NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

[Jeyl]

If you're talking about Kirk with Nero, where was it ever shown that he was proud of killing him? And again, I have to point out that the idea that Nero was "dying" is pure speculation. He could have been traversing the wormhole to another universe in his still very dangerous even without the red matter ship for all we know.

I don't think Nero would be much of a threat since he fired all his weapons ("Fire EVERYTHING!"), his ship is literally cut in half (One half is spinning in the opposite direction of the other) and his crew are fleeing away from their stations in utter panic. Bonus points! Even in the commentary track they said that the black hole was going to kill Nero. Also, these lines.

Kirk: Your ship is compromised. Too close to the anomaly to survive without assistance which we are willing to provide.​

And that line delivery "You've got it. Arm phasers. Fire everything we've got." and Sulu's "Yes sir!" smirk definitely gives the impression that they're happy about having the chance to kill Nero themselves.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If the film did a better job of addressing that "Captain, we can't risk the possibility of letting him enter another alternate universe", sure. As it is, he's dead in the water by that point and has no means to harm anyone.

You want to let him escape and give him ANOTHER twenty five years to figure out how to harm someone?

Are you 100% certain that it was made clear in the movie that Nero had no means to harm anyone anymore. Because I never saw that.
Its like a policeman letting a serial killer escape whose seriously wounded because he wouldn't surrender (except many times worse). Of course the killer may never kill again but are you going to take that risk?

To the real point, I want Kirk to be thoughtful about his decisions, not act so flippantly "you've got it!" just to get the audience all pumped up over the hero killing the villain, "YEAH GET HIM, BOOM BOOM BLOW HIM UP!!!".

Agreed. That was really one of my pet peeves. That and in ST:ID, Uhura saying "Go get him!"

So you find yourself in the situation of having Joseph Stalin's reanimated corpse stealing a battleship and trying to kill you; in the process he kills your best friend and then flattens half a city with possibly thousands of deaths. He is now escaping, and you know EXACTLY where he is.

I think "Go get him" is probably a lot nicer than what Uhura wanted to say.

Don't forget Spock did try the Neck Pinch on Khan. Had that worked, I can't see Spock breaking his head open.

Ah, so you're saying that it would be out of character for Spock to want to kill a helpless enemy?

Not unless said enemy insulted his mother.

We didn't see the whole chase, after all. Maybe Khan was shouting "Yo mamma so fat" jokes over his shoulder?

If you're talking about Kirk with Nero, where was it ever shown that he was proud of killing him? And again, I have to point out that the idea that Nero was "dying" is pure speculation. He could have been traversing the wormhole to another universe in his still very dangerous even without the red matter ship for all we know.

I don't think Nero would be much of a threat since he fired all his weapons ("Fire EVERYTHING!")

He wasn't much of a threat after the Kelvin rammed him either. That worked out in the end, right?

More importantly: What makes you think Kirk is aware that Narada is out of torpedoes?

his ship is literally cut in half

Someone else suggested that too, but I keep watching that scene and that doesn't seem to be the case. His ship is fully intact as the gravitational pull of the singularity is steadily increasing.

his crew are fleeing away from their stations in utter panic.

And Kirk is aware of this how?

And that line delivery "You've got it. Arm phasers. Fire everything we've got." and Sulu's "Yes sir!" smirk definitely gives the impression that they're happy about having the chance to kill Nero themselves.

Which is what Kirk and Sulu ALWAYS do to malevolent assholes who kill a bunch of their friends.

"Target that explosion and fire!"

Come to think of it, how come Kirk didn't hail General Chang and give HIM a chance to surrender? Even Khan got that much in the mutara nebula. Maybe Kirk was getting cranky in his old age?

 

[Cyke101]

"Target that explosion and fire!"

Come to think of it, how come Kirk didn't hail General Chang and give HIM a chance to surrender? Even Khan got that much in the mutara nebula. Maybe Kirk was getting cranky in his old age?

There's also that time when Spock blasted a strange new lifeform at near-point blank range with giant pew-pew cannons the movie before that.

And that's after Kirk fired a torpedo at it. And for what? So that it could escape its eternal prison? Where's Kirk's patience there?

 

[Pauln6]

I think the kid was pretty much minding his own business and got a bit lippy when he was challenged.

The point is that positively identifying someone as a threat can often be subjective and proven wrong in the cold light of day.

"Positively identified as a criminal" =/= "Subjective prejudicial judgement based on a hunch"

For everyone's safety, he needs to be neutralized. Captured if possible, killed if necessary.

The kill became necessary in Nero's refusal to surrender. Even the slim chance that he and his crew might survive the destruction of their ship and remain free to act is, simply, unacceptable.

