Not rescuing Nero: thumbs up or down?

[QuasarVM]

Those people are confusing enforcement with equalization and would be incorrect. Just because I shoot badguys does not mean that I have equalized anything, I have merely removed someone from the environment with the previous injustice very much still open and festering.

Yeah...the injustice of mass murder committed against Vulcan. They'll never get to heal that one, eh?

I would say the healing after the Holocaust and Nazi war crimes was due in part to the respectful and excellent conduct of the Western allies after the war. If humanity was robbed of a trial and proof not only of the wrong they did but equalization as well, we would all be worse off in the end. We have rule of law, formal trials, and ethical systems for a reason, you know, it's not just philosophical fluff.

So because we're the "good guys" we have to sacrifice ourselves on the altar of "rule of law"? Rule of law is stopping evil as well. That doesn't mean setting yourself up for further attack as Nero clearly showed he had ZERO regret for his actions and had ZERO intent of surrendering. Kirk and Spock gave the cretin what he deserved vis a vis a volley of high powered photon torpedoes and fully charged phasers -- and dished out justice admirably. I can tell you Nero won't be coming back for a second shot at the Federation...

Unfortunately, and sadly...this sweet dish of revenge served cold...VERY cold...in space...wouldn't bring back the poor mass murdered Vulcans!

 

[Silversmok3]

You are conveniently ignoring the repeated conclusion, backed up by the screenwriters, that the Narada could have slipped away into the ringwarp, and threatened another time period. Ignoring your opponents argument does not constitute a win.

B.S. to what Orci and Kurtzman say off-screen. It's the same logic as needing to read the comic in order to better understand what's happening. Hey, Orci, Kurtzma, write a better story. If that possibility existed, then have Chekov notice Nero is trying to slip the Narada into a ringwarp and get away through time. PUT IT ON SCREEN. HAVE SOMEONE SAY IT. Takes 30 seconds. Have Kirk and Spock realize rescue is now ridiculous, and open up on the escaping Narada, destroying it just before it enters the warp.

Further, Orci and Kurtzman had to think of the characters's motivations in that scene. What prompts Kirk to offer rescue? Was it sincere? Why would Spock believe it's not necessary in this case? Is Spock really seeking revenge? Does he really want to kill Nero? To what end?

Excellent point. If they just received a panic notice from Chekhov about this and THEN they blew it up, maybe with a small pause afterwards and maybe Spock looking as if it's not what he really wanted it would have been PERFECT and also PERFECT Trek.

Incorrect.That's exactly what was wrong with old-Trek:it was structured so that the old characters had an 'out' to save their ethics.

Real life don't work like that.


The days of fantasyland villains who turn around 180 at the end of the episode or movie are deader than disco,and its about time Star Trek placed the characters in situations where the phasers had to come out for the greater good.The modern viewer doesn't want a fake cop out or fairy tale ending-they want an honest ending,one where the character has to ask themselves whether they did the right thing.And seriously,are you gonna just fly away from Nero daring you to blow him away?He literally asked for it,and I would have obliged-and done so without asking if he needed a lift.

 

[QuasarVM]

No, just let the ship sink. Very simple.

Yeah, let the enemy ship from the future armed with uber-weapons, capable of surviving a temporally-linked blackhole and crewed by fanatical, genocidal nutjobs sink ... through the black hole time portal into someone else's backyard. Let some other jerk deal with it. Not your timeline, right? Who cares?

Mealy-mouthed cowardice is not moral fortitude. Passing the buck is not moral fortitude. Suicidal niceness is not moral fortitude.

Throw out all the philosophical big names you want. Justice is irrelevent. Revenge - irrelevent. All that matters is lives. Dead people don't get to moralize and wring their hands about might have beens. The Narada was a direct threat to both the Enterprise and another whole reality. Kirk had the upper hand and offered Nero the chance to surrender. He declined. The battle was resumed until the threat was ended.

