RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,162
Posts: 5,402,851
Members: 24,752
Currently online: 428
Newest member: xjkl123

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 16 2012, 08:12 PM   #1
los2188
Commander
 
los2188's Avatar
 
Location: North Carolina
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?
__________________
Darling, you remain as aesthetically pleasing as the first day we met. I believe I am the most fortunate sentient in this sector of the galaxy.
los2188 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 08:21 PM   #2
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Prime Directive violation?

You are very perceptive.
They just kept talking about the PD in those few minutes.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 08:21 PM   #3
tranya
Commander
 
tranya's Avatar
 
Location: Captain Janeway's Birthplace
View tranya's Twitter Profile
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.
__________________
For the internet is hollow and I have touched my keyboard.
tranya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 08:21 PM   #4
EyalM
Captain
 
Location: Haifa
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.
__________________
Well, he’s kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog.
Actually, replace ’accidentally’ with ’repeatedly’ and replace ’dog’ with ’son.’
EyalM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 08:22 PM   #5
lurok
Commodore
 
lurok's Avatar
 
Location: Lost in the EU expanse with a nice cup of tea
Re: Prime Directive violation?

No.
lurok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 08:22 PM   #6
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
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.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 08:22 PM   #7
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: Prime Directive violation?

los2188 wrote: View Post
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?
And like any directive, law, etc, things can be amended over time.
__________________
Follow my Star Trek Model builds, music, art and more at Devon's Corner.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 08:40 PM   #8
los2188
Commander
 
los2188's Avatar
 
Location: North Carolina
Re: Prime Directive violation?

beamMe wrote: View Post
You are very perceptive.
They just kept talking about the PD in those few minutes.
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.
__________________
Darling, you remain as aesthetically pleasing as the first day we met. I believe I am the most fortunate sentient in this sector of the galaxy.
los2188 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 08:43 PM   #9
Mach5
Rear Admiral
 
Mach5's Avatar
 
Re: Prime Directive violation?

SalvorHardin wrote: View Post
It depends what the PD says in this universe and in the 23rd century. By Picard's time it could have been revised.
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".
__________________
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
― Bertrand Russell

Last edited by Mach5; December 16 2012 at 08:58 PM.
Mach5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 08:50 PM   #10
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
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.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 09:00 PM   #11
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Prime Directive violation?

Prancer the Sith wrote: View Post
SalvorHardin wrote: View Post
It depends what the PD says in this universe and in the 23rd century. By Picard's time it could have been revised.
So ethical values and common reason within UFP actually DETERIORATE over time? Not buying it.
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.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 09:10 PM   #12
Timo
Admiral
 
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
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 09:17 PM   #13
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
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.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 10:29 PM   #14
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Prime Directive violation?

The TNG interpretation of the Prime Directive was seriously flawed.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2012, 10:58 PM   #15
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Prime Directive violation?

Anyone else suddenly really want to know what happened to Nibiru Prime?
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
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.