This is where it all comes down to opinion. I don't share your opinion that the kill was 'necessary.' It was one of a number of options and the other options were not explored on screen.

If you want to get more imaginative with the tech, then as soon as your enemies' shields are down, you beam across neutralising gas. Then you beam them off. If their shields are still up, they're still a threat.

We get blinded by the sort of "pulled from my ass and it worked the first time" tech progression of Star Trek, but in the real world alot of those kinds of elaborate stunts we envision Treknology being capable of would require a fair amount of prototyping, testing and simulation, training and practice, in order to be used successfully.

It's not the kind of thing you can pull off in a flash of inspiration and say "Hey, Scotty, you think you can rig up a dose of knock-out gas, beam it to strategic positions within the enemy ship -- in just the right distribution to make sure it gets anyone, but not dense enough to cause respiratory problems -- and then quickly target and beam aboard all of the Romulan life forms there, six at a time, making absolutely sure you don't accidentally beam over someone who is still conscious?"

I wasn't suggesting that they should knock it up on the fly. I was questioning why they don't have it as standard issue. It seems to me to be an eminently sensible way of neutralising enemy crew without having to destroy their ship. We have smoke grenades and tear gas now.

However, I do take the point that with different biology you might not have the right tool every time and at this period of time, they were not supposed to know anything about Romulan biology. However, once establishing that they are genetically similar to Vulcans using a nerve agent that would take out Vulcans should work. Technology will exist to filter the atmosphere, crew could wear gas masks or suits, but it's curious that it isn't a standard part of a ship's pacification arsenal.

I also agree that any evacuation is not going to rescue everyone. The TMP Enterprise had I think three 6-man transporters, a 6-man transporter in engineering, a 2-man transporter on the bridge and a 20+ emergency transporter in engineering. It isn't clear what facilities the NuPrise has.

Still, look at how many survivors there were at Vulcan and that's after the Enterprise abandoned them in peference to sending a message to the fleet to come to their aid - which is even more curious since STiD establishes that you can talk to crewmen using hand-held communicators on Earth all the way from the edge of Klingon space.

 

[Commishsleer]

...
which is even more curious since STiD establishes that you can talk to crewmen using hand-held communicators on Earth all the way from the edge of Klingon space.

Just to go further off the subject.
I remember seeing Picard in that Binar episode touch his comm badge as he was running through the Enterprise and speaker to the Commander of some Starbase. I was wondering about the range of those comm badges then.
I'm guessing that both Picard on the D and Kirk in STID has their communicators routed via Communications. Though if its that easy why would you need a Communications Officer?

OK back to the moral compass, I've got mixed feelings about Spock mind-melding with those Romulans in ST09. It was a big deal in STVI but maybe thats because Valeris was resisting

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So, there's no possibility in STID that Scotty's communicator was routed through one of the long-range transceivers on Earth?

 

[Pauln6]

So, there's no possibility in STID that Scotty's communicator was routed through one of the long-range transceivers on Earth?

That's the sensible explanation, I agree. Communicators are used as locators for transporting (and my own view has always been that you should not be able to transport anybody without one) so it makes sense that the Enterprise could dial him up like a mobile phone but it doesn't make that much sense once Scotty is on the secret base. You would have thought that a top security facility that is hidden in plain sight and doesn't bother to check transponders of ships entering its shuttle bay would have security in place to block or at least monitor incoming and outgoing calls.... oh wait...

To summarise, I do believe it's possible but I don't believe it's possible to do without being detected.

IMO communications officers are only the mouthpiece on the bridge. A lot of the hard work is done down in the communications bay. They have to monitor signals and route anything important up to Uhura. She is there to act as a relay, to pick up significant information from departmental duty officers and also to implement any specific commands of the captain.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You would have thought that a top security facility that is hidden in plain sight and doesn't bother to check transponders of ships entering its shuttle bay would have security in place to block or at least monitor incoming and outgoing calls.... oh wait...

Yeah, that whole section of the film near Jupiter is a minor plot hole. I identified it as such in my review post in the main STID grading thread.

2. Scotty being able to sneak aboard the Vengeance seemed like a minor plot hole. Nothing to make a lot of hay about, though, because it's no wonkier than certain elements in every other Trek film.

However, since a display at a console on Scotty's shuttle flashing the words "security override" would have been the sort of thing sufficient to repair that problem (thus demonstrating that Scotty or Keenser have adequate hacking skillz to get in, which we should expect anyway that they most probably do), as I said, it's no wonkier than stuff we've had to contend with in every other film.

 

[Set Harth]

So, there's no possibility in STID that Scotty's communicator was routed through one of the long-range transceivers on Earth?

If only the script hadn't been routed through TWOK...

