NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

[Commishsleer]

I think we're missing something, though: the dialogue explicitly states the Narada was doomed. Why are we being told we are essentially stupid for then wanting someone to explicitly voice the idea that Kirk opened up on her in order to guard against a possibilty the script had explicitly dismissed? Really, I think Pauln6 and I and others would have preferred that--and a degree of solemnity at the ensuing arguably justified execution--to the glibness we got.

No long conference scenes. Hell, not even the antithesis of that: my suggestion that Nero make one last attempt at destroying he Enterprise. No. Just. One. Line. Of. Dialogue.

TOS Enterprise was doomed every second episode
Against the Domesday machine, the Jack the Ripper entity, that hate entity in Day of the Dove, the giant space amoeba, the Guardian on the Edge of Forever, Trelane, the Metrons, the Platonians, Apollo, etc.

Yet the Enterprise survived another day.

I bet you Prime Spock thought he was doomed when he was pulled through the black hole.

A doomed ship brings drama to the story but no guarantee of destruction

 

[Belz...]

My distaste in these movies has to do with NuKirk not being anything like classic Kirk.

Having a totally different childhood will do that to someone.

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.

Yes, because it's an extension of the audience's wish to see Nero pay for genocide.

I think you're over-analysing this.

 

[Set Harth]

The twins dialogue never came off like hooker dialogue to me. There's no money in the utopia anyway.

Eventually people will be doing it for Khan blood.

 

[Jeyl]

The twins dialogue never came off like hooker dialogue to me. There's no money in the utopia anyway.

Than why did Kirk and Uhura go back on fourth on who the drinks were on in the last movie?

 

[Set Harth]

[i mg]http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/d6/d6544e9393f75db50ffc0f5606dca0b41bbd2610424c8ea788fc89856b70f2d3.jpg[/ img]

[Unless Quickmeme's policy explicitly permits hotlinking, you should host this on web space or image-sharing account registered to you. - M']

 

[Jeyl]

Yes, because it's an extension of the audience's wish to see Nero pay for genocide.

So you don't agree with Kirk's speech at the end of Into Darkness that revenge is bad? Because seeing the crew kill the bad guy so that we can have the satisfaction of seeing him pay sounds a lot like revenge to me. And some fans think that there are no faults in the morals of these movies.

"Revenge is bad except when you want it."

Oh, one other thing. Starfleet has condoned genocide in the past.

 

[sonak]

I think we're missing something, though: the dialogue explicitly states the Narada was doomed. Why are we being told we are essentially stupid for then wanting someone to explicitly voice the idea that Kirk opened up on her in order to guard against a possibilty the script had explicitly dismissed? Really, I think Pauln6 and I and others would have preferred that--and a degree of solemnity at the ensuing arguably justified execution--to the glibness we got.

No long conference scenes. Hell, not even the antithesis of that: my suggestion that Nero make one last attempt at destroying he Enterprise. No. Just. One. Line. Of. Dialogue.

The dialogue explicitly says one thing. The visual effects (the ship disappearing into the very same phenomenon through which it appeared in the beginning of the film) explicitly say another.

The problem is faulty writing, not faulty morality.

Agreed

as I wrote before, considering the "black hole magic" of this film, the casual viewer would have every reason to think that the Narada escaping was a distinct possibility.

"but they're doomed! they're caught by the black hole!"

"er, you mean they'll just wind up another century forward or backward in time?"

 

[Jeyl]

"but they're doomed! they're caught by the black hole!"

"er, you mean they'll just wind up another century forward or backward in time?"

Well, if they did somehow manage to survive, they would only have about...

half of their ship with no weapons, shields or red matter.

And when the camera does a pan around of the black hole just after the Enterprise open fires on the Narada, both portions are spinning in the opposite direction of each other. That usually means they're no longer attached. The Narada is quite literally half destroyed at this point, and if you look behind the image of Nero when he responds to Kirk's offer of assistance, you can actually see the long spiky parts breaking off the ship before the Enterprise even fires on her. With all her weapons fired, no more red matter and a crew that are effectively fleeing their stations, I think the argument that they're going to die still stands.

