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

[Cadet49]

How could the Narada be a threat to anyone, as it was breaking apart. Kirk himself said, in his offer of help, "Your vessel cannot survive ..." or something like that ... it would never have survived the transition through the anomaly in the condition it was in. The argument that Kirk did it to eliminate the Narada as a threat does not make logical sense with what we saw on screen. What Kirk did was the equivalent of seeing a criminal sinking into quicksand, and shooting him in the head just before he goes under - an unnecessary action that does not make the already victorious hero look very noble or heroic...

 

[UFO]

As I think about this further I do have problems with Kirks behavior too. He wanted to save Nero, Spock didn't and Kirk gives into him rather quickly.

I think that's a very valid point in terms of the difference between STXI and TOS. While Greg Cox correctly highlights examples of Spock's and Vulcan "ruthlessness", or as they might put it, "rigorous logic". In TOS Kirk seemed to act as a balancing factor between Spock's logic/reason on the one side and McCoy's emotions on the other in such situations. He would then arrive at a decision that is usually both humanely reasonable and justified. To put the best possible interpretation on your observation, so far I don't think nuKirk has found his feet in that regard. I can only hope that he will. But we live in different times.

I think it would have been better had Nero died when the Jellyfish rammed the Narada.

Yes, however I guess they wanted a final confrontation. Tricky business that.

Off topic but did you have a problem when Picard didn't have Riker beam both himself and Ru'afo off the exploding particle collector? I did.

I have to admit that emotionally I don't recall being so "outraged". That might be just my failing memory of course but certainly intellectually I do agree with you. Whether right or wrong, I guess sins of omission usually get an easier ride. Glad to see that isn't so in your case.

To be honest, it often seems like people who have issues with the new movie have selective memories (and rose-colored glasses) when it comes to what TOS was really about. Or maybe they grew upon TNG instead . . . which was much more heavily invested in the idea that Trek was supposed to be some sort of visonary blueprint for the future. As opposed to TOS which was more of a rough-and-tumble space opera filled with flawed, volatile characters who weren't always paragons of Starfleet virtue.

Just like in the new movie.

As mentioned above I think a case can be made for TOS having a different "feel" to it due largely to the change in Kirk's behaviour and interation with other crew members re the Nero decision in particular (Oh why wasn't McCoy on the bridge when they needed him! What the hell was so important in sick bay?). STXI and TOS may have shared the same "rough-and-tumble space opera" attitude but so far I think the above mentioned ingredient is missing from the former.

While I accept it might be easy to overlook some aspects of Vulcan nature, I don't think my glasses are rose coloured. I think there really is a distinction as outlined above which I hope will change.

As far as I am aware the only ones suggesting it are fans of STXI trying to find an excuse for something they know Prime Kirk would not have done.

Well as far as I know I'm not really a fan of the film, at all, and I agree with the actions Kirk took. Whether he did the right thing for the wrong reasons or not... it was still the right thing to do.

OK, I should probably retract that comment completely rather than on a case by case basis. Consider it done.

However I am not so concerned with the result as the way it is portrayed. There is the cheap obviously token offer followed by an attempt at summary exsocution. If they couldn't just beam Nero and co off anyway, why not? Killing people is an important issue, you don't just use it as a cheap form of gratification. Well, you didn't used to in TOS that I recall. Yes, I know, apart from red shirts.

You have to remember that the Kirk that gave the order to open fire on Nero is Jim Kirk seven years before we're introduced to him in the Prime timeline. Plus you have to remember that he is staring down an individual that was responsible for the death of his father and responsible for the deaths of six billion plus other beings, I was surprised he even made the token offer. Prime universe Jim Kirk was never faced with such a scenario, so saying that his reaction would be different is just speculation on your part.

Actually I agree that this Kirk isn’t even Prime Kirk seven or so years younger than we first saw him. But even if its understandable in some way, the issue is just ignored, as are others in the film.

I’m not sure emotional feeling is cumulative like that. I feel the loss of Prime Kirk’s son is likely to be as big an impact emotionally as NuKirk felt in "total", particularly as NuKirk never knew his father. Yes I accept he was younger and different, but Star Fleet command etc is there to at least make some comment on it, if it had to be done. Better though to just rewrite the movie a bit if you don’t want to handle the fallout, in my view. However I have previously agreeded my opinion of Prime Kirk’s "likely" reaction is speculation, albeit pretty a reasonable one I think.

