And you leave out all the auxiliary craft that he has in his landing bay including a Romulan Bird of Prey.
Wait Nero had what again?
Kirk's execution of Nero/Optimus Prime "Any Last Words?" TF2
- Thread starter Cadet49
- Start date
Wait Nero had what again?
And you leave out all the auxiliary craft that he has in his landing bay including a Romulan Bird of Prey.
Wait Nero had what again?
Yep. There use to be a screencap floating around here showing all the captured craft Nero had acquired.
Well, if Red Matter being ignited is important enough to explicitly state again and again
I think the film could have given more justification to Kirk's order to fire on an already doomed ship. I remember the TNG episode The Best of Both Worlds Part II when the Borg cube was about to be destroyed and the crew contemplate on what they should do even though Captain Picard is still linked to them.movie said:
Best of Both Worlds Part II said:
No more than 10 seconds and the deal is done. Anything would have been better than that conversation between Kirk and Spock involving details that were pulled right out of the writer's a**. Compassion? What compassion? You went onboard the Narada guns blazing with phasers set to kill. Peace with Romulus? What peace with Romulus? Isn't that what the Neutral Zone treaty was for? I do not get this sudden switch from "HUNTING NERO DOWN" to all of a sudden "Show them compassion" and back to "Arm phasers, fire everything we've got!".
Kirk's just an a-hole.
Huh? Where did you get the idea that I dislike Trek? I've been a Trekkie my whole life.
I don't have a problem with upbeat, optimistic science fiction stories. I love Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Things to Come, and The Incredible Shrinking Man, and do I think that one of the distinguishing characteristics of Star Trek is that it's essentially an optimistic (not utopian) vision of the future in which mankind has NOT blown itself to smithereens or been taken over by computers, but is out there encountering strange new worlds, etc. And in which beings from diverse backgrounds and species are working together on the Enterprise, despite their occasional differences and personality conflicts. As long you have that, you have Star Trek--as in the new movie. Kirk and Spock and McCoy may argue all the time, and occasionally break the rules, but that doesn't mean that they're dysfunctional or adolescent, just human.
Nor do I prefer dystopias. Granted, Planet of the Apes is probably my favorite sf movie, but not because it's a Serious Cautionary Lesson about the dangers of nuclear warfare or putting orangutuans in charge, but because it's a marvelously well-crafted movie, with memorable characters, great dialogue, an imaginative concept, healthy amounts of tension and action, cool makeup effects, a great Jerry Goldsmith score, etc.
Basically, I'm more of an "art for art's sake" guy, so my hackles tend to rise when people start caring more about whether Star Trek movies are sending the right message, or being true to somebody's idea of the Star Trek philosophy, than whether they're well-written, well-acted, whatever. At the end of the day, it's just a movie based on a classic tv show, not a religion or way of life--and, contrary to modern revisionism, TOS was not just a weekly manifesto for utopian values--and that's not necessarily why we all watched it way back when.
I mean, look at "And Let That Be Your Last Battlefield." Sure, magazine articles love to cite that ep as evidence of Star Trek as Social Allegory, but does anybody really think that's one of the good episodes? I'd much rather watch "Amok Time" or "The Devil in the Dark" or "Journey to Babel." They're a lot more fun.
The new movie takes place in an optimistic (not utopian) future and has the crew of the Enterprise coming together to save the universe. That's upbeat and positive enough for me. And, getting back to the original issue, it feels like Star Trek to me.
Last edited:
I just wanted to say WOW. I agreed with everything you said! Including my preference for more positive upbeat science fiction than the depressing dystopian type of movie. The original Planet of the Apes is also one of my favorites and I think it was so well written and acted.
Kirk did everything he could to show Nero compassion and mercy. Kirk offered help right up until the end. If Nero doesn't want that help, it's hardly Kirk's fault. The only thing left for Kirk to do was order the Narada destroyed. It's the only way to be ABSOLUTELY sure that Nero is no longer a threat (it was possible, however unlikely, that Nero could have gotten away).
I don't think so. Remember, Terrell had just been forced to kill himself, Chekov was lying there tortured, Kirk's ship was in danger, a crew full of young cadets (including Scotty's nephew) had been attacked and even killed, the entire staff at the Genesis space station had been brutally tortured and slaughtered . . ..
Kirk wasn't faking his anger at Khan at that moment. He was genuinely pissed-off.
It always seems to boil down to this for you, doesn't it, Jeyl?
How are the keyboard macros coming, btw?
Indeed, he switched from "show them compassion" to "fire everything we got" and it is not hard to figure out whose of those two Kirks is authentic. He revels in not being forced anymore to play by the book.
Thanks! Dare I admit I wrote the whole thing in my head while walking the dog this morning?
(Hey, it gave me something to think about while waiting for her to poop!)
No, they do not. The Vulcans are never, ever depicted as anything other than just people who are different. They're not depicted as "gods" or "fathers," or as a culture that is somehow "better" than Humanity's. Hell, throughout ENT, the Vulcans are depicted as a neo-imperial power that uses unofficial influence over less-powerful worlds' governments to dominate them, to the resentment of people who want equality and partnership rather than hegemony and domination. Vulcans aren't gods or fathers -- they're colonialists who have to be cast off and shown the error of their ways. They're not the Olympians to Earth's Athens; they're Britain to Earth's India. (Or, if you prefer a more modern comparson, the Vulcans are America to Earth's Brazil.)
The idea that Vulcans are some sort of superior culture against whom Humanity is found wanting is an idea you are projecting onto the text; it's utterly unsupported by any of TREK, which varies between depicting Vulcans' beliefs as right for them but nobody else to being just plain oppressive.
