Prime Directive violation? [Spoilers?]

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by los2188, Dec 16, 2012.

  1. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Re: Prime Directive violation?

    Exactly.

    Like I said, in TOS, as long as the Federation does not reveal themselves "as people from another planet" to the natives, or reveal space travel, or screw with the social order of their society, then they are allowed to stop the civilization's destruction (and saving the civilization from destruction does not constitute screwing with their social order).

    So Spock's issue with the Enterprise revealing itself to the natives in order to save him does make perfect sense from the standpoint of the TOS PD.
     
  2. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Re: Prime Directive violation?

    It is discovered in "The Last Outpost" that "...that Starfleet has permitted several civilizations to fall. We have at times allowed the strong and violent to overcome the weak." Strange words to be sure.

    The depiction of Captain Kirk saving a species from extinction was established in the prime universe. According to Q Junior, the captain violated the PD when he saved the Pelosians, the Baezians, and the Chenari from extinction.

    I think that Captain Kirk exercised the PD far better than Captain Picard. I felt that the latter was more quick to enforce the PD when it is discovered that the society is less advanced than any Federation world. On the other hand, the former evaluates the society and comes to a determination if the people in the society are progressing or static. When a society is static, this is when Kirk intervened.
     
  3. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    In the bleachers.
    Re: Prime Directive violation?

    Put me in this camp. If Starfleet is a humanitarian armada, then refusing life-saving (species-saving) aid for any beings when it can give assistance is against what it stands for.

    What it's supposed to prevent was so elegantly said by McCoy in Bread and Circuses: "Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land someplace and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel!"'

    I don't see how Starfleet and the Federation could claim life has value in any state, and yet stand by and let a species become extinct based on principle. That's just pompous and actually goes against honoring the sanctity of life. Got warp drive? We'll save you. No? Well, tough for you.
    Also, in the grand tapestry of things, maybe you, the advanced species, were SUPPOSED to be there and be able to render aid. Ever think of that?
     
  4. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    Re: Prime Directive violation?

    Either Troi or Pulaski make that exact argument in Pen Pals. :techman:
     
  5. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Re: Prime Directive violation?

    I don't think this beginning scene has very much bearing, if any, on the overall plot of the film.

    I think the only story-telling purpose of this scene was to show us (the audience) that the Enterprise and her crew (our heroes) are out there doing their job, which is conducting missions on behalf of the Federation -- just like the TOS crew did.

    In that respect, this scene's only purpose may be to establish the fact that following the whole Nero incident, Kirk and crew have been busy with something akin to TOS's "Five Year Mission".
     
  6. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Agreed, even if it may be a bit odd to send Starfleet's supposedly greatest assets (newest flagship and an exceptionally heroic captain) out on anything as mundane as the old TOS mission... Shouldn't Kirk have better things to do?

    Judging by the TV shows and movies, plenty. Like Q points out, mankind is always suffering and dying. Starfleet has to make choices - and the choice to spend any time rescuing a single village from destruction is odd indeed. We learned from the last movie that Starfleet doesn't really have ships to spare in this timeline, either.

    Not really. In the first one, a covert mission to save the planet was indeed conducted, after a risk analysis of sorts; in the second, no such mission was even theoretically possible.

    Well, most of us haven't watched the nine-minute preview at all - it's either impossible or illegal for us. The online description suggested Kirk and McCoy lured the locals out of their village to escape devastation, but doing this in order to make them miss the shuttle is of course a more consistent plot development.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  7. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Re: Prime Directive violation?

    I'd like to add to my own post :hugegrin::

    Besides quickly establishing that Kirk and crew are now out doing various stuff for the Federation, I think another purpose of these scene is also to quickly establish that our heroes may have been doing this kind of stuff for at least a little while -- which would lead to some bonding among them...

    ...at least I felt that the "big seven" seemed very comfortable with each other in that relatively brief 9 minutes of footage, as if they had bonded -- especially Kirk and McCoy, and even McCoy and Spock, with McCoy's line to Spock (which I won't mention due to it being a mild "spoiler of a fun line", but it was right out of TOS Immunity Syndrome).
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
  8. DarthTom

    DarthTom Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Location:
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Re: Prime Directive violation?

    That's true. The sci-fi classic, The Day the Earth Stood Still certainly explores that possibility. [both old and new versions]

    My problem with the PD as depicted in TNG and as how Picard interpreted it - it was so rigid that virtually any aid - even during a natural disaster was unacceptable. That seems like an unreasonable policy.
     
