RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 145,275
Posts: 5,719,397
Members: 25,757
Currently online: 431
Newest member: Data0508

TrekToday headlines

Smallwood: Creating The Xindi
By: T'Bonz on May 21

Greenwood Joins O.J. Simpson Series
By: T'Bonz on May 21

The USS Enterprise Building
By: T'Bonz on May 20

Wheaton Guests On Mission Log Podcast
By: T'Bonz on May 20

Pegg: Star Trek 3 Less Trek-Y
By: T'Bonz on May 20

Two Trek Book Covers Unveiled
By: T'Bonz on May 19

New Star Trek Costumes Book
By: T'Bonz on May 19

Takei Voices Space Alien
By: T'Bonz on May 19

August Star Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on May 18

Pine To Star In New Drama
By: T'Bonz on May 18


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 January 30 2014, 06:25 PM   #211
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
For ST09, I'm left wondering what purpose the scene with the discussion of what to do with Nero serves. Is it to show that new Spock has a bloodlust? Is it to show that Kirk is willing to entertain alternatives? Is it to show that Nero is an asshole? Is it to show that they even have time to entertain such decisions? I think it's primarily to make the audience feel good by toppling the bad guy they so easily built up. Everyone loves to see the bully get his comeuppance in a movie, and this is just playing to that trope.

I just think that the way they handled the scene didn't work out. Kirk was realistically going to offer assistance when they could barely escape themselves? Why even offer such a thing if it's truly just a battle situation? That the alternative is even raised is why this is an issue. It implies there is actually time or ability to do something. If it had cut from the Jellyfish colliding to the Enterprise opening fire, I don't think I would have a had a problem with it.
Yeah I think this probably sums it up. It was the tone of the scene that was wrong for me. But it is a trope that crops up in many movies because movie-goers love to see villains get their cumuppance. It should come as no surprise that many people have no problem with the scene - they are the audience for whom it was intended.
Count me among them. I recently had a very visceral moment reading "The Romulan War" where we see Captain Archer ordering a damaged Romulan ship to withdrawal, seeing how the Romulans are no threat to the Enterprise but they might make repairs and come back later. They have to send MACOs down to the surface because you never know when their warbird might come back and try to murder the science team down there.

So what happens? The Romulans whose lives Archer spared in a fit of Starfleet compassion warp out to the edge of the system, then go to maximum warp and ram the planet to keep it out of Coalition hands. The entire planet destroyed -- its entire biosphere, every living thing on it -- because an officer decided to do an altruistic half-measure and left his enemy to get up and stab him in the back.

You pull Nero out of that black hole -- or worse, let him go through it intact -- and he'll just come at you again like the omnicidal lunatic that he is.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 06:39 PM   #212
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
My moral dilemmas in STID are:

1. Kirk punching out a prisoner

2. The proposal of killing Khan with 72 missiles


Yes Kirk punching out a prisoner was wrong but really who looked bad - just Kirk. Khan didn't care. Kirk was beneath his contempt. I suppose its meant to show us Kirk was pretty volatile, Khan was a superhuman and how Kirk felt about Pike's death.

I'm going to give you the condensed version of how stupid the 72-missile thing was on everyone's side. Marcus was stupid for putting 72 super-missiles in Kirk's control. And why would Kirk fire all 72 missiles anyway? And where was he going to aim them? And was he going to destroy a section of planet without checking if it was occupied (which it was)? Did Kirk think the Klingons were going to sit by while he stayed on the edge of the neutral zone and lobbed missiles at their planets?

I was thinking it was very wrong for Kirk to even entertain Marcus's proposal. But you know when you're in the military sometimes you have to follow orders from the upper echelons without question because TPTB might be in the know about something. It just happened that Marcus was corrupt. But if he wasn't then Kirk was duty bound to follow through as was his crew including Scott.
PrimeScott would have followed Kirk's order's no matter what unless he considered him insane (Turnabout Intruder). In Taste of Armageddon he was prepared to raze a planet on Kirk's orders. He trusted Kirk to make the right decisions when he was in his right mind.
I had thought that Prime Kirk would never obey a dodgy command order but I considered 'Enterprise Incident' where he and Spock stole the cloaking device from the Romulans. As far as we know this wasn't a desperate act to save the Federation from destruction but something thought of to keep the balance of power. I think in the 60s it was considered justifiable to commit espionage if you were on the side of 'good'. But know it seems to me that Kirk's actions in that episode were morally wrong. Perhaps as morally wrong as the potential deploying of deep range missiles into Klingon Sovereign Territory in STID.
Two things:

First, Kirk apparently came to most of the same conclusions you did, which is why he didn't fire the torpedoes and tried to arrest Khan anyway. Trying to punch him out would be a "nobody's looking, this one's for Pike" moment that backfired hilariously.

