Not rescuing Nero: thumbs up or down?

[CordrazineOD]

Since this was a movie and not real life, and because I could care-a-less about IDIC and mushy Roddenberry mumbo-jumbo..I am glad the scene played out as it did...and so was the audience I was with because they cheered...and that is what is most important...

Star Trek plots with BALLS are the best (Khan--FC) Star Trek movie with pussy-ass stuff suck. And I'll let you decide which ones those are since there are a whole bunch of them

Rob

Welcome the new era of trek Fan.. god help us all.

Yeah...seriously! Don't care about IDIC? "Mushy mumbo-jumbo"? I find that comment appauling and disrespectful to Roddenberry. With all the continuity Nazis around, we should be much more concerned about the people who are either clueless to, or disrespectful of, the spirit and heart of the show.

 

[CordrazineOD]

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.

It's funny how being enlightened, altruistic, and ethical is now derided as "PC" by people who value jingoistic, primitive violence and bluster.

 

[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.

It's funny how being enlightened, altruistic, and ethical is now derided as "PC" by people who value jingoistic, primitive violence and bluster.

Kirk offered to help Nero AFTER he destroyed a planet and MURDERED millions (or was it billions?) of people. Nero refused, so Kirk blasted him.

I personally find it ridiculous that people are so upset over that scene. I just can't fathom it. But I guess thats what I get for being not being "enlightened" and "ethical"....

Anyway, bash me all you want. I could care less.

 

[CordrazineOD]

Since this was a movie and not real life, and because I could care-a-less about IDIC and mushy Roddenberry mumbo-jumbo..I am glad the scene played out as it did...and so was the audience I was with because they cheered...and that is what is most important...

Rob

So, Kirk should've killed the Gorn? He should've blasted the Reliant and Khan to bits when he had the chance? He should've destroyed the Romulan ship in "Balance of Terror"?
Yes, it's not real life. We all need to take a deep breath and remember that. But I'd respectfully say that it's not mumbo-jumbo either. It was part of what gave Trek some depth. It's part of what made Kirk and Spock something other than two-dimensional action-characters.

OK, it's what the crowd in the theater apparently wanted. Even better. That's the point. It was wrong. And it would've made people think a bit for wanting that.

Exactly Trek would've never lasteed without it's Ideals. The 60's and know the 2000's are all about humanity ready to kill. It was about grander Ideas when we consider all of us brothers and would not be ready to do so. But that's all quaint for the young ones that want blood.

Lets all admit that this Version of Trek is not going to hold to the ideals of the old series. I can respect the old series more for doing so It does'nt make this one any less watchable. But I'd rather live in the old universe.

I agree that it's not the end of the world that they aren't injecting the Humanistic philosophy into the reboot, but the ending was almost offensive to me. They could have killed Nero without making Spock look blood-thirsty.

But this is what is exciting. The Federation is a benevolent Empire and as Military in that Empire Kirk and Spock did the right thing - especially with such a dangerous enemy. Lets leave the wishy washy morality in the other timeline.

The next movie should deal with the power-grab of the Romulan Empire by the Federation because the Klingons and everyone else will do the same.

Wow...WISHY WASHY?! It's not wishy-washy morality---it's a firm, clear, idealistic, humanistic moral code and it defines Star Trek. Unbelievable, the crap I'm reading in this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Peter the Younger]

Look, this is pointless. We can't have a debate about the morality of this situation if we don't agree on the facts pertaining to the situation.

These facts are not in dispute (I think):

- Kirk offered assistance to Nero if he surrendered.
- Nero refused.

These were not stated explicitly, but can be reasonably implied:

- Nero and his crew would meet any rescue attempt with hostile response.
- If such a rescue were attempted, either via beaming or by shuttle, it would put the Enterprise in additional jeopardy from the gravitational effects of the singularity (which the Enterprise, unlike the Narada, was not equipped to handle). The threat posed by the singularity to the Enterprise being confirmed by their efforts to escape it following the Narada's destruction.


Now here's where we get fuzzy. The writers have said that the Narada was capable of escaping to another time period through the black hole. This is not stated explicitly on screen. So far, whether one accepts this statement or not seems to depend mainly on whether it supports one's argument or not. However, am I correct in assuming that it breaks down like this:

- If the Narada was capable of escaping, Kirk was justified in firing on the enemy ship.
- If the Narada was incapable of escaping, firing on the ship was not justified.

Is this what it boils down to? Or is there some other standard I'm missing?

 

[Cdr MacDuff]

Look, this is pointless. We can't have a debate about the morality of this situation if we don't agree on the facts pertaining to said situation.

These facts are not in dispute (I think):

- Kirk offered assistance to Nero if he surrendered.
- Nero refused.