I can't imagine Prime Kirk would have reacted much differently under the circumstances.

Apart from the history of the character I guess.

He offered Khan a chance to surrender, too . . . .

But he didn’t then put the boot in.

Huh? I wasn't talking about Kruge or The Search for Spock. I was talking about that bit in "Friday's Child" where Kirk, who has his back against the wall and expects to be killed soon, expresses a desire to take "the Klingon" with him--for revenge, if nothing else. (As I recall, the ship was in no danger at that point. It was just Kirk, Spock, and McCoy being hunted by noble warriors wearing Day-Glo fur boas.)

Oops, we are on the same page. Its just all Klingons look alike to me! My argument however, still stands. Kirk may have wanted to extract revenge in battle, particularly if he was going to die, but not I suggest, if the Klingon (by whatever name) was at his mercy.

And the idea is not to "drag Prime Kirk down to NuKirk's level" (the very phrasing of which seems to imply that the Original Recipe is, by definition, superior to the modern version) but to point out, once again, the double standard (and selective amnesia) that often seems to plague these debates--in which NuTrek is not compared to original series and characters as they actually were, but to some idealized version that conveniently forgets how flawed, imperfect and oh-so-human Kirk and Spock and the others have always been (thank god!).

Or, as Carol Marcus put it much more succinctly: Jim Kirk was never a Boy Scout.

I would disagree that there is much significant "selective amnesia" and any that does exist is mostly just a reflection of the general attitude of the show. You see I think, as explained above, there is a real difference, even allowing for imperfections. Perhaps there are flaws of the type I am specifying, but I can’t recall them and they don’t seem to pervade the show.

 

[Sci]

In both Star Trek 2009 and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, both written by the same writers, I found myself quite disturbed by how two characters I admired as a child, Captain Kirk and Optimus Prime, seemed to execute their downed opponents when those opponents were no longer able to fight back any longer. In Trek, Kirk blows away Nero and his crew when they refuse to surrender, even through the enemy warship is disabled.

A warship that had already proven itself capable of surviving one trip through a black hole, and was captained by a man who refused his offer of assistance and proclaimed his continued intent to engage in mass murder if given the chance.

I'd say Kirk was justified in destroying the Narada.

 

[Greg Cox]

And if Kirk and Spock took a certain satisfaction in disposing of Nero and the Narada once and for all, who can blame them? They're not plaster saints or robots. Nero killed Kirk's father and Spock's mother and several million other people. So give them credit for doing the honorable thing and giving Nero the genocidal monster a chance to surrender, but I can't imagine they lost much sleep over making sure that a damaged alien spaceship from the future was not merely dead, but truly most sincerely dead!

And speaking of which, does anyone here really think that Picard didn't get a certain primal satisfaction at seeing the Borg Queen go the way of the Wicked Witch of the West? He's only human, too.

As god-like aliens used to remind Kirk every other week, humans are still mostly savage children who haven't evolved all that much yet!

And as for Starfleet Command's reaction, can you imagine their response if Kirk hadn't fired?

"Let me get this straight, Kirk. You had the ship that destroyed Vulcan--and came within minutes of destroying Earth--in your sights. And you didn't fire?"

"Well, that didn't seem very sporting, Admiral. And besides, our sensors indicated that the ship was going to be destroyed anyway."

"And are you, or any of your crew, experts on Twenty-Fourth Century Romulan technology?"

"Er, no."

"And if ship was probably going to be destroyed anyway, was there any harm in making sure of it?"

"Well, when you put it that way . . . "

"And did Nero seem willing to surrender without a fight?"

"Er, he swore eternal vengeance against us."

"And this the same madman who had previously escaped from the Klingons to carry out his genocidal agenda?"

"Uh-huh."

"Well, you can forget about that promotion, Ensign Kirk!"

 

[David cgc]

And speaking of which, does anyone here really think that Picard didn't get a certain primal satisfaction at seeing the Borg Queen go the way of the Wicked Witch of the West? He's only human, too.

I don't think you could get anything else from the way he snapped her spine-plug thing.

 

[BillJ]

I think people tend to forget Jim Kirk had his share of unflattering moments...

Putting the mining of Pergium above the well being of the Horta in The Devil in the Dark.