Kirk is a Starfleet captain, his duty is to protect his crew, the Federation and any potential innocents in harms way. That's it. He didn't swear to ensure he would sleep soundly at night, though I have no doubt whatever bad dreams he may have won't be over ordering the Narada's coup de grâce.

In the real-world Navy, if you offer to accept the surrender of an enemy vessel which is sinking and are refused, you don't wait for it to sink - you sink it. War isn't a game or debate in an ivory tower.

Except Star Trek isn't military fiction, if it was I'd be holding it to this standard.

To that I say -- PISH!!!

Starfleet is a para-military organization. Proof of that are those nice little phaser turrets and awesome pinpoint photon torpedoes.

Sure, they'd prefer to NOT have to use them, but they are there to back up policy and deal death blows to the Borg, Neros and Shinzon's Clones of the universe when necessary.

One should never rule out the use of force in dealing with tyrants -- both fictional and non-fictional.

I am glad Kirk is back. Like me, he'd give almost anyone a chance...but when you try to pull him off a cliff with your bare hands, he'll kick ya in the face and tell you "I...have had...enough of YOUUUUU!!!".

And for that, I applaud him. James T Kirk is...THE...MAN!!!

He's not a pansy like Picard. Get used to it.

 

[Feofilakt]

Yeah...the injustice of mass murder committed against Vulcan. They'll never get to heal that one, eh?

I would say the healing after the Holocaust and Nazi war crimes was due in part to the respectful and excellent conduct of the Western allies after the war. If humanity was robbed of a trial and proof not only of the wrong they did but equalization as well, we would all be worse off in the end. We have rule of law, formal trials, and ethical systems for a reason, you know, it's not just philosophical fluff.

So because we're the "good guys" we have to sacrifice ourselves on the altar of "rule of law"? Rule of law is stopping evil as well. That doesn't mean setting yourself up for further attack as Nero clearly showed he had ZERO regret for his actions and had ZERO intent of surrendering. Kirk and Spock gave the cretin what he deserved vis a vis a volley of high powered photon torpedoes and fully charged phasers -- and dished out justice admirably. I can tell you Nero won't be coming back for a second shot at the Federation...

Who said anything about sacrifice? Nero wasn't a threat in his condition and was likely to be crushed anyway. If the poor writing of the movie didn't convey the danger effectively enough or at all of his escaping than that is the writer's fault and it merely shows how important writing is so everything meshes together and makes sense.

If they (the writers) wanted to kill Nero so badly they should have made him an imminent threat or shown that he was about to escape.

Going by the information IN THE MOVIE, this was not the case, sorry. We can only go by the information we have and the information that was conveyed to us in the movie did not make Kirk or Spock look good at all and was not in keeping with the Federation.

Also, that wasn't justice. Necessity at the best, moral gratification at the worst, but it wasn't justice.

 

[Feofilakt]

Yeah, let the enemy ship from the future armed with uber-weapons, capable of surviving a temporally-linked blackhole and crewed by fanatical, genocidal nutjobs sink ... through the black hole time portal into someone else's backyard. Let some other jerk deal with it. Not your timeline, right? Who cares?

Mealy-mouthed cowardice is not moral fortitude. Passing the buck is not moral fortitude. Suicidal niceness is not moral fortitude.

Throw out all the philosophical big names you want. Justice is irrelevent. Revenge - irrelevent. All that matters is lives. Dead people don't get to moralize and wring their hands about might have beens. The Narada was a direct threat to both the Enterprise and another whole reality. Kirk had the upper hand and offered Nero the chance to surrender. He declined. The battle was resumed until the threat was ended.

Kirk is a Starfleet captain, his duty is to protect his crew, the Federation and any potential innocents in harms way. That's it. He didn't swear to ensure he would sleep soundly at night, though I have no doubt whatever bad dreams he may have won't be over ordering the Narada's coup de grâce.