 

[sonak]

So, there's no possibility in STID that Scotty's communicator was routed through one of the long-range transceivers on Earth?

If only the script hadn't been routed through TWOK...

What does this mean? Apart from the character of Khan, and the scene of Kirk's sacrifice, the movies are nothing alike.

 

[Pauln6]

So, there's no possibility in STID that Scotty's communicator was routed through one of the long-range transceivers on Earth?

If only the script hadn't been routed through TWOK...

What does this mean? Apart from the character of Khan, and the scene of Kirk's sacrifice, the movies are nothing alike.

Lol. I don't think you were supposed to take it as a serious critique - and you forgot Carol! Actually, even Khan isn't really much like the original either. Maybe they should have thrown MacGyvers in the mix.

 

[YARN]

So, there's no possibility in STID that Scotty's communicator was routed through one of the long-range transceivers on Earth?

If only the script hadn't been routed through TWOK...

What does this mean? Apart from the character of Khan, and the scene of Kirk's sacrifice, the movies are nothing alike.

Only the big cultural reference points are there. Khan as a villain, the KHAAAAN! yell, the death of a major character. It's like someone who really didn't understand Star Trek were trying to produce some EZ-bake premise-necromancy by referring to cultural touchstones that even non-Trek viewers "know" as a matter of our cultural conversations about Trek (e.g., water cooler talk, memes, references by comedians). The script is routed though TWoK, but only through the pop-cultural lens of TWoK.

 

[Pauln6]

If only the script hadn't been routed through TWOK...

What does this mean? Apart from the character of Khan, and the scene of Kirk's sacrifice, the movies are nothing alike.

Only the big cultural reference points are there. Khan as a villain, the KHAAAAN! yell, the death of a major character. It's like someone who really didn't understand Star Trek were trying to produce some EZ-bake premise-necromancy by referring to cultural touchstones that even non-Trek viewers "know" as a matter of our cultural conversations about Trek (e.g., water cooler talk, memes, references by comedians). The script is routed though TWoK, but only through the pop-cultural lens of TWoK.

In the same way that NuKirk was portrayed as a bad-boy womaniser because that was the pop-culture perception of the character. Interestingly, if you go back and watch episode by episode, he's a charmer but he's not a womaniser at all.

 

[Jeyl]

In the same way that NuKirk was portrayed as a bad-boy womaniser because that was the pop-culture perception of the character. Interestingly, if you go back and watch episode by episode, he's a charmer but he's not a womaniser at all.

And when did "Space Seed" or "The Wrath of Khan" ever establish that Khan's purpose in life was to eliminate all life he deemed less than superior? Or what about Prime Spock's line "And he will not hesitate to kill every last one of you". Not only was Khan quite open to letting lesser humans join his cause in the original series episode, but in TWOK, the movie where he sets out to kill Kirk, he does something worse than hesitate. He gloats.

Khan: Surely I've made my meaning plain. I mean to avenge myself upon you Captain. I deprive your ship of power and when I swing around I mean to deprive you of your life. But I wanted you to know first who it was who had beaten you.​

I think our staff of writers have a very low set of standards for everything when it comes to Star Trek, especially the moral compass.

 

[Pauln6]

In the same way that NuKirk was portrayed as a bad-boy womaniser because that was the pop-culture perception of the character. Interestingly, if you go back and watch episode by episode, he's a charmer but he's not a womaniser at all.

And when did "Space Seed" or "The Wrath of Khan" ever establish that Khan's purpose in life was to eliminate all life he deemed less than superior? Or what about Prime Spock's line "And he will not hesitate to kill every last one of you". Not only was Khan quite open to letting lesser humans join his cause in the original series episode, but in TWOK, the movie where he sets out to kill Kirk, he does something worse than hesitate. He gloats.

Khan: Surely I've made my meaning plain. I mean to avenge myself upon you Captain. I deprive your ship of power and when I swing around I mean to deprive you of your life. But I wanted you to know first who it was who had beaten you.​

I think our staff of writers have a very low set of standards for everything when it comes to Star Trek, especially the moral compass.

Khan is ruthless but he was also a bit of a megalomaniac. He loved a bit of monologueing. I thought his motivation was rescuing his people in STiD and he needed a powerful ship as leverage to get his crew off the Enterprise so I think there is some logic to his thought processes in the movie but I've only seen it twice so I may be way off base.

I think things got a bit fuzzier towards the end where they tried to give Spock a reason to hate him. Presumably he knew that he had a limited window before Starfleet intervened in force so he had to come down hard on the ship.

It would have been far more interesting if Khan had escaped with his crew though.

 

[BillJ]

What does this mean? Apart from the character of Khan, and the scene of Kirk's sacrifice, the movies are nothing alike.

