Not rescuing Nero: thumbs up or down?

[WeAreTheBorg]

What a strange complaint... I thought Kirk went WAY out of what could be expected to offer him rescue. What did you want him to do? Risk the Enterprise and her crew to save a genocidal maniac who didn't want to be saved?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Because what happened LAST time the Narada fell through a black hole, hmm?

Instead, he decided to stick around and fire on a ship that was already being destroyed by a black hole. What? Kill Nero before the black hole does?

Hint: Last time the Narada fell through a black hole, it was NOT the case that all hands were lost and the ship totalled...

Exactly. If they had just let him fall through the black hole there would be a dozen threads on whether Nero really was dead. He could potentially come back to any point in the timeline. I'm glad they offed him if only to spare us this possibility.

I don't recall the DS9 crew scrambling to rescue Jem Hadar they were blasting the crap out of.

(I agree that the Spock line was out of place for his character, would have worked well if they had reversed Spock and Kirk's lines there.)

 

[Feofilakt]

Because what happened LAST time the Narada fell through a black hole, hmm?


Hint: Last time the Narada fell through a black hole, it was NOT the case that all hands were lost and the ship totalled...

Exactly. If they had just let him fall through the black hole there would be a dozen threads on whether Nero really was dead. He could potentially come back to any point in the timeline. I'm glad they offed him if only to spare us this possibility.

I don't recall the DS9 crew scrambling to rescue Jem Hadar they were blasting the crap out of.

(I agree that the Spock line was out of place for his character, would have worked well if they had reversed Spock and Kirk's lines there.)

Which would be a bad thing... why? Fans get more to talk about, some uncertainty in fate meaning he could be used again if they really, really wanted, Feds look good, Kirk looks good, Spock looks good, Nero looks like an ass. Everyone wins.

The best thing would have been to just let the ship sink. I doubt it would have survived anyway. To blow it up while it is already being destroyed is juvenile and totally unnecessary.

 

[Penhall99]

To me, one real plot hole in the movie was when Kirk and Spock acted completely out of character in finishing off a helpless Nero. It bothered the hell out of me. Kirk didn't seem all that serious about rescuing Nero. And Spock's response was almost flippant. No debate.
-- OK, Nero destroyed Spock's planet of six billion people. So, does that mean Spock is entitled to go "thumbs up or thumbs down" on Nero's life? No rescue attempt. Instead, let him die. In fact, kill him. Spock is exacting his own kind of revenge on Nero. But is that in character? Even for the Spock in this movie? Revenge is not logical. Killing Nero does not bring Vulcan back. Spock, any Spock, knows that.
-- Even Kirk knows that. Instead it's Kirk as executioner. What will he say in his log? That they decided not to try to save Nero and his crew? Instead, they actually opened fire on his ship as it fell into the black hole? Kirk was a warrior, and he killed, but he had no bloodlust. He didn't kill if he didn't have to. He never destroyed a helpless enemy. Apparently, like the Klingons, this young Kirk doesn't take prisoners.

Think of it this way, would this cavalier killing had been accepted as in-character in a TOS episode? I don't think so.

If Kirk and Spock had acted in character, they would've decided they had to try to save Nero and his crew. Naturally, it endangers the Enterprise. (It's a better reason for it getting caught by black hole than the one in the movie.)

Of course, to keep up the action, Nero could've fought the attempt, and Kirk finally has to decide to get the Enterprise out of there before it's destroyed, too. In other words, little in the story had to change. Scotty still has to save the Enterprise as the Narada is swallowed by the black hole.

When it was over, maybe McCoy could've asked why Kirk endangered his ship and crew to save Nero. There could've followed a short discussion among McCoy, Kirk, and Spock aboout the senselessness of seeking revenge and the need to show mercy. "I will not kill, today," something like that. Very much in line with the sensibilities that made TOS stand out. Instead, the opposite occurred. Kirk and Spock exacted Old West justice with no questions asked.