In the real-world Navy, if you offer to accept the surrender of an enemy vessel which is sinking and are refused, you don't wait for it to sink - you sink it. War isn't a game or debate in an ivory tower.

Except Star Trek isn't military fiction, if it was I'd be holding it to this standard.

To that I say -- PISH!!!

Starfleet is a para-military organization. Proof of that are those nice little phaser turrets and awesome pinpoint photon torpedoes.

Sure, they'd prefer to NOT have to use them, but they are there to back up policy and deal death blows to the Borg, Neros and Picard Clones of the universe when necessary.

One should never rule out the use of force in dealing with tyrants -- both fictional and non-fictional.

I am glad Kirk is back. Like me, he'd give almost anyone a chance...but when you try to pull him off a cliff with your bare hands, he'll kick ya in the face and tell you "I...have had...enough of YOUUUUU!!!".

And for that, I applaud him. James T Kirk is...THE...MAN!!!

He's not a pansy like Picard. Get used to it.

Star Trek is not military fiction, I'm sorry. There are many examples of military sci-fi, ranging from Armor (one of my favorites) to the Forever War and even to the Honorverse. Star Trek is not military fiction because it's themes and settings are not overtly militaristic and dominated by the theme of warfare. Just because you HAVE a military organization in your sci-fi series does not make it military fiction, otherwise most sci-fi would qualify as such and render the category worthless.

And force is fine with tyrants, it just has to be measured and a free society must make sure they do not become like the tyrannical society.

Also, Picard is better than Kirk any day.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

B.S. to what Orci and Kurtzman say off-screen. It's the same logic as needing to read the comic in order to better understand what's happening. Hey, Orci, Kurtzma, write a better story. If that possibility existed, then have Chekov notice Nero is trying to slip the Narada into a ringwarp and get away through time. PUT IT ON SCREEN. HAVE SOMEONE SAY IT. Takes 30 seconds. Have Kirk and Spock realize rescue is now ridiculous, and open up on the escaping Narada, destroying it just before it enters the warp.

Further, Orci and Kurtzman had to think of the characters's motivations in that scene. What prompts Kirk to offer rescue? Was it sincere? Why would Spock believe it's not necessary in this case? Is Spock really seeking revenge? Does he really want to kill Nero? To what end?

Excellent point. If they just received a panic notice from Chekhov about this and THEN they blew it up, maybe with a small pause afterwards and maybe Spock looking as if it's not what he really wanted it would have been PERFECT and also PERFECT Trek.

Incorrect.That's exactly what was wrong with old-Trek:it was structured so that the old characters had an 'out' to save their ethics.

Real life don't work like that.


The days of fantasyland villains who turn around 180 at the end of the episode or movie are deader than disco,and its about time Star Trek placed the characters in situations where the phasers had to come out for the greater good.The modern viewer doesn't want a fake cop out or fairy tale ending-they want an honest ending,one where the character has to ask themselves whether they did the right thing.And seriously,are you gonna just fly away from Nero daring you to blow him away?He literally asked for it,and I would have obliged-and done so without asking if he needed a lift.

Most people in a war situation don't have an "out to save their ethics." They don't conveniently see that the guy was going to get away, they have to make a decision NOW and live with the moral ambiguity of it, an ambiguity that will often never be answered because the guy they offed is dead.

I like this new Trek. I would like to see future conflicts with enemies with moral ambiguity and with action having to proceed without all the data in yet.

 

[Silversmok3]

I would say the healing after the Holocaust and Nazi war crimes was due in part to the respectful and excellent conduct of the Western allies after the war. If humanity was robbed of a trial and proof not only of the wrong they did but equalization as well, we would all be worse off in the end. We have rule of law, formal trials, and ethical systems for a reason, you know, it's not just philosophical fluff.

