Did Kirk's rather *enthusiastic* execution of Nero bug you?

[ST-One]

Nero appeared in 2233 AND Spock appeared 25 years later. The universe changed twice. The universe was already markedly different that the Prime universe. Why would he think that just putting Spock and Kirk on the Enterprise would somehow correct things?

Can't you just enjoy the movie?

Sometime things happen in movies just to satisfy the audience's expectations (Kirk belongs on the Enterprise).

This film tells us the beginning of a new Star Trek.
A Star Trek that recaptures the sense of fun and adventure the audience in the 60s and 70s (and I as a kid of seven in '87) has felt when they saw Trek for the first time.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nero appeared in 2233 AND Spock appeared 25 years later. The universe changed twice. The universe was already markedly different that the Prime universe. Why would he think that just putting Spock and Kirk on the Enterprise would somehow correct things?

Well, it set up the rebooted Star Trek nicely

Can't you just enjoy the movie?

I wonder if he actually believes that any version of Star Trek would stand up to this sort of OTT nitpicking

 

[Pauln6]

Lol - it really doesn't stand up well to scrutiny - like Kirk's decision to trigger an arms race instead of working to remove the weapons that the Klingons had provided for example? Still that's part of its charm. It should be criticised for its flaws but that shouldn't prevent us for enjoying the experience overall.

Although I enjoyed the movie, this scene really did leave a nasty taste in my mouth. I can understand that many members of a modern audience would be quite happy to bay for the blood of Nero but it was evidence of Kirk and Spock failing to rise above such lust for revenge. Admittedly, Kirk offers assistance and Nero declines, but then he acts very smugly when he gets to blast Nero. An execution should not elicit pleasure or self-satisfaction in the executioner in today's less enlightened times let alone the Federations idealistic universe. It was weak Trek writing in my view i.e. a stark departure from what the Federation is supposed to stand for.

Compare this to Kirk's far more amusing decision to let Maltz live in STIII or Kirk's reluctance to help the Klingons in STVI, which is viewed as a negative thing in spite of some level of justification. There are other characters in Trek lore whose desire for revenge is also shown to be a bad thing. Tossing aside these principles is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They should try to hold onto them that much harder even if they want to injuect more action into the franchise.

Han shooting first I'm fine with because Han is a wrong 'un. Kirk and Spock should know better.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

We still discussing this?

I didn't have any problem with them blowing Nero to kingdom come. Next.

 

[Jeyl]

This film tells us the beginning of a new Star Trek. A Star Trek that recaptures the sense of fun and adventure the audience in the 60s and 70s (and I as a kid of seven in '87) has felt when they saw Trek for the first time.

What exactly does recapture? The uniforms? Ok. The lines the characters speak? Maybe. Saving Earth on a constant basis? Not really.

I don't know about you, but I don't remember any episodes from the original series that involved the 23rd century Earth in danger of a genocidal mad man. In fact, I don't think any of the original Star Trek episodes involved the 23rd century Earth in it's entire run. Sure, they went to Earth's past, but that was the limit of Earth's involvement. Everything that involved fun and adventure was mostly about what was out there, and not back here. But oh, no. This film doesn't want to go out there. It LOVES Earth. It loves Earth so much that anything not Earth, no matter how big, unique or important it is to Star Trek is considered expendable. Why? Because nobody gives a crap about anything but that over emphasized blue ball.

Now you're probably saying "But Jeyl you flat headed ignoramus, Star Trek is a 'human adventure'." to which I would agree with, but again, let me emphasize that point. It's a human adventure that's about going out there. Where in this film did any character express any interest in wanting to that? Did Kirk look up at the stars and think to himself "I want go and see what's out there"? No. He looked at the Earth bound Enterprise and thought "I'm going to make that mine".

 

[ST-One]

This film tells us the beginning of a new Star Trek. A Star Trek that recaptures the sense of fun and adventure the audience in the 60s and 70s (and I as a kid of seven in '87) has felt when they saw Trek for the first time.

What exactly does recapture? The uniforms? Ok. The lines the characters speak? Maybe. Saving Earth on a constant basis? Not really.