Hunting down the Gorn after the destruction of Cestus III in Arena. Only Metron interference kept him from destroying the Gorn vessel.

Then there is the order to implement General Order 7, which if carried out would have killed millions in A Taste of Armageddon.

 

[BillJ]

And speaking of which, does anyone here really think that Picard didn't get a certain primal satisfaction at seeing the Borg Queen go the way of the Wicked Witch of the West? He's only human, too.

I don't think you could get anything else from the way he snapped her spine-plug thing.

But that's different because it's Picard.

 

[UFO]

I think people tend to forget Jim Kirk had his share of unflattering moments...

Putting the mining of Pergium above the well being of the Horta in The Devil in the Dark.

Hunting down the Gorn after the destruction of Cestus III in Arena. Only Metron interference kept him from destroying the Gorn vessel.

Then there is the order to implement General Order 7, which if carried out would have killed millions in A Taste of Armageddon.

I have to agree those aren’t Kirks finest "hours". Or half hours because in at least two out of the three I think he redeemed himself didn't he? I mean, wasn’t the Horta mostly a communication problem?

Now its true that "A Taste of Armageddon" was certainly a case of "tough love", but the alternative wasn’t doing anyone many favours.

I admit to being concerned over the Gorn business. I believe that in most other episodes Kirk would have tried further negotiation (The added rationale appeared to be that he felt the strain of responsibility). But the story seemed set up so talking wasn’t an option, or didn’t appear to be. Not until after the resolution anyway. Before that the Gorn just weren’t interested. But all’s well that ends well, if you ignore the destroyed colony of course.

And speaking of which, does anyone here really think that Picard didn't get a certain primal satisfaction at seeing the Borg Queen go the way of the Wicked Witch of the West? He's only human, too.

I don't think you could get anything else from the way he snapped her spine-plug thing.

But that's different because it's Picard.

From what I can find out, Picard’s snapping of the Borg Queen’s cybernetic spinal cord apparently does cause her "death" in what appears to be the same sort of manner I am upset at NuKirk for attempting. Nor am I sure if there are any extenuating circumstances such as: Is she still too dangerous to keep around? Is she in "pain" (which can’t be alleviated)? Is there anyway to put her back together and if you could, well, see question one.

So I agree, on the face of it, Picard’s behaviour doesn’t look good. Or wouldn’t if we regard the Borg Queen as akin to a normal entity. But is she more in the Gary Mitchell class? Hmmm, I find it hard to say categorically yes to that.

 

[BillJ]

So I agree, on the face of it, Picard’s behaviour doesn’t look good. Or wouldn’t if we regard the Borg Queen as akin to a normal entity. But is she more in the Gary Mitchell class? Hmmm, I find it hard to say categorically yes to that.

But you seem willing to give Picard a pass based on extenuating circumstances. All I'm saying is that I agree with Jim Kirk executing a mass-murderer. There is no doubt that Nero is guilty of atrocities and he may have no longer been a threat to Jim Kirk and the Federation of 2258 but Jim Kirk slammed the door on him, ensuring that no chance existed that he could regroup at some other place and time.

This is one of the problems with the alternate reality non-sense. There's always more Vulcans in some other timeline, so people fixate more on the possible "human rights" violations of Kirk than the fact that the man he put an end to caused the deaths of BILLIONS and was perfectly willing to continue his reign of terror if given a chance.

I don't care if Jim Kirk got a giddy thrill executing Nero or if he got a boner while doing it. His actions at the end of Star Trek 2009 made the multi-verse a safer place.

 

[UFO]

So I agree, on the face of it, Picard’s behaviour doesn’t look good. Or wouldn’t if we regard the Borg Queen as akin to a normal entity. But is she more in the Gary Mitchell class? Hmmm, I find it hard to say categorically yes to that.

But you seem willing to give Picard a pass based on extenuating circumstances. All I'm saying is that I agree with Jim Kirk executing a mass-murderer. There is no doubt that Nero is guilty of atrocities and he may have no longer been a threat to Jim Kirk and the Federation of 2258 but Jim Kirk slammed the door on him, ensuring that no chance existed that he could regroup at some other place and time.

That of course is not the way it is presented. We go straight from a half hearted politically motivated "offer of help" to what looks more like a childishly petulant and vengeful response that appeared to have nothing to do with stopping Nero regrouping. Something Kirk explicitly didn't think possible and with normal black holes (that are inside your ship!) it wouldn't have been.