So because we're the "good guys" we have to sacrifice ourselves on the altar of "rule of law"? Rule of law is stopping evil as well. That doesn't mean setting yourself up for further attack as Nero clearly showed he had ZERO regret for his actions and had ZERO intent of surrendering. Kirk and Spock gave the cretin what he deserved vis a vis a volley of high powered photon torpedoes and fully charged phasers -- and dished out justice admirably. I can tell you Nero won't be coming back for a second shot at the Federation...

Who said anything about sacrifice? Nero wasn't a threat in his condition and was likely to be crushed anyway. If the poor writing of the money didn't convey the danger effectively enough or at all of his escaping than that is the writer's fault and it merely shows how important writing is so everything meshes together and makes sense.

If they (the writers) wanted to kill Nero so badly they should have made him an imminent threat or shown that he was about to escape.

Going by the information IN THE MOVIE, this was not the case, sorry. We can only go by the information we have and the information that was conveyed to us in the movie did not make Kirk or Spock look good at all and was not in keeping with the Federation.

Also, that wasn't justice. Necessity at the best, moral gratification at the worst, but it wasn't justice.

I'm glad to know you're not in charge of any miltary or law enforcement department.What would you have done?Let a proven psychopath go about the stars killing who he wants with impunity?Where's the justice in another culture being wiped out by Nero because you decided it wasn't in keeping with the Federation in blowing his genocidal arse away.That logic doesn't fly.Pike said it himself-a peacekeeping armada has to deal with keeping the peace,and that requires pulling out the guns occasionally when kind words and resolutions don't stick.

What keeping in the tradition of Starfleet is to safeguard its citizens-and blowing away the Narada did just that.Don't see a problem there.

 

[Gepard]

Within the context of the film as presented, not rescuing the crew made sense. However, as a dramatic conceit, I would rather have had the Kirk and Spock need to make the tough decision that, yes, the Enterprise should rescue the crew. The movie did a good job setting up arcs for the main characters but, IMO, failed to pay them off. Did anyone learn anything in this film? Did Kirk, in particular, change or grow as a person as a result of his experiences? Did anyone have to make a difficult choice or choose to sacrifice for another as a result of new found maturity? I didn't think so. Kirk and Spock both had very strong personal reasons to want Nero and his crew dead, entirely understandably. Were I in their positions, I'd let them burn while shooting phasers at them too. But I think it would have done the characters a world of good to put them in a situation where they would have to look beyond their personal experiences and have to make the hard choice on the behalf of someone else. Needing to rescue the crew of the Narada would have been a good opportunity to do that. (Obviously, some of the setup would have to be changed so that we could feel some sympathy for Nero and understand that rescuing his people wouldn't endanger anyone else afterward; otherwise, our heroes would look like idiots.)

On a slightly different level, it was interesting how the filmmakers played up the Nero/Spock parallels earlier in the film. Spock and Nero both ended up losing their home worlds and loved ones, and both are suffering terrible grief as a result. I feel they missed an opportunity to resolve those themes at the end by tackling the issue of how people choose to deal with pain and loss. Nero chose the path of revenge; I would have liked to have seen Spock choose a path of compassion--as a fellow survivor of a doomed species he and Nero now have something in common that very few others share. As a Starfleet officer, Spock also has a duty to try and aid others when he can. Perhaps he could have resolved these two paths by choosing to launch a rescue to the Narada.

I don't know; that sounded more compelling in my head. But I must admit I can't get out of my mind the image of a fleet of shuttles from the Enterprise swarming the Narada to retrieve her crew, set in silence against a haunting musical score to bring the film full circle...

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

What keeping in the tradition of Starfleet is to safeguard its citizens-and blowing away the Narada did just that.Don't see a problem there.

And come on, it wasn't just a Klingon Battle Cruiser. If Nero and his ship somehow survived they'd be coming back to destroy earth. We know this. He and his ship had to be taken out. If he had escaped Starfleet would have gone after him anyway!!

