only rarely happens in reality.

[UFO]

yousirname wrote:

---

It [a torpedo from the Narada] punched right through the shields but it didn't destroy the Enterprise. Sulu says: "Shields at 32%. Their weapons are powerful, Sir - we can't take another hit like that."

Now, given that it's torpedoes being fired, how exactly that works, I confess I don't know. It seems to imply that the shields are a factor, though, or why would Sulu report their status? Presumably maintenance crews have been at work in the interim. The Enterprise remains manoeuvrable, while the Narada is not. Why is Nero bothered firing if it won't destroy the Enterprise?

That first attack did a lot of damage to the Enterprise including reducing its speed to warp four. So one torpedo is a significant threat (if Nero had had any). You yourself quote Sulu saying they couldn't take two hits from the Narada even with sheilds up. But you are arguing Nero wouldn't bother trying to take a few more humans (maybe even Kirk and Spock) with him if he could? I don't think so.

Any amount of time is fine so long as the conditions can be expected to remain the same if the events are allowed to play out without pulling the trigger - ie, if Kirk has some reason to suppose that if he doesn't fire, after a few seconds Nero might hail him and say You know what, I changed my mind, then he shouldn't fire.

All of which is to say that this isn't a license to kill people who are currently down in the dumps, since I assume that's what you're worried it might be.

Well I'm glad of that but that is not the problem. You seem to have misunderstood my question. I asked how much time (from their lives) is it OK to take from them? And what gives anyone the right to make that decision just because they are going to die at some unspecified point in the future? I am trying to find the ethical principle you are using here. So far it seems if we are talking a couple of seconds its fine, but what about longer periods? There is not apparent logical end point.

Your suggestion it has something to do with Kirk's impression about Nero's chances of changing his mind are not just subjective and arbitrary but don't address the question. Which is: Why is it OK to kill someone just because their death is inevitable (aren't we still robbing them of their life however short), and does the amount of time they have left change how or if it is "OK". Other factors are not relevant. I would be greatful if you could keep that in mind.

Counterfactuals don't apply. It doesn't matter if Nero would be happy to be rescued by Romulans - there are none around. He has two options: Be rescued by Kirk or die. There is no third way available. Given that reality, Nero makes it abundantly clear that he strongly prefers death.

A) Of course it matters if Nero would be happy to be rescued by Romulans. You are trying to claim he was indifferent to his death. Accepting Romulan help would show he isn't.
B) The issue has nothing to do with his actual options but solely how he felt about his death.
C) His preference for death in that situation does not in any way suggest he is indifferent to it or welcomes it.

On the other hand, if you are saying your policy only applies to people who are indifferent to their impending deaths then it doesn't apply to Nero. Which logically means Kirk had no right to fire at him.

BTW counterfactuals are theoretical exercises. It doesn't matter if the Romulans are really there. All that matters is what Nero would do if they were.

BillJ wrote:

---

This is what's wrong with Star Trek, or more exactly a portion of the Star Trek fanbase. They bought Roddenberry's 'perfect human' non-sense hook, line and sinker. As much as I love The Next Generation, the characters are mostly unrecognizable as human beings. Thankfully, DS9 and the two other spinoffs did a bit to reel it back in.

I am only talking about the behaviour of Prime Kirk not TNG. As I have said in the past, I am only interested in a "better" world, not a perfect one (which of course is impossible). I shouldn't let your red herrings side track me, but surely there is nothing wrong with having goals to shoot for or inspire us? Most fiction is happy enough to show us standard mark one production model humans. I like Star Trek because it is not just Avatar or Transformers etc. I would like the future to be a little more optimistic than the present. And wasn't TNG the popular one? A rhetorical question of course.

What we got from Kirk was an offer to save his father's killer, likely through gritted teeth and he was promptly told to go fuck himself. Him giving Nero a sweet kiss goodnight with a bucket of photon torpedoes was an incredibly human reaction. A reaction those sitting in the theater seats could understand. Likely the reason the movie was a hit was because the characters in a Trek movie acted like humans again for the first time in a long time.

I would be happy if they just went back to having the characters act the same as in TOS. Ie. from the 23rd century. As we both know, there were plenty of other occasions for the characters to look like "us" (and they took all of them). Why can't Star Trek have it's small point of difference? Or, if most ST fans are not that charitable, then at least don't deliberately orchestrate scenes where they have to do the wrong thing. As I said, they could have had blood and guts and not contradicted previous Trek. However much anyone may like the movie, I can't see a reason to applaud making it less uniquely Trek.

