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

[Sci]

I frankly admit that I come too much from a TNG angle. Everything that's great about Star Trek to me is the original stuff you don't encounter in other science-fiction. Adventure, fist-fights and holodecks are generic, Prime Directive and an utopian future with a military-exploratory agency are Trek-specific.

Almost everything that's great about STAR TREK is something that literary and pulp science fiction did first. And that's to say nothing of the influence of films like FORBIDDEN PLANET and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL on both TOS and TNG. STAR TREK's pseudo-utopian pretensions are not unique.

 

[horatio83]

None of these movies features the two ingredients I mentioned. If you know any sci-fi which features them I am all ears.

About pseudo-utopia, there are two simple economic arguments which show that Trek's future might be feasible. On the supply side basic goods like food and clothing can be produced virtually costlessly, on the demand side a lack of interest in luxury goods is necessary. This is not probable but not impossible either.
A united Earth is not merely a feasibility but a necessity if we wanna reach the next century.

 

[Greg Cox]

I frankly admit that I come too much from a TNG angle. Everything that's great about Star Trek to me is the original stuff you don't encounter in other science-fiction. Adventure, fist-fights and holodecks are generic, Prime Directive and an utopian future with a military-exploratory agency are Trek-specific.

You know, at the risk of going out on a limb, I've always had the sneaky suspicion that a good percentage of the people who have issues with the new movie probably grew up on TNG, not TOS. Which is why, as an old-school Trekkie, I tend to roll my eyes when people keep condemning the new movie for not being as cerebral, sophisticated, and high-minded as . . . TOS?

Don't get me wrong. A good part of Star Trek's appeal is its fundamental optimism, but it's also supposed to be a fun, exciting, swashbuckling space adventure, with vivid, colorful characters. Who don't always behave like proper Starfleet officers.

And, to be honest, I'm not sure that Star Trek was ever meant to be a testament to the fundamental importance of "social discipline." I suspect that Dr. McCoy would snort heartily at that notion:

"You seem to be deriving pleasure from transgressive behavior, doctor."

"Damn right I am, you cold-blooded, pointy-eared computer!"

 

[horatio83]

I don't think you are going out on a limb, if there are any groups of fans who tend to dislike the movie it seem to be second generation fans and dogmatic old-schoolers.

I don't think that Trek is supposed to be anything and if it is something it is sometimes hopefully ambivalent enough to be read differently.

Trek can be as you described it, it can be as I described it and it can also be a weird synthesis of both. Take ENT, it has has the easy-going elements of TOS and the Picardesque sternness of TNG.
So yeah, I'd say that DS9 or ENT don't fit into this brainy TNG vs. swashbuckling TOS category.

 

[Jeyl]

If, after 110 posts, you don't understand why the Narada needed to be destroyed you never will.

Oh, did they say something in the movie itself that explained that? Because if the Narada needed to be destroyed, why would Kirk even bother offering assistance?

 

[Greg Cox]

About pseudo-utopia, there are two simple economic arguments which show that Trek's future might be feasible. On the supply side basic goods like food and clothing can be produced virtually costlessly, on the demand side a lack of interest in luxury goods is necessary. This is not probable but not impossible either.
A united Earth is not merely a feasibility but a necessity if we wanna reach the next century.

Maybe, but, again, I don't believe that the primary function of Star Trek movies is to promote a utopian social agenda for the good of the real world. We're talking art and entertainment here, not public policy.

From my point of view, the new movie succeeded in capturing the rambunctious, adventurous spirit of the original series, and Kirk and Spock seemed to be the characters I watched as a kid, allowing for slightly different circumstances. (I love the idea of Spock and Uhura as a couple.)

Fun discussion, btw, but now I'm going to go downstairs and watch Glee--and I'm not going to worry too much about whether the characters are behaving in a socially responsible matter!

 

[BillJ]

If, after 110 posts, you don't understand why the Narada needed to be destroyed you never will.

Oh, did they say something in the movie itself that explained that? Because if the Narada needed to be destroyed, why would Kirk even bother offering assistance?

Common sense is your friend...