Otherwise you have Picard refusing to destroy the Borg via a virus and Starfleet spending 3 series and a movie destroying them by phasers. And lets all pat Picard on the back for his ethics, yeah.

 

[Feofilakt]

Excellent point. If they just received a panic notice from Chekhov about this and THEN they blew it up, maybe with a small pause afterwards and maybe Spock looking as if it's not what he really wanted it would have been PERFECT and also PERFECT Trek.

Incorrect.That's exactly what was wrong with old-Trek:it was structured so that the old characters had an 'out' to save their ethics.

Real life don't work like that.


The days of fantasyland villains who turn around 180 at the end of the episode or movie are deader than disco,and its about time Star Trek placed the characters in situations where the phasers had to come out for the greater good.The modern viewer doesn't want a fake cop out or fairy tale ending-they want an honest ending,one where the character has to ask themselves whether they did the right thing.And seriously,are you gonna just fly away from Nero daring you to blow him away?He literally asked for it,and I would have obliged-and done so without asking if he needed a lift.

Most people in a war situation don't have an "out to save their ethics." They don't conveniently see that the guy was going to get away, they have to make a decision NOW and live with the moral ambiguity of it, an ambiguity that will often never be answered because the guy they offed is dead.

I like this new Trek. I would like to see future conflicts with enemies with moral ambiguity and with action having to proceed without all the data in yet.

That is well and good, and most certainly realistic... but Trek was supposed to have an idealism about it. When I read Sophocles and Aeschylus I read them to see how people should act, and I read Euripides and Juvenal to see how they do act. They are entirely separate things and if one were to merge with the other you would lose something. Star Trek is special because it holds onto a certain realism and does not dwell in the moral ambiguity that would otherwise render it not very special. If Star Trek is as morally ambiguous as say... The Forever War, part of the essence of Trek is lost.

Also, I'm a huge pessimist with a good background in sociology, philosophy, history, and psychology. I know how shitty and morally ambiguous the world can be, and I try to reserve some media that can allow me to forget it in some capacity and provide some hope, however feeble or unlikely, that humans can be different and become something different.

 

[Franklin]

As we've said, Orci and Kurtzman could've so easily had the end they wanted if they had had Nero attempting to escape. That's the out they needed. You don't shoot at a ship that's dead in the water. At least good guys don't. At least Kirk and Spock never did. And dead in the water is how they had Nero written.

Some folks (including Orci and Kurtzman) are making too many off screen assumptions about what could've happened if Nero wasn't destroyed, when on screen (the only thing that counts) he was being destroyed by the red matter, and what transpired was an act of unquestioned personal vengence. I wonder how Kirk explained it in his official log? I wonder how Spock explained it in his? We know how Starfleet felt, they promoted Kirk to command the Enterprise.

In the Trek world, moral ambivalence was for DS9. You know, the series that many fans thought was too gritty for Trek?

 

[Feofilakt]

So because we're the "good guys" we have to sacrifice ourselves on the altar of "rule of law"? Rule of law is stopping evil as well. That doesn't mean setting yourself up for further attack as Nero clearly showed he had ZERO regret for his actions and had ZERO intent of surrendering. Kirk and Spock gave the cretin what he deserved vis a vis a volley of high powered photon torpedoes and fully charged phasers -- and dished out justice admirably. I can tell you Nero won't be coming back for a second shot at the Federation...

Who said anything about sacrifice? Nero wasn't a threat in his condition and was likely to be crushed anyway. If the poor writing of the money didn't convey the danger effectively enough or at all of his escaping than that is the writer's fault and it merely shows how important writing is so everything meshes together and makes sense.

If they (the writers) wanted to kill Nero so badly they should have made him an imminent threat or shown that he was about to escape.

Going by the information IN THE MOVIE, this was not the case, sorry. We can only go by the information we have and the information that was conveyed to us in the movie did not make Kirk or Spock look good at all and was not in keeping with the Federation.