UGH.

I hope to God this kind of PC mind-set does not find its way into future Star Trek movies...

Kirk and Spock acted PERFECTLY.

 

[Feofilakt]

To me, one real plot hole in the movie was when Kirk and Spock acted completely out of character in finishing off a helpless Nero. It bothered the hell out of me. Kirk didn't seem all that serious about rescuing Nero. And Spock's response was almost flippant. No debate.
-- OK, Nero destroyed Spock's planet of six billion people. So, does that mean Spock is entitled to go "thumbs up or thumbs down" on Nero's life? No rescue attempt. Instead, let him die. In fact, kill him. Spock is exacting his own kind of revenge on Nero. But is that in character? Even for the Spock in this movie? Revenge is not logical. Killing Nero does not bring Vulcan back. Spock, any Spock, knows that.
-- Even Kirk knows that. Instead it's Kirk as executioner. What will he say in his log? That they decided not to try to save Nero and his crew? Instead, they actually opened fire on his ship as it fell into the black hole? Kirk was a warrior, and he killed, but he had no bloodlust. He didn't kill if he didn't have to. He never destroyed a helpless enemy. Apparently, like the Klingons, this young Kirk doesn't take prisoners.

Think of it this way, would this cavalier killing had been accepted as in-character in a TOS episode? I don't think so.

If Kirk and Spock had acted in character, they would've decided they had to try to save Nero and his crew. Naturally, it endangers the Enterprise. (It's a better reason for it getting caught by black hole than the one in the movie.)

Of course, to keep up the action, Nero could've fought the attempt, and Kirk finally has to decide to get the Enterprise out of there before it's destroyed, too. In other words, little in the story had to change. Scotty still has to save the Enterprise as the Narada is swallowed by the black hole.

When it was over, maybe McCoy could've asked why Kirk endangered his ship and crew to save Nero. There could've followed a short discussion among McCoy, Kirk, and Spock aboout the senselessness of seeking revenge and the need to show mercy. "I will not kill, today," something like that. Very much in line with the sensibilities that made TOS stand out. Instead, the opposite occurred. Kirk and Spock exacted Old West justice with no questions asked.

UGH.

I hope to God this kind of PC mind-set does not find its way into future Star Trek movies...

Kirk and Spock acted PERFECTLY.

If you have a base morality and no knowledge of even the most elementary of ethical systems, sure. Just because it made you feel good does not mean that it is good.

I invite you to justify your position and perhaps explore some of the ethical systems that are out there. I will also note the ethical position of the Federation is clear as day, and this action in particular is most certainly not in keeping with it.

 

[Franklin]

To me, one real plot hole in the movie was when Kirk and Spock acted completely out of character in finishing off a helpless Nero. It bothered the hell out of me. Kirk didn't seem all that serious about rescuing Nero. And Spock's response was almost flippant. No debate.
-- OK, Nero destroyed Spock's planet of six billion people. So, does that mean Spock is entitled to go "thumbs up or thumbs down" on Nero's life? No rescue attempt. Instead, let him die. In fact, kill him. Spock is exacting his own kind of revenge on Nero. But is that in character? Even for the Spock in this movie? Revenge is not logical. Killing Nero does not bring Vulcan back. Spock, any Spock, knows that.
-- Even Kirk knows that. Instead it's Kirk as executioner. What will he say in his log? That they decided not to try to save Nero and his crew? Instead, they actually opened fire on his ship as it fell into the black hole? Kirk was a warrior, and he killed, but he had no bloodlust. He didn't kill if he didn't have to. He never destroyed a helpless enemy. Apparently, like the Klingons, this young Kirk doesn't take prisoners.

Think of it this way, would this cavalier killing had been accepted as in-character in a TOS episode? I don't think so.

If Kirk and Spock had acted in character, they would've decided they had to try to save Nero and his crew. Naturally, it endangers the Enterprise. (It's a better reason for it getting caught by black hole than the one in the movie.)