The fact that he wanted to fire everything they had to ensure the Narada's destruction does not mean that he actually wanted to kill Nero rather than provide humanitarian aid. And even drawing some satisfaction from his death doesn't mean that he actually wanted Nero to die.
It's entirely possible to draw some satisfaction from a belief that justice is being served even if you would have preferred things to turn out a different way. You are, once again, projecting ideas onto the text that are simply not present in any way.
Why did I know that someone will not understand my point about the gaze of the other?
When the Vulcans arrived on Earth the situation was comparable to the 1920s in Europe. There wasn't merely physical but also ideological devastation. In such a situation the political space is open, be it for fascism like in the 1920s or for peace and unity like in the 2060s.
The Vulcans are aliens and whenever humans now think about themselves they include the Vulcan gaze. What the Vulcans actually want or think is irrelevant, that there is the gaze of the other matters. Humankind is embarassed that someone sees their mess and this, in addition to the ideological void, changes everything.
All this is just my "fancy interpretation of the void between FC and ENT". I am not talking about facts, I am not Mr. Pseudo-Objective, I am talking about art the way you talk about art. Your interpretation of the scene where Kirk shoots is not more or less valid than mine just because you pretend that your reading of it is objective.
When the Vulcans arrived on Earth the situation was comparable to the 1920s in Europe. There wasn't merely physical but also ideological devastation. In such a situation the political space is open, be it for fascism like in the 1920s or for peace and unity like in the 2060s.
The Vulcans are aliens and whenever humans now think about themselves they include the Vulcan gaze. What the Vulcans actually want or think is irrelevant, that there is the gaze of the other matters. Humankind is embarassed that someone sees their mess and this, in addition to the ideological void, changes everything.
All this is just my "fancy interpretation of the void between FC and ENT". I am not talking about facts, I am not Mr. Pseudo-Objective, I am talking about art the way you talk about art. Your interpretation of the scene where Kirk shoots is not more or less valid than mine just because you pretend that your reading of it is objective.
I'm not pretending that my interpretation is objective. But my interpretation does not involve assuming facts not in evidence.
Not colonialists. Neo-colonialists. That is, a government that establishes a system of unofficial control over the governments of less-powerful nations, causing them to become client states. This is the system of domination that's been employed by the United States since WW2, and it's the system the Vulcans used.
ENT was very clear in establishing that the Vulcan High Command wielded enormous influence over United Earth's government -- constantly trying to hold back United Earth's space exploration programs, pressuring Untied Earth into withdrawing the NX-01 after the Suliban framed it for the destruction of an alien colony at the end of ENT Season One, propping up the government of Coridan in its civil war in return for dilithium (while the Andorians did the same thing on the other side, propping up the Coridanite rebels), engaging in hostilities with the Andorians all the time, annexing Andorian planets, etc.
Sorry, but Vulcan was a neo-imperialist power throughout the 22nd Century.
How come then that Archer launched his ships, the NX-Beta ("First Flight") as well as the NX-01 against the explicit will of the High Command? Of course the Vulcans had some influence over Earth and as you described it they were engaged in proxy wars with the Andorians. But Earth is not a planet softly controlled by Vulcan and the Romulan influence upon the High Command seems to have been moderated to a significant degree. As the Vulcans don't expand and are "merely" engaged in some kind of cold war with the blueskins I wouldn't call them imperialist.
The NX-Beta was launched without authorization from the United Earth government, which had caved in to Vulcan pressure to shut the NX Program down after the destruction of the NX-Alpha.
The NX-01 was launched because United Earth was finally starting to defy the Vulcans as more and more people like Archer and Forrest came into positions of influence and were not willing to kowtow to the Vulcans. But just look at the way Soval tried to control United Earth foreign policy from "Broken Bow" onwards -- the Vulcans were obviously used to dominating Earth's government.
It was up until about the 2150s. And Coridan was definitely under Vulcan's thumb. They were Saudi Arabia to Vulcan's United States.
Says who? The Vulcans?
Yeah, they're trustworthy. "Oh, no, we weren't expanding when we annexed an [url="http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Weytahn]Andorian world[/url] in 2097!"
I think a better comparison might be Coridan/Vulcan/Andoria to pre-Castro Cuba/US/Soviet Union.
Annexing a planetoid on the border is hardly imperial expansion. Sure, the Vulcans are nasty, nastier than they'd have to be to deal with the Andorians but I see little imperial about them.
Just compare them to the Romulans, there is definitely a large difference. The interesting question is whether the Romulans have actually tried to set up a Vulcan empire which they can totally take over one day yet haven't been able to influence Vulcan strongly enough or if the Rommies haven't wanted Vulcan to be an empire and merely wanted to control it from the inside and create some trouble in the region.
Annexing a planetoid on the border is hardly imperial expansion. Sure, the Vulcans are nasty, nastier than they'd have to be to deal with the Andorians but I see little imperial about them.
Just compare them to the Romulans, there is definitely a large difference. The interesting question is whether the Romulans have actually tried to set up a Vulcan empire which they can totally take over one day yet haven't been able to influence Vulcan strongly enough or if the Rommies haven't wanted Vulcan to be an empire and merely wanted to control it from the inside and create some trouble in the region.
Which is still a neo-imperialist paradigm. Cuba just went from being a U.S. puppet state to being a Soviet one.
Of course it is! It was an Andorian world. They had been there for decades, they had terraformed it, it wasn't in Vulcan space, and then the Vulcans took it from them by force.
That's like saying that the United States hasn't maintained a neo-imperial system of hegemony since World War II because they didn't conquer countries like the Third Reich. Yeah, it's not as overt, not as direct, but it's still an imperial system where one country dominates numerous others.