Heck, if you want it spelled out for you, read the Alan Dean Foster adaption. Not only is it established that the Narada won't survive the black hole, it goes on further to explain that the Narada won't be able to use it to travel in time. And to add even more fuel to the "moral" issue, it even gives Kirk an inner monologue where he actually bolsters about how with Nero's refusal for assistance, he can now kill him without getting any flack. Yep. Just as South Park demonstrated that you can't kill an animal unless you yell "It's coming right for us!", you can't kill the bad guy without offering the vaguest of assistance. You know they'll say no, but at least it will give your superiors the impression that you tried.

 

[Kemaiku]

Honestly, who the hell cares at this point?

 

[Set Harth]

For whatever it's worth, the Narada did have a lot of other ( much smaller ) ships inside it. It's doubtful that Nero would have had the chance to get to any of them, though.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think the term 'misguided act of compassion' is interesting. I would not view it as a rescue mission but an arrest. Arresting criminals is not an act of compassion, it's their lawful duty.

If Starfleet was a police department, yes. But it's not. It's a paramilitary organization with a different mandate and substantially different rules of engagement.

Check out this for some amazing refit deck plans: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=92307

I used to have this thread bookmarked.

Significantly, though, even these are based mostly on the David Schmidt plans. Which I ALSO have saved on my HD because they're awesome.

But in terms of transporters I think the ideas from the TMP plans make a lot of sense. Never mind evacuating the ship, if for any reason the engineering section had to go on a mission without the saucer it could be hamstrung without any transporter capability. It has its own auxiliary bridge, why not transporters?

Cool as they are, those plans were written in the 1990s, at which time TNG had been on the air for years and we knew a lot more about starship concepts than we did when Probert originally designed it. The saucer was intended to separate from the main hull only in the event of a catastrophic emergency -- basically, like the one we saw in Generations -- and could not perform any sort of mission on its own (other than, say, "The saucer just exploded! Abandon ship!")

There's again the issue that the transporter system is a pretty maintenance and energy-intensive device in the TOS years; "The transporter isn't working!" is a valid plot device because it's "The transporter." Singular, not plural. By the TNG years, we get the concept that a ship with twelve transporter rooms could somehow not be able to beam people anywhere just because a console exploded on the bridge.

There are huge conceptual problems with transporters when you aren't transporting from pad to pad.

Furthermore, I don't think it should even be possible to do that until the 24th century. If we think about this, between ST-Enterprise and TNG the differences in technology are almost down to cosmetic touches since everything seems to work basically the same way. In the 23rd, there shouldn't be any possibility -- AT ALL -- of using your own transporter to beam someone off your ship who isn't on the pad. In NuTrek, just beaming down from the transporter room is a complicated and potentially dangerous process, which I find ENORMOUSLY refreshing.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And when the camera does a pan around of the black hole just after the Enterprise open fires on the Narada, both portions are spinning in the opposite direction of each other.

No they're not, dude. The front portion of the ship is disintegrating, it's impossible to tell which way it's spinning because pieces of it are flying in every other direction.

And to add even more fuel to the "moral" issue, it even gives Kirk an inner monologue where he actually bolsters about how with Nero's refusal for assistance, he can now kill him without getting any flack.

Which hasn't been an issue of this entire discussion. The issue is whether or not Kirk has any moral obligation whatsoever to save Nero and his crew despite their refusal to surrender. Strictly speaking, he does not. He won't surrender, so finish his ass.

That Kirk even OFFERED assistance in this case is probably going above and beyond his mandate, and as I've already pointed out, it's a lot more than Prime Kirk offered to General Chang.

 

[Pauln6]

I think the term 'misguided act of compassion' is interesting. I would not view it as a rescue mission but an arrest. Arresting criminals is not an act of compassion, it's their lawful duty.

If Starfleet was a police department, yes. But it's not. It's a paramilitary organization with a different mandate and substantially different rules of engagement.

There's again the issue that the transporter system is a pretty maintenance and energy-intensive device in the TOS years; "The transporter isn't working!" is a valid plot device because it's "The transporter." Singular, not plural. By the TNG years, we get the concept that a ship with twelve transporter rooms could somehow not be able to beam people anywhere just because a console exploded on the bridge.