I don't know about you, but I don't remember any episodes from the original series that involved the 23rd century Earth in danger of a genocidal mad man. In fact, I don't think any of the original Star Trek episodes involved the 23rd century Earth in it's entire run. Sure, they went to Earth's past, but that was the limit of Earth's involvement. Everything that involved fun and adventure was mostly about what was out there, and not back here. But oh, no. This film doesn't want to go out there. It LOVES Earth. It loves Earth so much that anything not Earth, no matter how big, unique or important it is to Star Trek is considered expendable. Why? Because nobody gives a crap about anything but that over emphasized blue ball.

Now you're probably saying "But Jeyl you flat headed ignoramus, Star Trek is a 'human adventure'." to which I would agree with, but again, let me emphasize that point. It's a human adventure that's about going out there. Where in this film did any character express any interest in wanting to that? Did Kirk look up at the stars and think to himself "I want go and see what's out there"? No. He looked at the Earth bound Enterprise and thought "I'm going to make that mine".

What about 'fun and adventure' is so difficult to understand?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I agree with this. Come on, they blew up Vulcan.

So? The Gorns destroyed Cestus III, but Spock didn't want to destroy them. Even Kirk at the end didn't tell the Gorn Captain to surrender. He just decided not to kill him.

You mean the Gorn who's space the Cestus III outpost was in, and the heros backes off when they realized this added to the fact that Kirk wasn't big on being some powerful alien's plaything. Because before this stuff happened Kirk was planning to blow the Gorn to hell.

 

[Jeyl]

Because before this stuff happened Kirk was planning to blow the Gorn to hell.

In which Spock tries to talk Kirk out of. Something that the writers of Trek09 felt he should be complete opposite of.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Because before this stuff happened Kirk was planning to blow the Gorn to hell.

In which Spock tries to talk Kirk out of. Something that the writers of Trek09 felt he should be complete opposite of.

Well, watch your planet's destruction and see if you want to save the bastard who did it.

Oh and lets look at Devil in the Dark where Spock has no problem fliping from not killing the Horta to tell Kirk to kill it.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Can't you just enjoy the movie?

You mean treat it as a popcorn flick, check your brain at the door, hoot and holler, white hat/black hat sort of movie?

I could I suppose but then I'd be you.

Anyway, I was responding to this:

Just being Nero was a danger to the Federation (being from the future and not afraid to change the time line when it suited him).

Followed up by this:

Spock was trying to restore some semblance of the timeline, by uniting the Enterprise crew in order to stop Nero.

I know you're not a big fan of plot logic but do try to keep up.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Oh and lets look at Devil in the Dark where Spock has no problem fliping from not killing the Horta to tell Kirk to kill it.

Because at that point Spock didn't know the Horta was intelligent and that Kirk was putting himself in unnecessary danger. Kirk saw the glimmer of intelligence in the Horta and was trying to save it, something NuKirk apparently wouldn't do. Blast it so he can get to happy hour and make a drunken, obnoxious ass of himself. Yeah, that's how Kirk should be.

 

[Pauln6]

Because before this stuff happened Kirk was planning to blow the Gorn to hell.

In which Spock tries to talk Kirk out of. Something that the writers of Trek09 felt he should be complete opposite of.

As I said earlier, this kind of behaviour is not without precedent - the stories tend to reflect the time they're written so we've had Spock on trial for disobeying orders carrying a death penalty!

I agree that the approach is about the writers rather than the characters. Previoulsy, the writers took steps to suggest that this kind of approach was to be frowned upon. Now they have made a choice to show it as right and understandable - one could even argue that this is a reflection of the American people's reaction to real-world terrorist attrocities - sort of blood for blood.

If anybody has seen the Kingdom, it's a reasonable thriller about CIA or FBI agents investigating something or other terrorist related. The movie is decent enough but the final scenes are pretty chilling and underscore in quite a subtle way the futility and pointless waste of life relating to blood for blood.

The approach in NuTrek was less mature, almost done for laughs, and that's why I didn't like it.