Secondly, you're assuming that Admiral Marcus was doing a patently immoral thing by trying to have Khan blown away with 72 torpedoes that (sadistic/ironically) also contained the corpses of his buddies. Have you entertained the possibility that Marcus was actually PLAYING Kirk and that those torpedoes never would have detonated at all, but instead would have simply soft-landed on Qo'nos and Khan and his people would have gone on to conquer Qo'nos and use it as a Section 31 proxy army?

To the second point, considering how little hesitation Marcus showed to destroy the Enterprise and its entire crew just to keep Khan from getting the upper hand, it's possible that Khan was still acting on Marcus' orders when he gunned down most of Starfleet's brass and that Kirk's flash of moral clarity (and Khan's decision to exploit that morality for a chance to conquer a less shitty world), in which case the "moral" of the story is "Never trust the military."
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 09:22 PM   #213
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
For ST09, I'm left wondering what purpose the scene with the discussion of what to do with Nero serves. Is it to show that new Spock has a bloodlust? Is it to show that Kirk is willing to entertain alternatives? Is it to show that Nero is an asshole? Is it to show that they even have time to entertain such decisions? I think it's primarily to make the audience feel good by toppling the bad guy they so easily built up. Everyone loves to see the bully get his comeuppance in a movie, and this is just playing to that trope.

I just think that the way they handled the scene didn't work out. Kirk was realistically going to offer assistance when they could barely escape themselves? Why even offer such a thing if it's truly just a battle situation? That the alternative is even raised is why this is an issue. It implies there is actually time or ability to do something. If it had cut from the Jellyfish colliding to the Enterprise opening fire, I don't think I would have a had a problem with it.
Yeah I think this probably sums it up. It was the tone of the scene that was wrong for me. But it is a trope that crops up in many movies because movie-goers love to see villains get their cumuppance. It should come as no surprise that many people have no problem with the scene - they are the audience for whom it was intended.
Count me among them. I recently had a very visceral moment reading "The Romulan War" where we see Captain Archer ordering a damaged Romulan ship to withdrawal, seeing how the Romulans are no threat to the Enterprise but they might make repairs and come back later. They have to send MACOs down to the surface because you never know when their warbird might come back and try to murder the science team down there.

So what happens? The Romulans whose lives Archer spared in a fit of Starfleet compassion warp out to the edge of the system, then go to maximum warp and ram the planet to keep it out of Coalition hands. The entire planet destroyed -- its entire biosphere, every living thing on it -- because an officer decided to do an altruistic half-measure and left his enemy to get up and stab him in the back.

You pull Nero out of that black hole -- or worse, let him go through it intact -- and he'll just come at you again like the omnicidal lunatic that he is.
Every case is fact specific but if you follow your logic through to conclusion you get an unarmed black kid shot dead walking through a gated community. Minimising risk does not always mean that lethal force is required.

And let's be honest, with Trek tech the way it is, it's silly that more villains don't use similar tactics. You wouldn't need red matter at all, just warp capable robo-ships.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 09:25 PM   #214
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Secondly, you're assuming that Admiral Marcus was doing a patently immoral thing by trying to have Khan blown away with 72 torpedoes that (sadistic/ironically) also contained the corpses of his buddies. Have you entertained the possibility that Marcus was actually PLAYING Kirk and that those torpedoes never would have detonated at all, but instead would have simply soft-landed on Qo'nos and Khan and his people would have gone on to conquer Qo'nos and use it as a Section 31 proxy army?
I certainly assumed that was his plan. But I was quite confused.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 09:43 PM   #215
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Every case is fact specific but if you follow your logic through to conclusion you get an unarmed black kid shot dead walking through a gated community.
If that unarmed black kid is positively identified as a time traveler who recently destroyed an entire planet with a weapon of mass destruction and has been VERY clear about his intention to do so again given half the chance, then your analogy makes sense.