  9. Mister Fandango

    Mister Fandango Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2012
    Then instead of ranting on and on about something you're completely ignorant about, maybe you should just wait until you either see this preview or another one so that you can approach it from a position of strength and knowledge? As opposed to just using second-hand and terribly erroneous information to do the former. Especially if you're going to keep ranting on about it even after being told the information you're basing the ranting on is wrong. (For example, they're not just trying to save a village but the entire planet instead. And in fact, Kirk and McCoy aren't saving the villagers at all in the preview; that was just a happy coincidence.)

    Just a thought.
     
  10. Marten

    Marten Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Location:
    Southern Sweden
    I got the impression that it was such a major eruption that it would doom the planet. But I may be wrong.
     
  11. Mister Fandango

    Mister Fandango Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2012
    That's because Spock clearly stated near the beginning of the preview, "if this volcano erupts, the planet dies."
     
  12. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    I think you are reading to much into what you heard about that scene. We really don't know why Kirk was running with the scroll (or whatever it was), nor do we know why he was being chased (other than he being an obvious outsider), nor do we know if Kirk is purposefully leading the natives away from anything.

    There are many reason why Kirk and the natives could be running, but here's my speculation (which could be completely wrong). Maybe Kirk wasn't leading them away from the erupting volcano, but maybe he was leading them away from the result of whatever Spock was about to do in the Volcano...

    ...Or maybe not. Maybe they were simply chasing him, and he wasn't leading them anywhere. I suppose we will need to wait to until we find out more.
     
  13. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia, Kelvin timeline
    Lighten up, Mister Fandango.

    Timo said that he was basing his remarks on another person's description of the preview. Whether the description in question was an accurate one might be open to question, as would be his reading of it, but your "something you're completely ignorant about" crack wasn't called-for, nor did I notice anything especially ranty about Timo's post(s). If he's wrong, then he's wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that there was a way you could have said so without using the hostile and personal angle evident in the post quoted above.

    Just a thought. :)
     
  14. Capt_Pickirk

    Capt_Pickirk Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Location:
    Sunny ol' Blighty
    Re: Prime Directive violation?

    This.

    During the Original Series it seemed like a just a good idea to abide by, a guideline. But by the time of TNG (particularly in episodes like Pen Pals and Homeward) it had transformed into some sort of unquestioning Dogma. This gets exploited even more in Voyager and Enterprise (when the Prime Directive hadn't even been invented!!)
     
  15. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Re: Prime Directive violation?

    Captains in the TOS era seemed to have a bit more leeway to use their own discretion, too. Note Kirk arming the natives with flintlocks in "A Private Little War" or teaching the Yangs the true meaning of "We, the People" in "The Omega Glory."

    (If you'll indulge me a shameless plug, I actually get into this in my next Trek book, where Kirk discovers--to his chagrin--that his reputation for playing fast and loose with the Prime Directive precedes him . . . .)
     
  16. Mister Fandango

    Mister Fandango Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2012
    Not knowing what you're talking about is pretty much the exact definition of the word "ignorant." If you have a problem with the word, maybe you should take it up with the English language rather than the people using it?

    Also, there's a very good reason why "I heard it from this guy" is not only absurd, but completely useless when talking about... well, just about anything. Especially when in the same breath you 1) continue to assume it's accurate and 2) oddly, admit that it might be mistaking because you are in fact ignorant yourself, but that you're still going with #1 because it suits your ranting/argument/inaccurate statements/whatever better. As he did in the entire post -- as opposed to the snippet I quoted, which apparently is also a sin around here.
     
  17. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia, Kelvin timeline
    I'm quite familiar with the definition of the word, thank you, and you were not being invited to debate its meaning. The point was this: address the content of the post and refrain from making accusations or insinuations concerning the poster. That's the way it's done here.

    If a description is all he has to go by, then it is all he has to go by; we don't exclude people from discussion of a movie trailer or preview solely because said trailer is not available for viewing in the country or area in which they reside. As I said above, if he's wrong, then he's wrong—in Timo's case, he may even be wordy and wrong—but that in no way excuses an attack upon him personally. Post, not poster.

    There's nothing wrong with quoting only the pertinent portion of a post to which you are responding. In the case of lengthy posts, in fact, that's always been encouraged at TrekBBS, so I'm unsure what the "apparently is also a sin around here" is supposed to mean.

    At any rate, we've spent enough time and column space on this side issue here. Anything further can be taken to PM, and the other folks can get back to discussion of Prime Directive violations and whether or not such a violation may have occurred, based upon what is known so far.