• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Not rescuing Nero: thumbs up or down?

Think someone missed the bit when he was offered the chance to survive and Nero said No. Spock has the right to be pissed he's half human and Kirk hates Nero almost as much.

I would of let him die they were right too.

True, the offer was made. And, since Nero turned it down, I'll concede that the offer might have been enough, especially given how dangerous a rescue attempt could've been.

But as I posted above, rather than get out of there at that point, Kirk and Spock decide to stay and open fire on the doomed ship (staying long enough that the Enterprise itself is endangered). Nero was no threat to anyone at that point. What does this say about Kirk and Spock?
 
Young Spock had not yet attained kolinahr. The kolinahr is said to purge all remaining emotions.

That's an excuse.

Basically, Spock's a lippy kid who talks a good game about rationality and the virtues of dispassion, but that's evidently to please his dad and to lord it over the humans. Put some pressure on him and he's not as good as his word.

It doesn't destroy the character, but it undercuts him as someone to be taken seriously. Kirk, OTOH, is what he claims to be.

No, it's not an excuse. His planet was just destroyed by Nero and he was "emotionally compromised" as evidenced by him trying to kick the shit out of Kirk on the bridge. I don't think it's out of character for him to not want Kirk to save him. I think this is more believable than for him to argue with Kirk that he must be saved.
 
I think this is more believable than for him to argue with Kirk that he must be saved.

The character would have grown in stature if he had, and delineated and defined himself as distinct from Kirk. What we got is just a gratuitous "fuck yeah!" moment - it's okay, but not interesting or impressive in any way; it's a throwaway. One of the few things I didn't really enjoy about the movie.
 
Would this question be asked if Kirk had not even offered to save Nero? If, when the black hole formed around the Narada, Kirk had issued orders to fire at the Narada until it was destroyed, wouldn't it just be finishing off an enemy clearly bent on destroying you?

Kirk did not ask Chang to surrender. Riker did not ask the Duras sisters to surrender. On the battlefield, you fight until the threat is ended.
 
Would this question be asked if Kirk had not even offered to save Nero? If, when the black hole formed around the Narada, Kirk had issued orders to fire at the Narada until it was destroyed, wouldn't it just be finishing off an enemy clearly bent on destroying you?

No, because then the question of Spock's behavior wouldn't arise.
 
Nero kills 6 billion people by destroying Vulcan. Kills Spock's mom. Killed Kirk's dad. Orphans Kirk. Tried to destroy Earth. Was responsible for the death of more than a few Star Fleet officers along the way.

At this point:

Kirk offers Nero assistance. Nero spits back in his face he would rather die a thousand agonizing deaths than accept help. Kirk obliges.

I'm good with that.

I think it was cool that Kirk offered to help at all, because I probably wouldn't have, were I in his place. And really, did Nero cause the impression that he wanted to be rescued? He wasn't playing difficult to get- he would probably have killed himself if Kirk actually had beamed him over.

As for Spock, I think that if he were given a few days' peace to calm down, then he probably would have decided that rescuing Nero was the logical thing to do. But he'd lost everything, like, hours before the event. He said so himself: he was emotionally compromised...severely compromised.

So...I'm cool with that.
 
As for Spock, I think that if he were given a few days' peace to calm down, then he probably would have decided that rescuing Nero was the logical thing to do. But he'd lost everything, like, hours before the event. He said so himself: he was emotionally compromised...severely compromised.

Sure. They just blew an opportunity to be interesting and to build up the character.
 
Since this was a movie and not real life, and because I could care-a-less about IDIC and mushy Roddenberry mumbo-jumbo..I am glad the scene played out as it did...and so was the audience I was with because they cheered...and that is what is most important...

Star Trek plots with BALLS are the best (Khan--FC) Star Trek movie with pussy-ass stuff suck. And I'll let you decide which ones those are since there are a whole bunch of them

Rob

:techman::techman::techman: :guffaw::guffaw::guffaw: :techman::techman::techman:

pwn3d.gif
ohyeah.gif
rock.gif


Post. of the FUCKING. Year. :lol:

I'm totally adding you to my Friends List because of that one. I might even have to Sig-it (with your permission)... :bolian:
 
The character would have grown in stature if he had, and delineated and defined himself as distinct from Kirk. What we got is just a gratuitous "fuck yeah!" moment - it's okay, but not interesting or impressive in any way; it's a throwaway. One of the few things I didn't really enjoy about the movie.