Of course, to keep up the action, Nero could've fought the attempt, and Kirk finally has to decide to get the Enterprise out of there before it's destroyed, too. In other words, little in the story had to change. Scotty still has to save the Enterprise as the Narada is swallowed by the black hole.

When it was over, maybe McCoy could've asked why Kirk endangered his ship and crew to save Nero. There could've followed a short discussion among McCoy, Kirk, and Spock aboout the senselessness of seeking revenge and the need to show mercy. "I will not kill, today," something like that. Very much in line with the sensibilities that made TOS stand out. Instead, the opposite occurred. Kirk and Spock exacted Old West justice with no questions asked.

UGH.

I hope to God this kind of PC mind-set does not find its way into future Star Trek movies...

Kirk and Spock acted PERFECTLY.

Yep. Put a couple of caps in him to settle the score and go have a couple of Budweiser Classics. Sorry, if the above is PC, then TOS was PC way before the phrase was coined.

I blame those who have no problem with what Kirk and especially Spock did (or at least the way they did it) on watching too much Jack Bauer.

 

[Feofilakt]

To me, one real plot hole in the movie was when Kirk and Spock acted completely out of character in finishing off a helpless Nero. It bothered the hell out of me. Kirk didn't seem all that serious about rescuing Nero. And Spock's response was almost flippant. No debate.
-- OK, Nero destroyed Spock's planet of six billion people. So, does that mean Spock is entitled to go "thumbs up or thumbs down" on Nero's life? No rescue attempt. Instead, let him die. In fact, kill him. Spock is exacting his own kind of revenge on Nero. But is that in character? Even for the Spock in this movie? Revenge is not logical. Killing Nero does not bring Vulcan back. Spock, any Spock, knows that.
-- Even Kirk knows that. Instead it's Kirk as executioner. What will he say in his log? That they decided not to try to save Nero and his crew? Instead, they actually opened fire on his ship as it fell into the black hole? Kirk was a warrior, and he killed, but he had no bloodlust. He didn't kill if he didn't have to. He never destroyed a helpless enemy. Apparently, like the Klingons, this young Kirk doesn't take prisoners.

Think of it this way, would this cavalier killing had been accepted as in-character in a TOS episode? I don't think so.

If Kirk and Spock had acted in character, they would've decided they had to try to save Nero and his crew. Naturally, it endangers the Enterprise. (It's a better reason for it getting caught by black hole than the one in the movie.)

Of course, to keep up the action, Nero could've fought the attempt, and Kirk finally has to decide to get the Enterprise out of there before it's destroyed, too. In other words, little in the story had to change. Scotty still has to save the Enterprise as the Narada is swallowed by the black hole.

When it was over, maybe McCoy could've asked why Kirk endangered his ship and crew to save Nero. There could've followed a short discussion among McCoy, Kirk, and Spock aboout the senselessness of seeking revenge and the need to show mercy. "I will not kill, today," something like that. Very much in line with the sensibilities that made TOS stand out. Instead, the opposite occurred. Kirk and Spock exacted Old West justice with no questions asked.

UGH.

I hope to God this kind of PC mind-set does not find its way into future Star Trek movies...

Kirk and Spock acted PERFECTLY.

Yep. Put a couple of caps in him to settle the score and go have a couple of Budweiser Classics. Sorry, if the above is PC, then TOS was PC way before the phrase was coined.

I blame those who have no problem with what Kirk and especially Spock did (or at least the way they did it) on watching too much Jack Bauer.

Yeah, what passes for virtue these days is positively shameful.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

When it was over, maybe McCoy could've asked why Kirk endangered his ship and crew to save Nero. There could've followed a short discussion among McCoy, Kirk, and Spock aboout the senselessness of seeking revenge and the need to show mercy. "I will not kill, today," something like that. Very much in line with the sensibilities that made TOS stand out.