I believe Pike refers to Starfleet as a 'peacekeeping armada'.

In TMP a malfunction in engineering affected the transporter in the primary hull but you are right to say that in TOS Scotty did perform repairs on the console itself. If they had another one, why not just swap rooms? I think the circuitry to run a transporter is massive but the transporters use external emitters - I think the consoles and the platforms are just channelling to and from the important parts of the ship.

In my view, site to site is fine as long as it is by relay through the pad.

However the stuff in the movies about moving targets is just silly. Targets are ALWAYS moving - on the planet, in the universe, even their atoms are moving.

 

[BillJ]

Heck, if you want it spelled out for you, read the Alan Dean Foster adaption. Not only is it established that the Narada won't survive the black hole, it goes on further to explain that the Narada won't be able to use it to travel in time. And to add even more fuel to the "moral" issue, it even gives Kirk an inner monologue where he actually bolsters about how with Nero's refusal for assistance, he can now kill him without getting any flack. Yep. Just as South Park demonstrated that you can't kill an animal unless you yell "It's coming right for us!", you can't kill the bad guy without offering the vaguest of assistance. You know they'll say no, but at least it will give your superiors the impression that you tried.

I would think the novelization means jack shit during this debate. But, are we really trying to frame someone in a bad light who is portrayed as wanting to take down the man who killed his father and six billion others beings? Someone he knows for a fact is guilty.

Busting Kirk's balls over this is nothing but a result of "TNG think". The character is human and carries himself in a very human manner.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I think the term 'misguided act of compassion' is interesting. I would not view it as a rescue mission but an arrest. Arresting criminals is not an act of compassion, it's their lawful duty.

If Starfleet was a police department, yes. But it's not. It's a paramilitary organization with a different mandate and substantially different rules of engagement.

There's again the issue that the transporter system is a pretty maintenance and energy-intensive device in the TOS years; "The transporter isn't working!" is a valid plot device because it's "The transporter." Singular, not plural. By the TNG years, we get the concept that a ship with twelve transporter rooms could somehow not be able to beam people anywhere just because a console exploded on the bridge.

I believe Pike refers to Starfleet as a 'peacekeeping armada'.

Which implies military organization not police.

 

[robau]

The twins dialogue never came off like hooker dialogue to me. There's no money in the utopia anyway.

Than why did Kirk and Uhura go back on fourth on who the drinks were on in the last movie?

Fair enough. But there clearly isn't any need to engage in prostitution in the utopia. No one goes broke or homeless. I guess it could be something they choose to do, but why necessarily for money? It just doesn't make sense to assume that.

 

[Pauln6]

The twins dialogue never came off like hooker dialogue to me. There's no money in the utopia anyway.

Than why did Kirk and Uhura go back on fourth on who the drinks were on in the last movie?

Fair enough. But there clearly isn't any need to engage in prostitution in the utopia. No one goes broke or homeless. I guess it could be something they choose to do, but why necessarily for money? It just doesn't make sense to assume that.

Meh, I don't doubt that we're supposed to think that Kirk is so awesome, why wouldn't alien twins want to have sex with him? It's just a shame that they humanised Caitains to such a degree because screwing a couple of furballs would have made him seem weird instead of awesome.

 

[M'Sharak]

And some fans think that there are no faults in the morals of these movies.

That's both unnecessary and almost certainly an unsupportable claim - in both cases better omitted.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Busting Kirk's balls over this is nothing but a result of "TNG think". The character is human and carries himself in a very human manner.

As seen in the TNG episodes "Arena" and "Spectre of the Gun."

 

[BillJ]

Busting Kirk's balls over this is nothing but a result of "TNG think". The character is human and carries himself in a very human manner.

As seen in the TNG episodes "Arena" and "Spectre of the Gun."

"Arena" is an interesting comparison. The Federation had invaded a foreign powers territory unwittingly. The Gorn reclaimed their territory and didn't go on a genocidal rampage against the Federation. Nor had the Gorn commander personally killed one of Kirk's parents.

It's really apples and oranges.