To be less hyberbolic: if the unarmed black kid is someone known to have killed someone AT ALL and is very clear on his intention to do so again, then your analogy makes sense.

Minimising risk does not always mean that lethal force is required.
It does when the survival of the offender represents a risk in and of itself. Nero, in particular, can never be convinced by any rational means to turn away from his half-baked revenge scheme; hell, he spent twenty five years waiting for his chance just to get this far.

Therefore, his continued freedom is NOT an option. He must either be captured and permanently detained, or he must be killed. Nero refused to be surrender and be captured, so that leaves option B.

And let's be honest, with Trek tech the way it is, it's silly that more villains don't use similar tactics. You wouldn't need red matter at all, just warp capable robo-ships.
I'm pretty sure that's what the Cardassian Dreadnought was supposed to be: a giant warp-capable planet killing missile.

Actually, I suspect the reason more people don't use those kinds of weapons is because doing so is a tremendous war crime and will turn you into a pariah just for thinking about it. Maquis and Cardassians don't have this problem because everybody hates them anyway. Nero doesn't have this OPTION, because he doesn't want to die.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 09:52 PM   #216
-Brett-
Rear Admiral
 
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Secondly, you're assuming that Admiral Marcus was doing a patently immoral thing by trying to have Khan blown away with 72 torpedoes that (sadistic/ironically) also contained the corpses of his buddies. Have you entertained the possibility that Marcus was actually PLAYING Kirk and that those torpedoes never would have detonated at all, but instead would have simply soft-landed on Qo'nos and Khan and his people would have gone on to conquer Qo'nos and use it as a Section 31 proxy army?
73 people conquering a planet of billions is a bit of a stretch, even for genetically engineered super humans. Especially a planet like Kronos, with a population armed to the teeth.
-Brett- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 10:04 PM   #217
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

-Brett- wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Secondly, you're assuming that Admiral Marcus was doing a patently immoral thing by trying to have Khan blown away with 72 torpedoes that (sadistic/ironically) also contained the corpses of his buddies. Have you entertained the possibility that Marcus was actually PLAYING Kirk and that those torpedoes never would have detonated at all, but instead would have simply soft-landed on Qo'nos and Khan and his people would have gone on to conquer Qo'nos and use it as a Section 31 proxy army?
73 people conquering a planet of billions is a bit of a stretch, even for genetically engineered super humans.
Not for 73 people plus every disaffected Klingon thug in the slums of Ketha Province and god knows where else, people who respect strength and ferocity and precious little else, people who could be tricked into believing -- correctly, in this case -- that a rebellion under Khan's leadership would be triumphant.

Which is pretty much how the Augments got control of Earth.

Besides, clandestine services have tried crazier things in real life. The Bay of Pigs invasion, in particular, was intended to overthrow Castro by landing a thousand trained mercenaries and then collecting local rebels as they moved inland. The one thing the CIA never counted on was that the Cuban people's hatred of Fidel Castro wasn't nearly as strong as their own propaganda claimed it was.

Especially a planet like Kronos, with a population armed to the teeth.
What makes you think the Klingon population is armed to the teeth? Certainly the warrior caste is, and certainly the wealthy families that can afford their own battle cruisers.

What about the average joe-schmoe Klingon who can barely read and has never seen a bird of prey up close?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 10:22 PM   #218
Dale Sams
Fleet Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
For ST09, I'm left wondering what purpose the scene with the discussion of what to do with Nero serves. Is it to show that new Spock has a bloodlust? Is it to show that Kirk is willing to entertain alternatives? Is it to show that Nero is an asshole? Is it to show that they even have time to entertain such decisions? I think it's primarily to make the audience feel good by toppling the bad guy they so easily built up. Everyone loves to see the bully get his comeuppance in a movie, and this is just playing to that trope.

I just think that the way they handled the scene didn't work out. Kirk was realistically going to offer assistance when they could barely escape themselves? Why even offer such a thing if it's truly just a battle situation? That the alternative is even raised is why this is an issue. It implies there is actually time or ability to do something. If it had cut from the Jellyfish colliding to the Enterprise opening fire, I don't think I would have a had a problem with it.
Yeah I think this probably sums it up. It was the tone of the scene that was wrong for me. But it is a trope that crops up in many movies because movie-goers love to see villains get their cumuppance. It should come as no surprise that many people have no problem with the scene - they are the audience for whom it was intended.
Count me among them. I recently had a very visceral moment reading "The Romulan War" where we see Captain Archer ordering a damaged Romulan ship to withdrawal, seeing how the Romulans are no threat to the Enterprise but they might make repairs and come back later. They have to send MACOs down to the surface because you never know when their warbird might come back and try to murder the science team down there.