Also, that wasn't justice. Necessity at the best, moral gratification at the worst, but it wasn't justice.

I'm glad to know you're not in charge of any miltary or law enforcement department.What would you have done?Let a proven psychopath go about the stars killing who he wants with impunity?Where's the justice in another culture being wiped out by Nero because you decided it wasn't in keeping with the Federation in blowing his genocidal arse away.That logic doesn't fly.Pike said it himself-a peacekeeping armada has to deal with keeping the peace,and that requires pulling out the guns occasionally when kind words and resolutions don't stick.

What keeping in the tradition of Starfleet is to safeguard its citizens-and blowing away the Narada did just that.Don't see a problem there.

What would I, as an individual, have done or what I would like to see in Star Trek?

As an individual it doesn't matter, it's fiction and should be used to convey something. What I would have liked to see is the positive, humanist and deontologist message in Star Trek, in whataver capacity that can be shown. As Franklin said and I wholly support, if they wanted to have Nero get blown up they should have written the scene better.

 

[Silversmok3]

Incorrect.That's exactly what was wrong with old-Trek:it was structured so that the old characters had an 'out' to save their ethics.

Real life don't work like that.


The days of fantasyland villains who turn around 180 at the end of the episode or movie are deader than disco,and its about time Star Trek placed the characters in situations where the phasers had to come out for the greater good.The modern viewer doesn't want a fake cop out or fairy tale ending-they want an honest ending,one where the character has to ask themselves whether they did the right thing.And seriously,are you gonna just fly away from Nero daring you to blow him away?He literally asked for it,and I would have obliged-and done so without asking if he needed a lift.

Most people in a war situation don't have an "out to save their ethics." They don't conveniently see that the guy was going to get away, they have to make a decision NOW and live with the moral ambiguity of it, an ambiguity that will often never be answered because the guy they offed is dead.

I like this new Trek. I would like to see future conflicts with enemies with moral ambiguity and with action having to proceed without all the data in yet.

That is well and good, and most certainly realistic... but Trek was supposed to have an idealism about it. When I read Sophocles and Aeschylus I read them to see how people should act, and I read Euripides and Juvenal to see how they do act. They are entirely separate things and if one were to merge with the other you would lose something. Star Trek is special because it holds onto a certain realism and does not dwell in the moral ambiguity that would otherwise render it not very special. If Star Trek is as morally ambiguous as say... The Forever War, part of the essence of Trek is lost.

Also, I'm a huge pessimist with a good background in sociology, philosophy, history, and psychology. I know how shitty and morally ambiguous the world can be, and I try to reserve some media that can allow me to forget it in some capacity and provide some hope, however feeble or unlikely, that humans can be different and become something different.

There's nothing wrong with idealism-but there has to be some honesty to it.Just like we'd all like and hope for credit loan forgiveness,its probably not gonna happen.Its the same ethos with Trek.Part of the problem with old Trek was that while it had a positive ideal the story didn't make sense because of it.And it fundamentally wouldn't make sense to walk away from a genocidal criminal when you not only have him by the short hairs,but he also rejected your olive branch.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Most people in a war situation don't have an "out to save their ethics." They don't conveniently see that the guy was going to get away, they have to make a decision NOW and live with the moral ambiguity of it, an ambiguity that will often never be answered because the guy they offed is dead.

I like this new Trek. I would like to see future conflicts with enemies with moral ambiguity and with action having to proceed without all the data in yet.

That is well and good, and most certainly realistic... but Trek was supposed to have an idealism about it.

That's why I disliked TNG more than the other series.

In the Trek world, moral ambivalence was for DS9. You know, the series that many fans thought was too gritty for Trek?

I'm rewatching it for the zillionth time and really, it's about as gritty as peanut butter. What passes for grit in Trek-land is just a bit of fiber.