Only the big cultural reference points are there. Khan as a villain, the KHAAAAN! yell, the death of a major character. It's like someone who really didn't understand Star Trek were trying to produce some EZ-bake premise-necromancy by referring to cultural touchstones that even non-Trek viewers "know" as a matter of our cultural conversations about Trek (e.g., water cooler talk, memes, references by comedians). The script is routed though TWoK, but only through the pop-cultural lens of TWoK.

In the same way that NuKirk was portrayed as a bad-boy womaniser because that was the pop-culture perception of the character. Interestingly, if you go back and watch episode by episode, he's a charmer but he's not a womaniser at all.

I'll point out the painfully obvious (once again), that this Kirk is a decade younger than the one we watch in TOS.

 

[Pauln6]

In the same way that NuKirk was portrayed as a bad-boy womaniser because that was the pop-culture perception of the character. Interestingly, if you go back and watch episode by episode, he's a charmer but he's not a womaniser at all.

I'll point out the painfully obvious (once again), that this Kirk is a decade younger than the one we watch in TOS.

True but then (once again) I'd have to remind you that we've been told that 18-22 year old Kirk was a shy bookworm who had a serious relationship with a lab assistant. They didn't HAVE to write him as a womaniser just because he is younger but in doing so they played up to the popular perception that this is what Kirk is like.

Of course we usually only see Kirk on duty and sixties censors would not have been happy with too much sex on screen so it's arguable that Kirk was always in the habit of doing Caitain hookers when on shore leave even in TOS.

 

[BillJ]

We also see an 18-22 year old Kirk who wasn't in Starfleet and grew up without a father.

As far as Prime Kirk not being a womanizer, I'm not so sure. We know of the lab tech (who may or may not have been Carol Marcus), there's Ruth, Areel Shaw, Janice Lester, Janet Wallace and a couple I'm sure I'm forgetting before Kirk took command of the Enterprise. So he definitely got around.

It feels like people are trying to damn Abrams Kirk for much of the same behavior they are giving Prime Kirk a pass on.

 

[Commishsleer]

In the same way that NuKirk was portrayed as a bad-boy womaniser because that was the pop-culture perception of the character. Interestingly, if you go back and watch episode by episode, he's a charmer but he's not a womaniser at all.

I'll point out the painfully obvious (once again), that this Kirk is a decade younger than the one we watch in TOS.

True but then (once again) I'd have to remind you that we've been told that 18-22 year old Kirk was a shy bookworm who had a serious relationship with a lab assistant. They didn't HAVE to write him as a womaniser just because he is younger but in doing so they played up to the popular perception that this is what Kirk is like.

Of course we usually only see Kirk on duty and sixties censors would not have been happy with too much sex on screen so it's arguable that Kirk was always in the habit of doing Caitain hookers when on shore leave even in TOS.

There's no indication that the Caitain girls were hookers. Lots of girls like to say they've slept with celebrities (I suppose Kirk being hot is just a bonus.

I wonder what plans Kirk had on Argellus before Jack the Ripper started. The ladies there were known for their free love. I'm just wondering if they were really a fancy form of prostitute or whether they went on dates for free. It wasn't all that clear.

Not that I applaud this behaviour but sailors on leave what can you do.

 

[Pauln6]

I'll point out the painfully obvious (once again), that this Kirk is a decade younger than the one we watch in TOS.

True but then (once again) I'd have to remind you that we've been told that 18-22 year old Kirk was a shy bookworm who had a serious relationship with a lab assistant. They didn't HAVE to write him as a womaniser just because he is younger but in doing so they played up to the popular perception that this is what Kirk is like.

Of course we usually only see Kirk on duty and sixties censors would not have been happy with too much sex on screen so it's arguable that Kirk was always in the habit of doing Caitain hookers when on shore leave even in TOS.

There's no indication that the Caitain girls were hookers. Lots of girls like to say they've slept with celebrities (I suppose Kirk being hot is just a bonus.

I wonder what plans Kirk had on Argellus before Jack the Ripper started. The ladies there were known for their free love. I'm just wondering if they were really a fancy form of prostitute or whether they went on dates for free. It wasn't all that clear.

Not that I applaud this behaviour but sailors on leave what can you do.

In a world where money ceases to have any significant meaning, even what constitutes a hooker is rather vague. Maybe bragging rights are the new ten dollar? I like to think they're hookers because from what I've seen, Kirk's chat up lines are awful and I'd like to think that Federation women in the 23rd century are a bit more discerning. It's why I like Miranda Jones so much, she's all like, man, these guys have all the sophistication of a monkey flinging poo. I don't think you need to be a telepath to see through the cheese they were all serving up.