That's a valid as any way to look at it. But I see it differently: scenes like that set this Spock apart from the Spock I've known. I personally look forward to seeing what choices he makes, how he deals with having "feet in two worlds", and what kind of person he ultimately ends up being. Character growth interests me, the finished product not so much.
 
I thought it was great that Kirk offered. I thought it showed what kind of man he was or is going to be. This guy killed his dad and he still had the compassion to offer to save Nero's life. However, I guess I would have liked for the Naranda to have been destroyed on its own instead of the Enterprise firing on it. If written that way, then the moral question is moot.
 
Would this question be asked if Kirk had not even offered to save Nero? If, when the black hole formed around the Narada, Kirk had issued orders to fire at the Narada until it was destroyed, wouldn't it just be finishing off an enemy clearly bent on destroying you?

Kirk did not ask Chang to surrender. Riker did not ask the Duras sisters to surrender. On the battlefield, you fight until the threat is ended.

But the problem here is that the threat had ended, the Narada was being sucked into a black hole. Yes, saving him would leave open the question of what to do with Nero and his crew but, to me, it just seemed a bit too cavalier to say "okey-doke then, let's blow him up"
 
As an aside, someone commented on the Star Trekkin' video by The Firm on Youtube that Kirk's line in the song was reminiscent of his actions that are the subject of this thread:

"We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, we come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, men..."
 
It was good for the Kirk character to offer the help, since it shows what kind of man he will be in the future (if you consider he was serious about it). But, the reaction of Spock was totally lame. Its a missed opportunity to show Spock get a hold of himself and act as a real Vulcan for once in this movie (acting out of anger is not logical). It would have been an opportunity for character growth. He already lost his captaincy because of his emotion. Maybe he should get a clue.
 
I think this is more believable than for him to argue with Kirk that he must be saved.

The character would have grown in stature if he had, and delineated and defined himself as distinct from Kirk. What we got is just a gratuitous "fuck yeah!" moment - it's okay, but not interesting or impressive in any way; it's a throwaway. One of the few things I didn't really enjoy about the movie.

Maybe a moment was lost. I'm wondering how the scene would've worked if it had been done the other way around. What if Spock had offered Nero rescue? Kirk looks at him like WTF. Then, what if Kirk had uttered Spock's line?
For Spock, it would've been the logical thing to do, not the emotional one given his story arc. It was probably regulations to offer rescue. It was logical. It would've shown he has decided to act like a Vulcan. It even would've even been (neatly) diplomatic for him to mention relations with the Romulans. It also would've allowed us to wonder what he was really thinking. Is this what he'd really want to do? What's going on with him?
Kirk, on the other hand, could've gotten by with the "not in this case," remark because things could be read into the line, too. Either he believes it's how Spock really feels, but Spock won't do it, so he does. Or, he really means it. It lends much the same ambiguity to the line as Kirk's "let them die" line in TUC.

See, that's why I believe it was a plot hole, at least for Spock within the movie. He broke character. Spock is not sinister and vengeful. After all, this is the same Spock who didn't want to go after Nero in the first place just after Vulcan was destroyed.
With Kirk, my feelings may be based less of a plot hole within the movie, and more me projecting what we fans know about Kirk onto this one (who is, after all, the same Kirk). That's another reason why maybe Kirk should've been the one saying, "In this case, no."
 
Heres a nother question that Black Hole near the edge of our Sol System, does it burn itself out since its man made or is that a big hazard for a while :lol: though I guess the tech might exsist to close it.

We're not told how far Spock warped away from Earth in the Jellyfish. One could surmise that he jumped far enough away that when the JF went kablooey, the resulting black hole would not pose a threat to Earth.
 
I would have preferred if Nero was either rescued or if his ship was simply sucked into the black hole with nothing that the Enterprise crew could do about it.

The act of 'finishing him off' didn't really work for me.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top