I get that others want the idealism and I agree that the ending suggested where Chekov shrieks that the Narada is getting away would neatly wipe our heroes clean of any moral ambiguity. I do think the ship needed to be destroyed for the reasons in my above post and that adding the Chekov line would just add an appearance of niceness.

I just don't care for idealism as presented by Roddenberry. I find plenty of idealism in people making bad decisions and learning to live with it as opposed to making ethically sound decisions and feeling good about it.

 

[Silversmok3]

Who said anything about sacrifice? Nero wasn't a threat in his condition and was likely to be crushed anyway. If the poor writing of the money didn't convey the danger effectively enough or at all of his escaping than that is the writer's fault and it merely shows how important writing is so everything meshes together and makes sense.

If they (the writers) wanted to kill Nero so badly they should have made him an imminent threat or shown that he was about to escape.

Going by the information IN THE MOVIE, this was not the case, sorry. We can only go by the information we have and the information that was conveyed to us in the movie did not make Kirk or Spock look good at all and was not in keeping with the Federation.

Also, that wasn't justice. Necessity at the best, moral gratification at the worst, but it wasn't justice.

I'm glad to know you're not in charge of any miltary or law enforcement department.What would you have done?Let a proven psychopath go about the stars killing who he wants with impunity?Where's the justice in another culture being wiped out by Nero because you decided it wasn't in keeping with the Federation in blowing his genocidal arse away.That logic doesn't fly.Pike said it himself-a peacekeeping armada has to deal with keeping the peace,and that requires pulling out the guns occasionally when kind words and resolutions don't stick.

What keeping in the tradition of Starfleet is to safeguard its citizens-and blowing away the Narada did just that.Don't see a problem there.

What would I, as an individual, have done or what I would like to see in Star Trek?

As an individual it doesn't matter, it's fiction and should be used to convey something. What I would have liked to see is the positive, humanist and deontologist message in Star Trek, in whataver capacity that can be shown. As Franklin said and I wholly support, if they wanted to have Nero get blown up they should have written the scene better.

I don't think they needed to.As a villain who murdered 6 billion people without remorse,the writers demonstrated enough reason to blast Nero from the cosmos.Think for a sec-thats more destruction than the Borg ever made agains the Alpha quad on-screen.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Most people in a war situation don't have an "out to save their ethics." They don't conveniently see that the guy was going to get away, they have to make a decision NOW and live with the moral ambiguity of it, an ambiguity that will often never be answered because the guy they offed is dead.

I like this new Trek. I would like to see future conflicts with enemies with moral ambiguity and with action having to proceed without all the data in yet.

That is well and good, and most certainly realistic... but Trek was supposed to have an idealism about it.

That's why I disliked TNG more than other series.

In the Trek world, moral ambivalence was for DS9. You know, the series that many fans thought was too gritty for Trek?

I'm rewatching it for the zillionth time and really, it's about as gritty as peanut butter. What passes for grit in Trek-land is just a bit or fiber.

I get that others want the idealism and I agree that the ending suggested where Chekov shrieks that the Narada is getting away would neatly wipe our heroes clean of any moral ambiguity. I do think the ship needed to be destroyed for the reasons in my above post and that adding the Chekov line would just add an appearance of niceness.

I just don't care for idealism as presented by Roddenberry. I find plenty of idealism in people making bad decisions and learning to live with it as opposed to making ethically sound decisions and feeling good about it.

Plus, people making bad decisions gives for more oppurtunities for Dr. McCoy to chew someone's head off.

 

[Franklin]

Most people in a war situation don't have an "out to save their ethics." They don't conveniently see that the guy was going to get away, they have to make a decision NOW and live with the moral ambiguity of it, an ambiguity that will often never be answered because the guy they offed is dead.

I like this new Trek. I would like to see future conflicts with enemies with moral ambiguity and with action having to proceed without all the data in yet.