 

[sonak]

I frankly admit that I come too much from a TNG angle. Everything that's great about Star Trek to me is the original stuff you don't encounter in other science-fiction. Adventure, fist-fights and holodecks are generic, Prime Directive and an utopian future with a military-exploratory agency are Trek-specific.

You know, at the risk of going out on a limb, I've always had the sneaky suspicion that a good percentage of the people who have issues with the new movie probably grew up on TNG, not TOS. Which is why, as an old-school Trekkie, I tend to roll my eyes when people keep condemning the new movie for not being as cerebral, sophisticated, and high-minded as . . . TOS?

Don't get me wrong. A good part of Star Trek's appeal is its fundamental optimism, but it's also supposed to be a fun, exciting, swashbuckling space adventure, with vivid, colorful characters. Who don't always behave like proper Starfleet officers.

And, to be honest, I'm not sure that Star Trek was ever meant to be a testament to the fundamental importance of "social discipline." I suspect that Dr. McCoy would snort heartily at that notion:

"You seem to be deriving pleasure from transgressive behavior, doctor."

"Damn right I am, you cold-blooded, pointy-eared computer!"

well, to be fair, this was heard somewhat after TWOK, too, by a small but vocal minority no? That the "cerebral, deep, poetic" TMP had been followed by the dumbed-down popcorn action movie.


Trek has always been BOTH, alongside each other.

 

[Gojira]

If, after 110 posts, you don't understand why the Narada needed to be destroyed you never will.

Oh, did they say something in the movie itself that explained that? Because if the Narada needed to be destroyed, why would Kirk even bother offering assistance?

It only needed to be destroyed after Nero refused assistance.

 

[Greg Cox]

well, to be fair, this was heard somewhat after TWOK, too, by a small but vocal minority no? That the "cerebral, deep, poetic" TMP had been followed by the dumbed-down popcorn action movie.


Trek has always been BOTH, alongside each other.

Agreed. Which some people seem to forget when condemning the new movie. It's not like TOS didn't have a healthy streak of space opera in it from day one. And wasn't meant to be full of action and excitement as well as smart science fiction concepts.

(But notice which movie I wrote three prequels to! Hint: it wasn't TMP!)

 

[horatio83]

Maybe, but, again, I don't believe that the primary function of Star Trek movies is to promote a utopian social agenda for the good of the real world. We're talking art and entertainment here, not public policy.

From my point of view, the new movie succeeded in capturing the rambunctious, adventurous spirit of the original series, and Kirk and Spock seemed to be the characters I watched as a kid, allowing for slightly different circumstances. (I love the idea of Spock and Uhura as a couple.)

Fun discussion, btw, but now I'm going to go downstairs and watch Glee--and I'm not going to worry too much about whether the characters are behaving in a socially responsible matter!

Hard science-fiction might be only about technology but soft science-fiction also paints a different social background. Trek has always kept its utopian elements in the background as it should be, it is neither meant to be immediately visible nor meant to be the main topic of the franchise.
But many people, including myself, enjoy that Trek plays in a great future. After a bad day there is nothing like watching a bit of Trek. You talk about catharsis, there you have it.
I fail to see why there should be a conflict between this aspect of Trek and the adventure element. Take FC, it effortlessly combines horror and action with the "a bright future is ahead of us" thing. Take TWOK, it is a great adventure movie with interesting themes. ST09 only features action, there is no theme in it unless you consider a mediocre coming-of-age story to be something that holds your interest.

May I ask you whether you also dislike dystopian science-fiction like Blade Runner, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World and so on because it features a different social background or do you only dislike utopian sci-fi like Trek because it appears to be preachy and promoting an agenda?

Oh, did they say something in the movie itself that explained that? Because if the Narada needed to be destroyed, why would Kirk even bother offering assistance?

If the movie had featured just one line like "We have to guarantee that the Narada does not again survive a singularity." Kirk might not have appeared like a shooting-crazy captain who endangers his own ship while kicking a man who is already down.
Not that I am a fan of putting everything in words but in this scene it was necessary in my opinion.