- and that Spock a supposedly logical Vulcan, of all people, doesn't think it was appropriate to even offer assistance to Nero. Completely clouded by his anger and desire for revenge. Character growth in this movie for him: zero. He's as emotional as he was as a child.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

It basically boils down to your own personal point of view. Not opening fire on Nero doesn't make you naive and opening fire doesn't make you a barbarian.

 

[Maurice]

Isn't the title of this thing a Spoiler? Can't people figure out how to avoid that? How about "Kirk's decision about Nero? (SPOILERS)" as a title?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Look, this is pointless. We can't have a debate about the morality of this situation if we don't agree on the facts pertaining to said situation.

These facts are not in dispute (I think):

- Kirk offered assistance to Nero if he surrendered.
- Nero refused.

- and that Spock a supposedly logical Vulcan, of all people, doesn't think it was appropriate to even offer assistance to Nero. Completely clouded by his anger and desire for revenge. Character growth in this movie for him: zero. He's as emotional as he was as a child.

Which he states.

He is a lot younger than TOS Spock and has not undergone Kohlinar. His planet blew up. He at least has the self awareness to know that he is as emotional as a child.

(bolding mine)

 

[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.

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.

I mean its logical to ensure that Nero and the Narada didn't somehow manage to survive the black hole and end up somewhere else in time. After seeing the movie again today, its apparent that the Narada doesn't reaaly begin breaking up until the Enterprise fires. If it was Adolph Hitler with an Atomic bomb stuck on a sinking ship, we'd be perfectly willing to fulfil his wish to die rather than accept defeat. And who cares if Spock wants revenge? Its a frakkin movie! And it a great human moment.

 

[Nomad8324]

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.

I mean its logical to ensure that Nero and the Narada didn't somehow manage to survive the black hole and end up somewhere else in time. After seeing the movie again today, its apparent that the Narada doesn't reaaly begin breaking up until the Enterprise fires. If it was Adolph Hitler with an Atomic bomb stuck on a sinking ship, we'd be perfectly willing to fulfil his wish to die rather than accept defeat. And who cares if Spock wants revenge? Its a frakkin movie! And it a great human moment.

Exactly. Spock damn near killed Kirk why shouldn't he want revenge?

He offered assistance they refused and he blasted the guys who just blew up vulcan. boo hoo.

Somehow I doubt if someone just killed your mother you would just be sure just take them prisoner or let them go.

 

[Jeyl]

The Metrons would not be pleased.

 

[anti-matter]

From the characters we've come to know yeah I suppose those actions we're out of character. Two things are percolating here. This occurs as part of an alternate time line and it was their first time together as a Bridge crew.

I dunno maybe when things calmed down and they were making an after action report someone said ... 'ya know we really should have done more to save that slug Nero and his crew since it's part of our code'... so they all agreed to work on that becoming the crew we know.

I didn't read through the entire thread but I'm sure someone had to make that observation by now...so I think what they think.

For me the thing that sticks in my throat is Neros use of his time machine/red matter. Why not use it to save his planet and loved ones? After all his perceived enemies, Spock/Vulcan, the Federation were on a mission to save Romulas.

 

[Jeyl]

For me the thing that sticks in my throat is Neros use of his time machine/red matter. Why not use it to save his planet and loved ones? After all his perceived enemies, Spock/Vulcan, the Federation were on a mission to save Romulas.

It's lazy writing. He hates everything because the story needs him to.

 

[FailedLurker]

I think above all else, the giant planet-killing supershi from the future needed to be destroyed. Not not damaged, not disabled, not probably destroyed, not maybe the black hole will destroy it for us let's wait and see, not it might have been destroyed then again it might have slipped through a wormhole and will re-emerge in another time I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but completely, verifiably destroyed.

Kirk did the right thing. He offered to rescue the crew. They refused. But either way, whether the crew agreed to be taken into custody or refused and remained on their ship, the ship still needed to be destroyed.

 

[Sky]

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"...

So, um, basically you just need to read what I wrote and not invent attitudes for me.

I'm saying: I do not live in a society where our goals are "survival and destruction over those who want to destroy us". I hope you don't either, since that would be rather a dystopian society.

(And words such as "evil"... When I was a child, I still believed in the epic battle between good and evil. Makes a nice, easy fairytale with no moral or ethical complications. Now, not so much..)

 

[Watch Commander]

Another slant on Kirks decision is by firing on the Nerada, not only did he assure that neither the Narada or Nero could do anymore further harm to either the timeline or UFP and Starfleet, but also insured Nero a quicker kinder death if the Nerada didn't make the black hole transit....intact...I say good job, too much was at stake, with it being a 24th century ship, one would have been foolish to take chances on either the man or the ship surviving the transit.
both the situation with the Gorn and the Metrons was an entire different set of circumstances to this one, neither whole planets or even Kirk's Enterprise were in anywhere the danger that existed here, and really the only real danger beyond Kirk and the Gorn, came from the Metrons themselves. They alone held sufficient power to deal the same level of damage to SF or UFP. When Kirk spared the Gorn, only his life was in any immediate danger from the Gorn or his crew, and mostly just Kirk himself. I feel even Spocks' "for the good of the many" was at stake here, and Nero was no angel to deserve any such consideration at that point. Lastly for all the berating of Spock here, life is a journey, one doesn't become that way at birth, just as Kirk didn't become the Kirk we all knew in TOS until we saw him in TOS. I would bet that the story we saw here, was indeed a major part of why they ended up becoming the characters we all love and still do....