That is well and good, and most certainly realistic... but Trek was supposed to have an idealism about it. When I read Sophocles and Aeschylus I read them to see how people should act, and I read Euripides and Juvenal to see how they do act. They are entirely separate things and if one were to merge with the other you would lose something. Star Trek is special because it holds onto a certain realism and does not dwell in the moral ambiguity that would otherwise render it not very special. If Star Trek is as morally ambiguous as say... The Forever War, part of the essence of Trek is lost.

Also, I'm a huge pessimist with a good background in sociology, philosophy, history, and psychology. I know how shitty and morally ambiguous the world can be, and I try to reserve some media that can allow me to forget it in some capacity and provide some hope, however feeble or unlikely, that humans can be different and become something different.

There's nothing wrong with idealism-but there has to be some honesty to it.Just like we'd all like and hope for credit loan forgiveness,its probably not gonna happen.Its the same ethos with Trek.Part of the problem with old Trek was that while it had a positive ideal the story didn't make sense because of it.And it fundamentally wouldn't make sense to walk away from a genocidal criminal when you not only have him by the short hairs,but he also rejected your olive branch.

At the risk of sounding sappy, in the TOS characters we were supposed to see our better selves. People who at least tried to do the right thing, even when it was hard. People who didn't listen to their demons. People who made sacrifices. People who heard a higher calling. It's sad that's too simplistic or naive now to be appreciated in a character.

Instead of mind-melding with the Romulan to find out where Nero and Pike were, I guess Spock should've held a phaser to his head or dangled him off a ledge and shouted, "TELL ME WHERE PIKE IS! TELL ME NOW!"

And again, they weren't just walking away from Nero, he was doomed. I see NOTHING in the movie to show otherwise. I'm trying to go by what I saw on screen and explain that, not discuss what I assume or what Orci and Kurtzman say after the fact.

 

[Silversmok3]

Who said anything about sacrifice? Nero wasn't a threat in his condition and was likely to be crushed anyway. If the poor writing of the money didn't convey the danger effectively enough or at all of his escaping than that is the writer's fault and it merely shows how important writing is so everything meshes together and makes sense.

If they (the writers) wanted to kill Nero so badly they should have made him an imminent threat or shown that he was about to escape.

Going by the information IN THE MOVIE, this was not the case, sorry. We can only go by the information we have and the information that was conveyed to us in the movie did not make Kirk or Spock look good at all and was not in keeping with the Federation.

Also, that wasn't justice. Necessity at the best, moral gratification at the worst, but it wasn't justice.

I'm glad to know you're not in charge of any miltary or law enforcement department.What would you have done?Let a proven psychopath go about the stars killing who he wants with impunity?Where's the justice in another culture being wiped out by Nero because you decided it wasn't in keeping with the Federation in blowing his genocidal arse away.That logic doesn't fly.Pike said it himself-a peacekeeping armada has to deal with keeping the peace,and that requires pulling out the guns occasionally when kind words and resolutions don't stick.

What keeping in the tradition of Starfleet is to safeguard its citizens-and blowing away the Narada did just that.Don't see a problem there.

What would I, as an individual, have done or what I would like to see in Star Trek?

As an individual it doesn't matter, it's fiction and should be used to convey something. What I would have liked to see is the positive, humanist and deontologist message in Star Trek, in whataver capacity that can be shown. As Franklin said and I wholly support, if they wanted to have Nero get blown up they should have written the scene better.

I don't think they needed to.As a villain who murdered 6 billion people without remorse,the writers demonstrated enough reason to blast Nero from the cosmos.Think for a sec-thats more destruction than the Borg ever made agains the Alpha quad on-screen.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Um when you think about it the Narada only looked like it was stuck in the blackhole not being sucked into it.

 

[Gepard]

Um when you think about it the Narada only looked like it was stuck in the blackhole not being sucked into it.

It appeared to be getting torn apart; the tentacles were flaying and buckling where the ship intersected the event horizon, and the internal shots we got of the Narada during that time made it look as through they were being shaken apart.