 

[Jeyl]

Common sense is your friend...

Since the Narada had lost it's shields, was losing power, is being torn apart by the black hole which Kirk confirms by stating that his ship is compromised, common sense tells me that the black hole is already killing Nero and there is no need to shoot at it. No one said that the Narada might cause more damage IF it traveled through the black hole.

Also, since the black hole had altready split the Narada into two parts (both sides of the black hole have the Narada rotating in the opposite direction), I'd say the crew already destroyed the Narada when Spock rammed his ship into it.

Bonus Round. The filmmakers even clarify that the black hole itself was going to destroy the Narada on the commentary track for the film.

 

[BillJ]

Common sense is your friend...

Since the Narada had lost it's shields, was losing power, is being torn apart by the black hole which Kirk confirms by stating that his ship is compromised, common sense tells me that the black hole is already killing Nero and there is no need to shoot at it. No one said that the Narada might cause more damage IF it traveled through the black hole.

Also, since the black hole had altready split the Narada into two parts (both sides of the black hole have the Narada rotating in the opposite direction), I'd say the crew already destroyed the Narada when Spock rammed his ship into it.

Bonus Round. The filmmakers even clarify that the black hole itself was going to destroy the Narada on the commentary track for the film.

And you leave out all the auxiliary craft that he has in his landing bay including a Romulan Bird of Prey.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

..Kirk might not have appeared like a shooting-crazy captain who endangers his own ship while kicking a man who is already down.

He didn't appear that way, so it's all cool.

 

[Jeyl]

..Kirk might not have appeared like a shooting-crazy captain who endangers his own ship while kicking a man who is already down.

He didn't appear that way, so it's all cool.

He did berate Spock in front of the whole crew and assaulted two security guards. Who knows what Kirk would have done if Spock didn't neck pinch him and Kirk managed to grab a phaser from the security guard. All this and Kirk didn't really have any plan of attack. Remember, this was before they had the transwarp equation, and Kirk was shouting at the top of his lungs with words like "HUNTING NERO DOWN!". And this story is trying to paint Spock as the emotionally compromised one.

 

[BillJ]

..Kirk might not have appeared like a shooting-crazy captain who endangers his own ship while kicking a man who is already down.

He didn't appear that way, so it's all cool.

He did berate Spock in front of the whole crew and assaulted two security guards. Who knows what Kirk would have done if Spock didn't neck pinch him and Kirk managed to grab a phaser from the security guard. All this and Kirk didn't really have any plan of attack. Remember, this was before they had the transwarp equation, and Kirk was shouting at the top of his lungs with words like "HUNTING NERO DOWN!". And this story is trying to paint Spock as the emotionally compromised one.

KHANNNNNNNN!!!

 

[Jeyl]

KHANNNNNNNN!!!

Which was an act on Kirk's part.

 

[BillJ]

KHANNNNNNNN!!!

Which was an act on Kirk's part.

I'm sure allowing Khan to beam up the Genesis Device was a ploy on Kirk's part...

Roll up your pant legs, the revisionism is getting pretty deep in here.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

KHANNNNNNNN!!!

Which was an act on Kirk's part.

Or in other words, a CONNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!

Since the Narada had lost it's shields, was losing power, is being torn apart by the black hole which Kirk confirms by stating that his ship is compromised, common sense tells me that the black hole is already killing Nero and there is no need to shoot at it. No one said that the Narada might cause more damage IF it traveled through the black hole.

But there was still a risk, even if vanishingly small. Kirk could not afford to take that risk. The Narada MIGHT have gotten away - there was no way to be sure it wouldn't, except for destroying it.

 

[Sci]

Common sense is your friend...

Since the Narada had lost it's shields, was losing power, is being torn apart by the black hole which Kirk confirms by stating that his ship is compromised, common sense tells me that the black hole is already killing Nero and there is no need to shoot at it. No one said that the Narada might cause more damage IF it traveled through the black hole.

Why does that have to be explicitly stated? Can't you just infer the obvious from having seen the movie? I mean, do you want people to explicitly establish that space is a vacuum, too?