Kirk's execution of Nero/Optimus Prime "Any Last Words?" TF2

[M'Sharak]

Why did I know that someone will not understand my point about the gaze of the other?

I'll admit that I don't understand either what you meant by that.

After reading this:

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.

I do get the sense that you have a definite idea in mind, but I think that some part of what you mean by "gaze" is getting lost in the translation. Perhaps if you were to restate your idea in different words?

 

[number6]

I think he also meant to say that Kirk is an asshole.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Does he mean 'viewpoint' when he says gaze?

 

[horatio83]

Suppose you normally keep mediocre order in your apartment but at the weekend somebody comes to visit you. You clean up your place far better than if nobody would come. Suppose whoever visits you is an obsessional cleaner, then you simply take into account his or her preferences. But, and now comes the tricky part, what if the person who visits you has the very same attitude to dirt as you do? For whom are you cleaning up them?

Suppose a woman goes out on a date and applies some make-up. What if the guy she meets doesn't care at all about make-up or even prefers a more natural look?

The gaze of the other works to some degree independently of what the other actually thinks or wants. We think about what the other wants and we might be totally wrong.

The ultimate gaze of the other would be the gaze of God. It doesn't matter if God exists and what God wants, a little child nonetheless behaves differently when it thinks that the eyes of God are upon it. Take the ancient Israelites, there the gaze of God was a way to introduce the law.
The main lesson here is that something doesn't have to materially exist to have actual effects upon our life and that the gaze can be an imagined gaze.

I think that the presence of aliens would have a similar structure. Even if they are nice guys who don't tell us to do anything we imagine their gaze upon us and project into this imagined gaze things we don't like about ourselves, things we believe these aliens find ridiculous, pathetic and so on.

 

[Sci]

Suppose you normally keep mediocre order in your apartment but at the weekend somebody comes to visit you. You clean up your place far better than if nobody would come. Suppose whoever visits you is an obsessional cleaner, then you simply take into account his or her preferences. But, and now comes the tricky part, what if the person who visits you has the very same attitude to dirt as you do? For whom are you cleaning up them?

Suppose a woman goes out on a date and applies some make-up. What if the guy she meets doesn't care at all about make-up or even prefers a more natural look?

The gaze of the other works to some degree independently of what the other actually thinks or wants. We think about what the other wants and we might be totally wrong.

The ultimate gaze of the other would be the gaze of God. It doesn't matter if God exists and what God wants, a little child nonetheless behaves differently when it thinks that the eyes of God are upon it. Take the ancient Israelites, there the gaze of God was a way to introduce the law.
The main lesson here is that something doesn't have to materially exist to have actual effects upon our life and that the gaze can be an imagined gaze.

I think that the presence of aliens would have a similar structure. Even if they are nice guys who don't tell us to do anything we imagine their gaze upon us and project into this imagined gaze things we don't like about ourselves, things we believe these aliens find ridiculous, pathetic and so on.

It's completely fair to suggest that the presence of aliens might inspire Human societies to unite and generally behave in a more progressive manner than when Humanity thought it was alone in the universe. But to call the Vulcans "fathers" or "mentors" for Humanity just defies the canon. It's projecting more than exists in the text.

 

[horatio83]

As I said, it is nothing but a fancy interpretation. But their psychological role is probably comparable to that of a father, at least initially, until humankind is out of the worst mess. This is a stretch but couldn't you call Archer's attitude that of a rebellious son?
Your points about them being a soft imperial force are closer to the text but just think about what would happen in our world if the Vulcans would land. It would be a major shock to virtually any cultural element of our lives and you'd have to analyze it from a psychoanalytical angle.

 

[number6]

Jesus is coming.. Everybody look busy!!

 

[Sci]

As I said, it is nothing but a fancy interpretation. But their psychological role is probably comparable to that of a father, at least initially, until humankind is out of the worst mess.

I really don't see it that way at all. The entire point of STAR TREK is equality, not legitimizing someone else's domination over us.

The point of the alien inspiring humanity to unite wasn't that they were our "fathers" or patrons. The point was more, "Wow. Other people are out there, it's time to get our shit together."

This is a stretch but couldn't you call Archer's attitude that of a rebellious son?

No, I call it the attitude of a nationalist agitating for autonomy and independence whose people have been dominated for a long time.

Your points about them being a soft imperial force are closer to the text but just think about what would happen in our world if the Vulcans would land. It would be a major shock to virtually any cultural element of our lives

Would it?

I've always been skeptical of that idea. Human cultures have essentially believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life for centuries. Throughout much of history, every time one culture encountered a new one, they often viewed that new culture as being the psychological equivalent of how we would view aliens today -- as being from another "world," and sometimes not seeing that other culture as being human (sometimes in an egalitarian sense of just honestly thinking they were a separate species, and sometimes in the sense of thinking the other culture was sub-human).

