Narada had a shitload of ships docked inside. What if Nero got into one and flew through the black hole? Then he's somewhere and somewhen else, free do raise havok with a 24th century Romulan shuttlecraft.
Kirk's execution of Nero/Optimus Prime "Any Last Words?" TF2
- Thread starter Cadet49
- Start date
Yeah, that's what the Klingons said when Nero and his crew were biding their time waiting to escape from the Klingon prison. I know this didn't happen onscreen, but the results of it did when Uhura reports about the Klingon warships being destroyed.
Gee, in other words it's all a matter of opinion.
Imagine that.
Most people don't have a problem with Kirk's behavior in the "fire everything we've got" scene. Winning!
Most people claiming that the Earth is flat doesn't make her flat. You confuse majority and objectivity. The latter is of little relevance here as we talk about art. Naturally people read the respective scene differently.
If you wanna join the discussion, go ahead, if you wanna pathetically hide behind the majority opinion you contribute nothing.
If you wanna join the discussion, go ahead, if you wanna pathetically hide behind the majority opinion you contribute nothing.
There's a huge difference between subjective interpretation of a line in a film, and objective fact. Even when I was arguing with you, I was arguing that your interpretation was unsupported by the narrative, not that it's a violation of objective fact.
Let's take the mind rape scene from TUC. Everybody here know the scene, know the narrative, knows the stupid facts. The only thing worthwhile talking about would be different readings of this very scene.
For example A might claim that Spock enjoy the mind-rape whereas B might say that he struggles to hold back his anger. I think that B is closer to the text but I also think that A says something more interesting, something that makes you actually think more about the scene than the stuff B said.
I like loose readings of a text precisely because they don't stay at hyperzoom at the stupid facts; facts which, if we talk about something less singular that spans over several episodes like a Trek species, often contradict each other. In other words, you have to read and interpret when you talk about Romulans or Ferengi.
Back to the "fire everything we got" scene, as far as I overview the discussion side A sticks to the facts (Kirk had to make sure that the Narada survives the black hole, he doesn't break out in a joyful dance when he orders the destruction) whereas side B focuses on the subtext (Kirk's offer of help was insincere, he revels in being allowed by Spock to not play by the book).
The kind of metadiscussion is whether the subtext, the psyche of the characters, the vibe of the movie and so on are actual things you can talk about. My point is obviously yes, it should be as it is the only interesting thing to talk about. I mean, gee, if I chat with someone about Hamlet what's the point of discussion the plot? I wanna get to know his reading of the drama, his opinion, what he found beneath the surface.
For example A might claim that Spock enjoy the mind-rape whereas B might say that he struggles to hold back his anger. I think that B is closer to the text but I also think that A says something more interesting, something that makes you actually think more about the scene than the stuff B said.
I like loose readings of a text precisely because they don't stay at hyperzoom at the stupid facts; facts which, if we talk about something less singular that spans over several episodes like a Trek species, often contradict each other. In other words, you have to read and interpret when you talk about Romulans or Ferengi.
Back to the "fire everything we got" scene, as far as I overview the discussion side A sticks to the facts (Kirk had to make sure that the Narada survives the black hole, he doesn't break out in a joyful dance when he orders the destruction) whereas side B focuses on the subtext (Kirk's offer of help was insincere, he revels in being allowed by Spock to not play by the book).
The kind of metadiscussion is whether the subtext, the psyche of the characters, the vibe of the movie and so on are actual things you can talk about. My point is obviously yes, it should be as it is the only interesting thing to talk about. I mean, gee, if I chat with someone about Hamlet what's the point of discussion the plot? I wanna get to know his reading of the drama, his opinion, what he found beneath the surface.
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
The kirk of the original series NEVER acted that way, where are you getting this from? Even in TWOK he was going to take khan as a prisoner and transfer him to a starbase for sentencing, but Khan himself chose suicide. It was Khan who activated the genesis device, not kirk. In the 2009 movie, imposter kirk did something real kirk would never do, destroy a sitting duck!
^ Then explain "I...have HAD...enough of YOU!!!!!!!!!"
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
Wrong. This is not a character being created out of thin air, it is captain kirk. And he is way out of context in this 2009 thing. Mind you, not only in the end scene, but the entire film.
Kirk of TOS was a man who always strived to be a representative of the way humanity SHOULD be, not the way it IS NOW. That is the difference here, and I suggest people who defend the poor characterization of imposter 2009 kirk take this distinction into account.
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
They were hanging off a cliff. Much different scenario than firing on a sitting duck ship, like a bully and a coward would. There was no equity of danger involved in imposter 2009 kirks actions.
"Imposter Kirk"? "Real Kirk?"
No, there's previous Kirk and current Kirk, or old Kirk and new Kirk. But one performance of a fictional character is not more authentic than another. And seniority doesn't count.
Is Daniel Craig an "imposter Bond"? Is Christian Bale an "imposter Batman"? Was Katee Sackhoff an "imposter Starbuck"?
New actor, new adaptation, new version of the character. That's how it works.
What about The Undiscovered Country? After the first hit, both Kirk and Sulu pounded Chang's ship until it was destroyed.
The Kirk of TOS was ready to kill Gary Mitchell because of the threat he posed to the galaxy. The situation with Nero in STXI is not fundamentally different.
KRUGE was hanging off a cliff. Kirk was not.
And I might argue that the 'equity of danger' was much higher in ST XI. The worst that could have happened in ST III was Kruge pulls Kirk over the edge of the cliff and they both die. That would be it. But in ST XI, Nero could have gotten away (however unlikely), and thus done a LOT more damage. Why should Kirk take that chance?
TOS Kirk is very much a product of the now rather than a representative of some future perfect humanity. The Kirk of TOS is always on a journey in those episodes. He usually arrives at the "right" solution in the final act, after using violence for the first three.
He fights the Gorn. He hunts the Horta. He fights the Klingons. He steals from the Romulans.
I think you're confusing TOS and TNG. Kirk was never supposed to be some sort of paragon of enlightened future humanity. He was a flawed, flesh-and-blood mortal who sometimes wrestled with self-doubt and his own primitive instincts. He acted rashly at times, lost his temper occasionally, liked a good fistfight, had a weakness for pretty guest-stars, and thought of himself as a soldier, not a diplomat . . . .
As Carol Marcus famously put it, Jim Kirk was no Boy Scout. Heck, even Picard and Janeway regarded him as a cowboy who didn't always play by the rules. And the time police thought he was a menace!
Last edited:
I bet Kirk and Mal Reynolds would have got on well.