 

[ST-One]

Can't you just enjoy the movie?

You mean treat it as a popcorn flick, check your brain at the door, hoot and holler, white hat/black hat sort of movie?

I could I suppose but then I'd be you.

Yeah, why enjoy your entertainment when you can nitpick it to death and take all the fun out of those two hours of escapism from the real world.

Anyway, I was responding to this:

Just being Nero was a danger to the Federation (being from the future and not afraid to change the time line when it suited him).

Followed up by this:

Spock was trying to restore some semblance of the timeline, by uniting the Enterprise crew in order to stop Nero.

I know you're not a big fan of plot logic but do try to keep up.

You clearly didn't understand what he meant.
And bringing Kirk back to the Enterprise serves nothing to 'repair' the timeline - only to satisfy the audience's expectation.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Spock was trying to restore some semblance of the timeline, by uniting the Enterprise crew in order to stop Nero.

You clearly didn't understand what he meant.
And bringing Kirk back to the Enterprise serves nothing to 'repair' the timeline - only to satisfy the audience's expectation.

Strange, I don't see any mention of the audience in his quote. He certainly appears to be talking about Spock's motives within the context of the movie. Was Spock breaking the fourth wall then?

 

[kkozoriz1]

Can't you just enjoy the movie?

You mean treat it as a popcorn flick, check your brain at the door, hoot and holler, white hat/black hat sort of movie?

I could I suppose but then I'd be you.

Yeah, why enjoy your entertainment when you can nitpick it to death and take all the fun out of those two hours of escapism from the real world.

Go ahead, watch it non-critically. Blindly accept whatever is tossed your way. Did you do the same for Nemesis? Insurrection? Did you simple accept and enjoy those movies to the same degree that you did XI? If you did then why would a reboot even be necessary? If you didn't, isn't that a little contradictory?

 

[ST-One]

Spock was trying to restore some semblance of the timeline, by uniting the Enterprise crew in order to stop Nero.

You clearly didn't understand what he meant.
And bringing Kirk back to the Enterprise serves nothing to 'repair' the timeline - only to satisfy the audience's expectation.

Strange, I don't see any mention of the audience in his quote. He certainly appears to be talking about Spock's motives within the context of the movie. Was Spock breaking the fourth wall then?

A little.
They do also whenever they talk about the new timeline.

 

[ST-One]

Go ahead, watch it non-critically. Blindly accept whatever is tossed your way. Did you do the same for Nemesis? Insurrection? Did you simple accept and enjoy those movies to the same degree that you did XI? If you did then why would a reboot even be necessary? If you didn't, isn't that a little contradictory?

No, not at all.
As a fan I can get entertainment out of all these films.
But at the same time I can see the shortcomings of these films too; Nemesis and Insurrection try to present us with morality plays disguised as action film - they both fail in both categories for the mainstream audience (and quite a lot of fans too).
Star Trek doesn't pretend to be high-minded or especially deep (for a change; this delusion far too many fans entertain that Trek is oh-so intellectually challenging needs to end) - it's 'just' a fun action movie with some good emotional scenes that work quite good.

 

[kkozoriz1]

So the future of Trek is to ignore the morality plays as you call them and just go for the bang, bang, shoot-em-up, with an emotional scene or two tossed in for "depth"?

Star Trek XII: Die Hard

 

[F. King Daniel]

So the future of Trek is to ignore the morality plays as you call them and just go for the bang, bang, shoot-em-up, with an emotional scene or two tossed in for "depth"?

Star Trek XII: Die Hard

Yes, because all the nuTrek movies will be identical, just like all the old Trek ones were. Insurrection was identical to First Contact, and Wrath of Khan was the same as The Motion Picture.

But don't let anything get in the way of your wonderful doom-and-gloom worldview

 

[Pauln6]

Star Trek XII: Die Hard

Actually, this might work... I wouldn't mind seeing the crew caught up in the Towering Inferno or Saw or the Thing or Alien (I already tried this one) or Crank - NuKirk has to keep his heart rate up or his libido will explode.