So what happens? The Romulans whose lives Archer spared in a fit of Starfleet compassion warp out to the edge of the system, then go to maximum warp and ram the planet to keep it out of Coalition hands. The entire planet destroyed -- its entire biosphere, every living thing on it -- because an officer decided to do an altruistic half-measure and left his enemy to get up and stab him in the back.

You pull Nero out of that black hole -- or worse, let him go through it intact -- and he'll just come at you again like the omnicidal lunatic that he is.
I've always thought that warp collisions should be impossible. Why even have space fleet wars? Remote control a cloaked shuttle, ram a planet at warp speed and you've probably destroyed an entire system.

Not to mention had Riker been able to ram that Borg cube at warp...right over Earth, he would have destroyed the Earth.

Talk about a guy who can 'make the big decisions'!
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 10:42 PM   #219
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

Dale Sams wrote: View Post
I've always thought that warp collisions should be impossible. Why even have space fleet wars? Remote control a cloaked shuttle, ram a planet at warp speed and you've probably destroyed an entire system.

Not to mention had Riker been able to ram that Borg cube at warp...right over Earth, he would have destroyed the Earth.

Talk about a guy who can 'make the big decisions'!
I think you are HUGELY over-estimating the amount of energy that would be released in that sort of collision.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 11:37 PM   #220
Dale Sams
Fleet Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Dale Sams wrote: View Post
I've always thought that warp collisions should be impossible. Why even have space fleet wars? Remote control a cloaked shuttle, ram a planet at warp speed and you've probably destroyed an entire system.

Not to mention had Riker been able to ram that Borg cube at warp...right over Earth, he would have destroyed the Earth.

Talk about a guy who can 'make the big decisions'!
I think you are HUGELY over-estimating the amount of energy that would be released in that sort of collision.
If anything, I'm underestimating it.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31 2014, 12:48 AM   #221
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Every case is fact specific but if you follow your logic through to conclusion you get an unarmed black kid shot dead walking through a gated community.
If that unarmed black kid is positively identified as a time traveler who recently destroyed an entire planet with a weapon of mass destruction and has been VERY clear about his intention to do so again given half the chance, then your analogy makes sense.

To be less hyberbolic: if the unarmed black kid is someone known to have killed someone AT ALL and is very clear on his intention to do so again, then your analogy makes sense.
I think the kid was pretty much minding his own business and got a bit lippy when he was challenged.

The point is that positively identifying someone as a threat can often be subjective and proven wrong in the cold light of day. The default should not be bad people deserve death. We know very little about Nero's crew.

If you want to get more imaginative with the tech, then as soon as your enemies' shields are down, you beam across neutralising gas. Then you beam them off. If their shields are still up, they're still a threat. The problem with Treknology is that using it properly would suck the fun out of the fights so we have to pretend like it can't do it.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31 2014, 01:55 AM   #222
Commishsleer
Fleet Captain
 
Commishsleer's Avatar
 
Location: CommishSleer
View Commishsleer's Twitter Profile
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
My moral dilemmas in STID are:

1. Kirk punching out a prisoner

2. The proposal of killing Khan with 72 missiles


Yes Kirk punching out a prisoner was wrong but really who looked bad - just Kirk. Khan didn't care. Kirk was beneath his contempt. I suppose its meant to show us Kirk was pretty volatile, Khan was a superhuman and how Kirk felt about Pike's death.

I'm going to give you the condensed version of how stupid the 72-missile thing was on everyone's side. Marcus was stupid for putting 72 super-missiles in Kirk's control. And why would Kirk fire all 72 missiles anyway? And where was he going to aim them? And was he going to destroy a section of planet without checking if it was occupied (which it was)? Did Kirk think the Klingons were going to sit by while he stayed on the edge of the neutral zone and lobbed missiles at their planets?