I for one did catch the beginnings here and see in them the final characters that we have enjoyed and loved the last 40 yrs...

I also never really got the Picard versions of the future, and prefer to this day the Kirk and Co. versions instead....ymmv.

 

[QuasarVM]

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"...

So, um, basically you just need to read what I wrote and not invent attitudes for me.

I'm saying: I do not live in a society where our goals are "survival and destruction over those who want to destroy us". I hope you don't either, since that would be rather a dystopian society.

(And words such as "evil"... When I was a child, I still believed in the epic battle between good and evil. Makes a nice, easy fairytale with no moral or ethical complications. Now, not so much..)

Covering up your ears to the concept of evil (and I would categorize genocide as evil if anything deserves that label) and saying "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!" does not negate or disprove it's existence...or the need to stamp it out wherever it rears its ugly head.

It's not something that goes away just because you claim you've "outgrown the need to accept its existence".

Yes, I found it very refreshing that we have characters in a Hollywood movie who actually do the right thing -- for once. I'm sure if Sean Penn had made this film then the crew of the Enterprise would end up best pals with Nero by the end of the film.

Barf.

 

[QuasarVM]

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.

It's funny how being enlightened, altruistic, and ethical is now derided as "PC" by people who value jingoistic, primitive violence and bluster.

Um, no.

It's about consequences. One should not expect to live if one commits genocide against another.

Anyone who disagrees is a part of the problem...and not the solution. And ye who support the continued existence of mass murderers are an accessory and accomplice to that mass murder.

The "primitive violence" was committed by the perpetrator of the genocide in this case.

Death is the only justice for Nero. Even HE recognized that. So, people whose hearts were bleeding for Nero are wasting that blood...on someone who neither deserved nor asked for it. LOL!!!

Pretty stupid.

What is with this suicidal compulsion to embrace homocidal maniacs -- of both fact and fiction by some people?

 

[Franklin]

Look, this is pointless. We can't have a debate about the morality of this situation if we don't agree on the facts pertaining to the situation.

These facts are not in dispute (I think):

- Kirk offered assistance to Nero if he surrendered.
- Nero refused.

These were not stated explicitly, but can be reasonably implied:

- Nero and his crew would meet any rescue attempt with hostile response.
- If such a rescue were attempted, either via beaming or by shuttle, it would put the Enterprise in additional jeopardy from the gravitational effects of the singularity (which the Enterprise, unlike the Narada, was not equipped to handle). The threat posed by the singularity to the Enterprise being confirmed by their efforts to escape it following the Narada's destruction.


Now here's where we get fuzzy. The writers have said that the Narada was capable of escaping to another time period through the black hole. This is not stated explicitly on screen. So far, whether one accepts this statement or not seems to depend mainly on whether it supports one's argument or not. However, am I correct in assuming that it breaks down like this:

- If the Narada was capable of escaping, Kirk was justified in firing on the enemy ship.
- If the Narada was incapable of escaping, firing on the ship was not justified.

Is this what it boils down to? Or is there some other standard I'm missing?

No, you get it exactly. I don't like what they did because as I saw it, the Narada was being destroyed by the red matter and was incapable of escaping. Given those circumstances, when Nero refused rescue, then if Kirk and Spock decided a rescue would be too dangerous anyway, or that Nero might harm the ship during rescue, then I'd have had no problem with them leaving him and his crew there to die. Not one. But don't open fire on the guy when he's a gonner anyway. That's what it boils down to to me.

If someone else saw that and saw Nero as capable of getting away (and if he was, then why did he stop fighting?), then Kirk and Spock blasting the hell out of him makes sense.

The problem is the ambiguity over what Kirk and Spock did comes from a poorly written scene, not the situation itself. This was a character-defining moment. This is where Trek usually got its humanity.
All Orci and Kurtzman had to do was have Nero flinch, try to escape, and what Kirk and Spock did would've been justifiable. Or, even if Nero didn't want rescue, if they had a discussion anyway and decided that the Narada was too far gone for the crew to be rescued, then they could've abandoned him. Either way. The very idea that they'd talk and consider rescue under those circumstances (Nero refusing) would've given the characters the growth they needed in the movie, and made it more than space opera. Leaving him would've created some ambiguity (maybe they really didn't want to try that hard to save him?), but it would've been deliberate ambiguity and not from sloppy writing.