When a red matter black hole is created inside something we have ever reason to believe it would rip apart whatever it is inside as it grows in strength and send the bits somewhere else, if at all. Thats what happened to Vulcan anyway.

But despite Nero's ship looking as though it was almost completely shredded when it disappears. We never get conformation that he is dead. Indeed it looks like he is still moving about after the Enterprise seems to have stopped firing. You might argue Kirk's actions made it more likely the black hole would destroy him, but there is still doubt, if you want to believe there is.

But I am not giving Picard a pass. [Edit: Probable rationalisation deleted] If there was no reason to kill her at that time, then Picard should have taken her back to the authorities as well.

This is one of the problems with the alternate reality non-sense. There's always more Vulcans in some other timeline, so people fixate more on the possible "human rights" violations of Kirk than the fact that the man he put an end to caused the deaths of BILLIONS and was perfectly willing to continue his reign of terror if given a chance.

No, my view has nothing to do with the fact there are still an adequate supply of Vulcans in the next universe over. Nor does the number of Vulcans killed have any bearing. Continuing his reign of terror if given a chance does of course. But as mentioned that doesn't appear to be Kirks reasoning. Why all the mucking around. Just beam Nero's ass over and sort things out later. That way he would know for sure where Nero was. If thats not possible, say so, then justify whatever action you have to take. Don't make it look like Kirk's a sulking shool boy bent on revenge.

... His actions at the end of Star Trek 2009 made the multi-verse a safer place.

Not really, in my view. Not only is a society that doesn't encourage correct behaviour no better than the bad guys but, by example, it is likely to create greater numbers of bad guys in the future. You reap what you sow. Nero's mindset is that if someone does something bad to him, that gives him the right to just retaliate. Had he not been infested by that mindset, the Federation wouldn't have a problem in the first place. I suspect the Metrons thought we, as a species, would take another 1000+ years to realise that.

 

[horatio83]

It might be useful to distinguish actions and motivations:

This scene isn't the most horrific one of the movie because of what happens, it is prudent to blow the Narada to smithereens. It is so horrific because when Kirk offers help he plays captain, restricted by Starfleet rules, whereas after Spock disagrees with him he shows his true self that tremendously enjoys to "fire everything we got".
About Spock, it is a travesty that a movie which emulates TWOK (after NEM already did the same) ends up implying that giving in to your desire of revenge is good. By the way, TUC repeats this point of TWOK via showing Kirk's progression from a man who lost his son and yearns for revenge to a forger of peace.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't think the STXI Kirk and Spock bashers are quite comprehending the scale of Nero's crime. He virtually wiped out the Vulcans. Six billion murders. TOS only dealt with death on that scale from mindless or uncomprehending machines ("The Doomsday Machine", V'Ger)

 

[horatio83]

Calling V'Ger a mindless machine is pretty mindless.
Seriously, your argument is pretty ugly. You basically claim that the enemy's nastiness excuses your own nastiness. Nero wants revenge so Spock can yearn for revenge too.
This is not something I associate with Trek.

Please mind that I am not saying that Nero should not be killed. On the contrary, he should be killed but as implementation and not as trangression of rules.
This transgressive element, Kirk enjoying to blow up Nero and Spock enjoying to follow his father's advice to not suppress his desire for revenge, is the problem of the scene.
In comparison Spock is utterly ethical when he says "kill Mitchell while you still can" and "Edith Keeler must die". He urges Kirk to kill a person Kirk loves because it is necessary and not because he enjoys to see someone die.

 

[sonak]

Calling V'Ger a mindless machine is pretty mindless.
Seriously, your argument is pretty ugly. You basically claim that the enemy's nastiness excuses your own nastiness. Nero wants revenge so Spock can yearn for revenge too.
This is not something I associate with Trek.

Please mind that I am not saying that Nero should not be killed. On the contrary, he should be killed but as implementation and not as trangression of rules.
This transgressive element, Kirk enjoying to blow up Nero and Spock enjoying to follow his father's advice to not suppress his desire for revenge, is the problem of the scene.
In comparison Spock is utterly ethical when he says "kill Mitchell while you still can" and "Edith Keeler must die". He urges Kirk to kill a person Kirk loves because it is necessary and not because he enjoys to see someone die.