And McCoy would have made some quip aimed at Spock and the camera would pull back as they all had a little chuckle, music swells and the Corbomite Maneuver mask hits the screen with the credits. Ugh.

No, no, no.. time for something new.

 

[JonnyBoy]

Are we actually debating this? Come on! Nero destroyed an entire PLANET, nearly decimated the Vulcans, killed Spock's mother, and killed Kirk's Father and many others aboard the U.S.S. Kelvin.

Then...

Kirk makes an offer to provide aid. Spock may have given into an emotional desire for retribution, but it's also quite logical. And then Nero spits in Kirk's face. I would have done the same thing, and I would have been pissed if they somehow rescued Nero, only to prove how "noble" they are. F#$K NERO! Let him die. The galaxy is safer without him. And it was a badass moment.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Exactly. If they had just let him fall through the black hole there would be a dozen threads on whether Nero really was dead. He could potentially come back to any point in the timeline. I'm glad they offed him if only to spare us this possibility.

I don't recall the DS9 crew scrambling to rescue Jem Hadar they were blasting the crap out of.

(I agree that the Spock line was out of place for his character, would have worked well if they had reversed Spock and Kirk's lines there.)

Which would be a bad thing... why?

Because Nero bores me.

 

[Feofilakt]

Are we actually debating this? Come on! Nero destroyed an entire PLANET, nearly decimated the Vulcans, killed Spock's mother, and killed Kirk's Father and many others aboard the U.S.S. Kelvin.

Then...

Kirk makes an offer to provide aid. Spock may have given into an emotional desire for retribution, but it's also quite logical. And then Nero spits in Kirk's face. I would have done the same thing, and I would have been pissed if they somehow rescued Nero, only to prove how "noble" they are. F#$K NERO! Let him die. The galaxy is safer without him. And it was a badass moment.

Revenge is never logical, it has an emotional basis. Their action doesn't even equalize a wrong. How does killing one maniac and a handful of people who may or may not even be culpable for their actions equalize billions of dead Vulcans? It doesn't. We tried the Nazis in WW2 to try and equalize the horrific wrong they collectively did and determine the guilty from the innocent. Yes, it had its flaws, but it is the best a civilized society can do when faced with this sort of thing. Are you suggesting the Soviet opinion in which we simply shoot every officer above a certain rank without trial was good and right? While it may be morally satisfying to do that, it is not the right thing to do.

I'm pretty disappointed with some Trek fans right now, it's like they want more "300" in their Trek. Blech.

 

[Peter the Younger]

Yep. Put a couple of caps in him to settle the score and go have a couple of Budweiser Classics. Sorry, if the above is PC, then TOS was PC way before the phrase was coined.

I blame those who have no problem with what Kirk and especially Spock did (or at least the way they did it) on watching too much Jack Bauer.

So let's be clear: in order to match your standard for moral perfection, we must put a ship of 1000 people in serious jeopardy to rescue a crew (unknown number) of hostile armed individuals led by a genocidal maniac, who are refusing help and actively trying to kill us, and who may or may not escape in their (damaged but still very dangerous) ship to attack another time period?

 

[Feofilakt]

Yep. Put a couple of caps in him to settle the score and go have a couple of Budweiser Classics. Sorry, if the above is PC, then TOS was PC way before the phrase was coined.

I blame those who have no problem with what Kirk and especially Spock did (or at least the way they did it) on watching too much Jack Bauer.

So let's be clear: in order to match your standard for moral perfection, we must put a ship of 1000 people in serious jeopardy to rescue a crew (unknown number) of hostile armed individuals led by a genocidal maniac, who are refusing help and actively trying to kill us, and who may or may not escape in their (damaged but still very dangerous) ship to attack another time period?

No, just let the ship sink. Very simple.

 

[Peter the Younger]

Yep. Put a couple of caps in him to settle the score and go have a couple of Budweiser Classics. Sorry, if the above is PC, then TOS was PC way before the phrase was coined.