So humans have a long history of dealing with strange cultures whom they contextualize as being fundamentally alien. Add to that the more recent history of the scientific idea of human-extraterrestrial contact, which has permeated popular culture for the better part of a hundred years now. I'm not so sure it would be such a fundamental shock. It would be huge news, yes, and it may well inspire humanity to get its shit together and behave -- "Don't air our dirty laundry in front of the goyim," you might say -- but I don't know if it would be such a fundamental shock, either.

 

[horatio83]

"Other people are out there, it's time to get our shit together."
"Don't air our dirty laundry in front of the goyim."

That's more concise and easier to understand than my ramblings about the Vulcan gaze. I also buy your argument about alien contact being a small shock, it makes more sense than mine about a large shock. And, getting back to the text, Cochrane was definitely not embarassed to be a drunkard in front of our green-blooded friends.

 

[number6]

Without Cochrane, Vulcans would never know the joy of Roy Orbison.

 

[Set Harth]

Or Steppenwolf.

 

[Sci]

"Other people are out there, it's time to get our shit together."
"Don't air our dirty laundry in front of the goyim."

That's more concise and easier to understand than my ramblings about the Vulcan gaze. I also buy your argument about alien contact being a small shock, it makes more sense than mine about a large shock.

Muchas gracias!

And, getting back to the text, Cochrane was definitely not embarassed to be a drunkard in front of our green-blooded friends.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The point of the alien inspiring humanity to unite wasn't that they were our "fathers" or patrons. The point was more, "Wow. Other people are out there, it's time to get our shit together."

I think it was that PLUS the whole "Crap, we nearly nuked ourselfs out of existence! We should probably try make sure we never do that again."

 

[BillJ]

We've gotten a bit away from the original topic, so...

I went back and rewatched the scenes in question:

1) Kirk did not seem giddy at the thought of executing Nero, he seemed to be on an emotional even keel throughout.

2) At least some of the Narada was remaining intact as it traversed the black hole. It was wrecked, but so was the Constellation from The Doomsday Machine.

Was it enough to sustain Nero if left alone? I don't think anyone here can say for sure.

So for all the things that this movie does wrong, I don't believe this scene in particular is out of line with things we've seen in other Star Trek.

 

[David cgc]

2) At least some of the Narada was remaining intact as it traversed the black hole. It was wrecked, but so was the Constellation from The Doomsday Machine.

Heck, so was the Narada itself at the beginning of the movie. A freaking starship, warp core and all, blew up right in the middle of it, crippling it. If we include the deleted scenes, the ship was so badly damaged Nero couldn't even consider fighting or running from the Klingon fleet that captured him, but a mere twenty-five years later (without any kind of friendly port or shipyard to help with repairs), the Narada was back in fighting shape and tearing through ships-of-the-line like tissue paper.

Besides, most of the cut-off sections seemed to be tentacles. The main hull of the ship was pretty much in one piece.

(I wonder if anyone will use this to say that Kirk was obviously seeking revenge by firing, since I've now conclusively proven that his pathetic weapons could not have destroyed the Narada, so the only reason to fire would be to make himself feel better)

 

[BillJ]

(I wonder if anyone will use this to say that Kirk was obviously seeking revenge by firing, since I've now conclusively proven that his pathetic weapons could not have destroyed the Narada, so the only reason to fire would be to make himself feel better)

 

[horatio83]

The very line "fire everything we got" shows the vibe of the scene and thus also its problem.

 

[BillJ]

The very line "fire everything we got" shows the vibe of the scene and thus also its problem.

You do realize the Narada was ten miles long? In order to even scratch the surface you'd have to unload on it, hence the "fire everything we've got" line.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

You know for a ship that was doomed the Narada didn't seem to be falling apart. I mean should't it have been doing an impression of Scorpius's Command Carrier from Into the Lion's Den part 2?

 

[UFO]

The very line "fire everything we got" shows the vibe of the scene and thus also its problem.

You do realize the Narada was ten miles long? In order to even scratch the surface you'd have to unload on it, hence the "fire everything we've got" line.

I am forced to accept that firing everything they have appears to be just the way most folks do things nowadays.

Where I think the scene shows its colours is with the flippant "You got it." retort from Kirk. It came off like a snap decision due to being upset that Nero had spurned his offer so enthusiastically, especially given Kirk already believed the Narada was finished (whether it was or not). That phrase just nailed home the insincerity of the help offer which was already crumbling under the weight of its political rationale.

So as I see it, the problem with the scene is not that Nero's demise at Kirks hands couldn't be justified. Its that the film didn't try to and indeed gave the opposite impression.

Ironically, if there really were any doubts about the Narada surviving, it would appear the practical decision would have been to beam off Nero and Co, no questions asked. Guess they can't have been that concerned after all.