[yousirname]

UFO wrote:

---

That first attack did a lot of damage to the Enterprise including reducing its speed to warp four. So one torpedo is a significant threat (if Nero had had any). You yourself quote Sulu saying they couldn't take two hits from the Narada even with sheilds up. But you are arguing Nero wouldn't bother trying to take a few more humans (maybe even Kirk and Spock) with him if he could? I don't think so.

Let's say that you're right, and that 'Fire everything' indicates that the torpedo bays are empty and the Narada has no shot left in the locker. I don't agree that we can infer that reliably, but for the sake of argument let's stipulate that. It doesn't change things from Kirk's POV because Kirk didn't hear Nero say "Fire everything". Chekov tells Kirk the Narada is losing power and that her shields are down. He doesn't mention a loss of weapon capacity. So even if in fact Nero has no weapons, Kirk doesn't know that he has no weapons.

Well I'm glad of that but that is not the problem. You seem to have misunderstood my question. I asked how much time (from their lives) is it OK to take from them?

I answered that question: Any amount of time is fine so long as the conditions can be expected to remain the same if the events are allowed to play out without pulling the trigger.

And what gives anyone the right to make that decision just because they are going to die at some unspecified point in the future? I am trying to find the ethical principle you are using here. So far it seems if we are talking a couple of seconds its fine, but what about longer periods? There is not apparent logical end point.

It's a complicated issue that in general involves questions of what can be known and what can be reasonably foreseen, as well as what it means to do 'harm' to someone. In real life, these questions almost universally remain too complex and too difficult to resolve for any kind of certain response It is ethically permissible to kill this person to come about.

The movies are different from real life, however, and the situation is one where we have much more information and much greater certainty than can usually be obtained IRL. We know the following about Nero:

His death is imminent and inevitable

It can be avoided with Kirk's help

Given the exhaustive and compulsory choice 'Die or accept Kirk's help' Nero prefers death

Kirk can reasonably suppose that attempting to forcibly rescue Nero represents an unacceptable risk to him or to his crew or to his ship, or to all of the above

No-one currently exists who will mourn Nero

What the above facts do is remove, one by one, every objection I can raise to Kirk pulling the trigger.

Your suggestion it has something to do with Kirk's impression about Nero's chances of changing his mind are not just subjective and arbitrary but don't address the question. Which is: Why is it OK to kill someone just because their death is inevitable (aren't we still robbing them of their life however short), and does the amount of time they have left change how or if it is "OK". Other factors are not relevant. I would be greatful if you could keep that in mind.

As I said, I already answered the time question. Yes, we are still 'robbing them of their life'. From my point of view, all the reasons that it is typically wrong to do that are absent here.

A) Of course it matters if Nero would be happy to be rescued by Romulans. You are trying to claim he was indifferent to his death. Accepting Romulan help would show he isn't.
B) The issue has nothing to do with his actual options but solely how he felt about his death.
C) His preference for death in that situation does not in any way suggest he is indifferent to it or welcomes it.

A) No, it doesn't matter. His rescue by Romulans is a counterfactual - something that manifestly is not the case. Nero would also be happy not to be in a black hole - but he is. Given that fact, his only options are to die or to be rescued by Kirk and he knows this to be true.

B) Of course it has to do with his actual options. If he had viable options for rescue acceptable to him, he wouldn't be telling Kirk anything except 'Get off the line, I'm arranging my rescue'. But he doesn't, so given the only two options available to him, he makes his choice very clear.

C) He chooses death rather than to be rescued. He is sufficiently indifferent to his death to make a choice that he knows will lead to it.

BTW counterfactuals are theoretical exercises. It doesn't matter if the Romulans are really there. All that matters is what Nero would do if they were.

No, that has no bearing whatsoever on anything, in the slightest degree, and here is why: What if there's a crazed Vulcan on board the Enterprise who can and will blow the Enterprise up if Kirk doesn't pull the trigger? Will you allow that it doesn't matter if the crazed Vulcan is actually there? Of course not.

Counterfactuals are indeed theoretical exercises, but they operate by the assumption of their being the case - and I agree that if it were possible for Romulans to rescue Nero and if he were prepared to accept that then Kirk would be wrong to pull the trigger. Counterfactuals do not serve as some phantom objection to any given action, however, as I trust the example above makes clear.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

[DalekJim]

I see paragraphs?

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

But "Paragraphs, paragraphs everywhere" isn't as funny.

[The Mirrorball Man]

King Daniel wrote:

---

But "Paragraphs, paragraphs everywhere" isn't as funny.

Yeah but continuity.