I blame those who have no problem with what Kirk and especially Spock did (or at least the way they did it) on watching too much Jack Bauer.

So let's be clear: in order to match your standard for moral perfection, we must put a ship of 1000 people in serious jeopardy to rescue a crew (unknown number) of hostile armed individuals led by a genocidal maniac, who are refusing help and actively trying to kill us, and who may or may not escape in their (damaged but still very dangerous) ship to attack another time period?

No, just let the ship sink. Very simple.

You are conveniently ignoring the repeated conclusion, backed up by the screenwriters, that the Narada could have slipped away into the ringwarp, and threatened another time period. Ignoring your opponents argument does not constitute a win.

 

[trampledamage]

In reading this thread I've realised that my problem with the shooting of the Narada, is not actually them firing on the Narada but their flippancy. If there'd been a hurried conversation about the danger of the Narada going through the black hole, or, indeed, a serious reaction from either Kirk or Spock about the fact that Nero caused the destruction of Vulcan so he's too dangerous to be left alive, the scene would have been fine.

I realise from the many examples given that this flippancy is pretty much classic TOS, but still it bothered me.

 

[Feofilakt]

So let's be clear: in order to match your standard for moral perfection, we must put a ship of 1000 people in serious jeopardy to rescue a crew (unknown number) of hostile armed individuals led by a genocidal maniac, who are refusing help and actively trying to kill us, and who may or may not escape in their (damaged but still very dangerous) ship to attack another time period?

No, just let the ship sink. Very simple.

You are conveniently ignoring the repeated conclusion, backed up by the screenwriters, that the Narada could have slipped away into the ringwarp, and threatened another time period. Ignoring your opponents argument does not constitute a win.

As I understand it the red matter was becoming unstable and would have destroyed the ship. I thought this was discussed already?

EDIT: Or the black hole becoming unstable, rather.

 

[Peter the Younger]

As I understand it the red matter was becoming unstable and would have destroyed the ship. I thought this was discussed already?

Well I'll admit I have been following multiple threads today where this is discussed, but Kurtzman and Orci's statements on the subject would appear to be definitive.

I will say this - the dialogue handles it flippantly, which is regrettable. But I don't think it's morally indefensible by a long shot.

 

[QuasarVM]

Isn't that why the Star Trek we all love was dying because it was full of morality and thinking that seemed false to this more cynical age?

I don't think so. I think it was dying because the last two films happened to be quite bad, and Enterprise didn't have strong enough characters for people to get attached to them or good enough stories for people to care.

Maybe this is just the Star Trek of our time that follows our own goals. Survival and the destruction over those who want to destroy us.

Um, whose goals are you talking about?

(Man, this is starting to depress me. )

So, um, basically you're saying evil should get a "get out of jail free card"...

 

[trampledamage]

Isn't that why the Star Trek we all love was dying because it was full of morality and thinking that seemed false to this more cynical age?

I don't think so. I think it was dying because the last two films happened to be quite bad, and Enterprise didn't have strong enough characters for people to get attached to them or good enough stories for people to care.

Maybe this is just the Star Trek of our time that follows our own goals. Survival and the destruction over those who want to destroy us.

Um, whose goals are you talking about?

(Man, this is starting to depress me. )

So, um, basically you're saying evil should get a "get out of jail free card"...

No, evil should get a "go straight to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200" card.

 

[Feofilakt]

Isn't that why the Star Trek we all love was dying because it was full of morality and thinking that seemed false to this more cynical age?

I don't think so. I think it was dying because the last two films happened to be quite bad, and Enterprise didn't have strong enough characters for people to get attached to them or good enough stories for people to care.

Maybe this is just the Star Trek of our time that follows our own goals. Survival and the destruction over those who want to destroy us.

Um, whose goals are you talking about?

(Man, this is starting to depress me. )

So, um, basically you're saying evil should get a "get out of jail free card"...

Negative, evil should be confronted with the tools of justice, not further evil.