Kirk offered him the chance to surrender and then destroyed the ship to prevent any chance of it becoming a threat. He acted properly. You are really stuck on this for some reason.

 

[BillJ]

I'm sorry. But from an ethical and military stand point, Kirk made the right decision.

To allow Nero to fall through the black hole, even in a shredded ship, means there exists a chance that he escapes justice. Like the Nazis who escaped to third world nations and lived out their lives in relative comfort.

Did you see some of the craft in his landing bay? There's a chance that in another time and place that one of those crafts would be every bit as formidable as the Narada seemed to Starfleet.

 

[BillJ]

I don't think the STXI Kirk and Spock bashers are quite comprehending the scale of Nero's crime. He virtually wiped out the Vulcans. Six billion murders. TOS only dealt with death on that scale from mindless or uncomprehending machines ("The Doomsday Machine", V'Ger)

Let's not forget that these weren't military casualties. These were civilian men, women and children that Nero coldly executed.

 

[horatio83]

Calling V'Ger a mindless machine is pretty mindless.
Seriously, your argument is pretty ugly. You basically claim that the enemy's nastiness excuses your own nastiness. Nero wants revenge so Spock can yearn for revenge too.
This is not something I associate with Trek.

Please mind that I am not saying that Nero should not be killed. On the contrary, he should be killed but as implementation and not as trangression of rules.
This transgressive element, Kirk enjoying to blow up Nero and Spock enjoying to follow his father's advice to not suppress his desire for revenge, is the problem of the scene.
In comparison Spock is utterly ethical when he says "kill Mitchell while you still can" and "Edith Keeler must die". He urges Kirk to kill a person Kirk loves because it is necessary and not because he enjoys to see someone die.

Kirk offered him the chance to surrender and then destroyed the ship to prevent any chance of it becoming a threat. He acted properly. You are really stuck on this for some reason.

Why did I know that even if I repeat that I do not object to Kirk's and Spock's actions but to their motivations someone will not get it?

 

[sonak]

Calling V'Ger a mindless machine is pretty mindless.
Seriously, your argument is pretty ugly. You basically claim that the enemy's nastiness excuses your own nastiness. Nero wants revenge so Spock can yearn for revenge too.
This is not something I associate with Trek.

Please mind that I am not saying that Nero should not be killed. On the contrary, he should be killed but as implementation and not as trangression of rules.
This transgressive element, Kirk enjoying to blow up Nero and Spock enjoying to follow his father's advice to not suppress his desire for revenge, is the problem of the scene.
In comparison Spock is utterly ethical when he says "kill Mitchell while you still can" and "Edith Keeler must die". He urges Kirk to kill a person Kirk loves because it is necessary and not because he enjoys to see someone die.

Kirk offered him the chance to surrender and then destroyed the ship to prevent any chance of it becoming a threat. He acted properly. You are really stuck on this for some reason.

Why did I know that even if I repeat that I do not object to Kirk's and Spock's actions but to their motivations someone will not get it?

Spock may have been motivated by anger, but if so it was justified, and Kirk didn't seem to be motivated by revenge or anger, or he wouldn't have so reasonably offered Nero the chance to surrender.


And even if BOTH were out for revenge, they would've still acted properly.

 

[horatio83]

To repeat myself for the fourth time, yes, they ACTED properly. This is not the issue.

How can you watch the scene and not notice how Kirk enjoys to break out of the role of the principled Federation captain, how can you not notice how he enjoys to be able to be his real primitive self once his superego embodied in Spock tells him that he doesn't have to play by the book anymore?

We don't talk about "justified anger", we talk about the enjoyment of ethical transgression. If you ever read a decent book about Stalinism or Nazism you should be aware that this transgressive, carnivalesque element (Stalinist show trials; Hitler telling the German between the lines that they can invade the East, rape, murder, pillage and have a good time) is not something trivial but CAN lead to the worst ethical nightmares.

 

[Sci]

To repeat myself for the fourth time, yes, they ACTED properly. This is not the issue.

How can you watch the scene and not notice how Kirk enjoys to break out of the role of the principled Federation captain, how can you not notice how he enjoys to be able to be his real primitive self once his superego embodied in Spock tells him that he doesn't have to play by the book anymore?

Tell me, do you also condemn the people who celebrated the death of Osama bin Ladin earlier this year for daring to be happy that a mass murderer would not be able to hurt anyone anymore?