I was thinking it was very wrong for Kirk to even entertain Marcus's proposal. But you know when you're in the military sometimes you have to follow orders from the upper echelons without question because TPTB might be in the know about something. It just happened that Marcus was corrupt. But if he wasn't then Kirk was duty bound to follow through as was his crew including Scott.
PrimeScott would have followed Kirk's order's no matter what unless he considered him insane (Turnabout Intruder). In Taste of Armageddon he was prepared to raze a planet on Kirk's orders. He trusted Kirk to make the right decisions when he was in his right mind.
I had thought that Prime Kirk would never obey a dodgy command order but I considered 'Enterprise Incident' where he and Spock stole the cloaking device from the Romulans. As far as we know this wasn't a desperate act to save the Federation from destruction but something thought of to keep the balance of power. I think in the 60s it was considered justifiable to commit espionage if you were on the side of 'good'. But know it seems to me that Kirk's actions in that episode were morally wrong. Perhaps as morally wrong as the potential deploying of deep range missiles into Klingon Sovereign Territory in STID.
Two things:

First, Kirk apparently came to most of the same conclusions you did, which is why he didn't fire the torpedoes and tried to arrest Khan anyway. Trying to punch him out would be a "nobody's looking, this one's for Pike" moment that backfired hilariously.

Secondly, you're assuming that Admiral Marcus was doing a patently immoral thing by trying to have Khan blown away with 72 torpedoes that (sadistic/ironically) also contained the corpses of his buddies. Have you entertained the possibility that Marcus was actually PLAYING Kirk and that those torpedoes never would have detonated at all, but instead would have simply soft-landed on Qo'nos and Khan and his people would have gone on to conquer Qo'nos and use it as a Section 31 proxy army?

To the second point, considering how little hesitation Marcus showed to destroy the Enterprise and its entire crew just to keep Khan from getting the upper hand, it's possible that Khan was still acting on Marcus' orders when he gunned down most of Starfleet's brass and that Kirk's flash of moral clarity (and Khan's decision to exploit that morality for a chance to conquer a less shitty world), in which case the "moral" of the story is "Never trust the military."
I agree with you that Kirk independently realised the 'immorality' of his actions in regards to the torpedoes and that Kirk was the one who looked stupid in the fight after Khan surrendered.

I still can see heaps of problems with your 72 torpedo solution but I can't think of anything better.

I really think it needed to be spelled out a bit more (for the fans at least).
Commishsleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31 2014, 01:57 AM   #223
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

A simple solution would have been to just beam up Nero and his crew and put them in the brig so they can be put to trial for their crimes. That's never even brought up, and I would have settled for even a "our transporters can't lock onto them" just to make it clear. Then you get to the point where they offer Nero assistance, he turns them down. Kirk knows the situation from the on is futile, and orders the Narada's destruction not just because it's what a Hollywood summer tentpole is expected to do with the hero slaying the villain, but that it's because Kirk feels it's the right thing to do to put them out of their misery. "I can't help them, but I can't leave them here suffering like this."

But, as it is, Kirk and Spock come off like punks shooting down a defenseless enemy. Apologists can make whatever excuses they like, whether it's "but Nero turned them down", or "they were gonna destroy more planets in the next dimension", "he's a genocidal maniac, give him the chair!", when it comes down to it, I want Kirk and especially Spock to be better than how they're portrayed in that scene and at least show that they tried. Spock disagreeing with Kirk's act of compassion is fucking bullshit. Kirk's unhesitating "you've got it" doesn't mesh with his offering assistence, unless he was just messing with Nero the whole time and had no intention of helping out.

In the end, if it had to end with Kirk shooting up the defensless Narada, I would have put more thought to it than these hack writers. I would have shown that it made Kirk a little upset that he couldn't capture Nero to put him on trial.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31 2014, 02:04 AM   #224
Locutus of Bored
The Locutest One of All
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
Apologists can make whatever excuses they like, whether it's "but Nero turned them down", or "they were gonna destroy more planets in the next dimension", "he's a genocidal maniac, give him the chair!", when it comes down to it, I want Kirk and especially Spock to be better than how they're portrayed in that scene and at least show that they tried.
Somehow, I will have to try and find the inner strength to survive the knowledge that I am an apologist for not letting genocidal psychopaths potentially be free to roam the stars in their gigantic black pineapple of death. I'll just have to drink away my sorrows and overcome, one day at a time.
__________________
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31 2014, 02:09 AM   #225
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

If the film did a better job of addressing that "Captain, we can't risk the possibility of letting him enter another alternate universe", sure. As it is, he's dead in the water by that point and has no means to harm anyone.
MakeshiftPython 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 02:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.