NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

[Jeyl]

I always felt cheated when Kirk ordered all weapons to be fired on the Narada. Kirk actually wants to help, telling Spock that he figured this all out logically (Even though we never established that we weren't at peace with Romulus), yet Spock isn't down with that. And this is the actual end to Spock's development ark. He decides that he doesn't want to follow logic and instead chooses to murder Nero and his crew while they're defenseless and on the brink of destruction!

 

[The Doctor]

I always felt cheated when Kirk ordered all weapons to be fired on the Narada. Kirk actually wants to help, telling Spock that he figured this all out logically (Even though we never established that we weren't at peace with Romulus), yet Spock isn't down with that. And this is the actual end to Spock's development ark. He decides that he doesn't want to follow logic and instead chooses to murder Nero and his crew while they're defenseless and on the brink of destruction!

The scene is problematic, no question, but it's hardly the end of Spock's 'ark' (sic).

We see him struggling with a death wish after he lost his homeworld, his mother and his mentor, only to emerge stronger thanks to his burgeoning bromance with Kirk. It was fascinating to see how Spock would react to these extreme circumstances and it was a bold choice to show him be more vulnerable and emotional as a consequence to those events. This new Spock is more volatile and must work even harder to keep his human half in check.

 

[Ryan8bit]

By definition, you can't say there is internal consistency when what they call anomalies occurred. That is to say, every time an anomaly occurred, they discovered that what they thought were the rules no longer applied. That happened regularly.

That's not at all the same kind of rules/consistency as I was talking about earlier.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Ah, thank you for the info. Do you remember a link to some interview?

I'm fairly certain it was on a podcast with Orci, but I can't find it now.

It's ok, thanks anyway.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

As for STiD, that film is dripping with moral lessons and does a damn sight better at dealing with 'the issues' than many installments of oldTrek. There are faults of plotting in STiD but its moral compass is pointing in exactly the right direction.

It was right up until it wasn't and that was when Spock spares Khan not out of Vulcan respect for life, not out of Starfleet or Federation respect for the rule of law, not out of disgust at the wild savage he had reverted to but out of the emotionally resonant but ultimately selfish desire to bring Kirk back from the dead. That's why I said the magic blood reveal should have been saved until after Spock and Uhura take Khan into custody.

In "Spectre of the Gun," Kirk declined to blow away Wyatt Earp after Earp gunned down Chekov and he did it in the name of civilization and decency, not a plot contrivance.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

By definition, you can't say there is internal consistency when what they call anomalies occurred. That is to say, every time an anomaly occurred, they discovered that what they thought were the rules no longer applied. That happened regularly.

That's not at all the same kind of rules/consistency as I was talking about earlier.

Well, I don't know what you're seeing in red matter, that makes, say, proto-matter so much more well-behaved, by comparison. Or, are the two on the same plane of believability to you, as they are to me?

Anyway, a planet like Vulcan is much, much bigger than the Narada. For all we know, what went on in the center of Vulcan is exactly the same maelstrom effect that we saw at the beginning and end of the film, but just inside the planet. For all we know, pieces of Vulcan got ejected from white holes all across space and time.

 

[Rory1080p]

it doesn't really have one at all, it's basically just action sci-fi (shoot teh villains and beat them with cool special effects and dat)

the morality of such films is non existent sadly, but just take them as what they are and don't expect it and you can still enjoy them to an extent.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I want to preface this by saying I really like the last two Trek movies--they are in the the 3 and 4 slots after TMP and TWoK. And, while I don't view them as anything other than complete reboots, with more in common with the off-Trek of my childhood--the Gold Key Comics, the Peter Pan story records--I don't find any of the elements that depart from TOS to be a potential deal-breaker. Any but one, that is.

In Star Trek, when Nero has been defeated and the Narada crippled, Kirk offers assistance, just as he would in TOS. Nero, for obvious reasons, tells him to go fuck himself. So far, so good--Mark Lenard's Romulan Commander did pretty much the same in "Balance of Terror," though he was much more gentlemanly about it. But then, with the Narada not firing off a single weapon, Kirk unloads on her, sticking around just long enough to get caught in the red matter black hole's gravity well.

Uh, no. Not only did it make Kirk look petty and vicious (and I've heard the argument that Kirk couldn't risk letting even a wounded Narada pop out somewhere in the past; be nice if he or Spock said as much), it dropped the chance for a much better dramatic moment: Kirk makes his offer, Nero refuses then locks a tractor beam or--better still--shoots harpoons trailing chains of rilistrongium alloy into Enterprise. Kirk's fussilade would then have been an act of self defense. He could even have echoed his alterna-self's line from the last time we saw an adversary opt for attempted murder-suicide rather than accept help as he wearily mutters, "Nero, I've had enough of you."

Into Darkness has the same problem. Spock, pushed past his breaking point, is clearly trying to murder Khan, not apprehend him. That makes sense, actually, and it's a reminder of the pre-Surakian savagery that lurks in all Vulcans, not just he half-human ones. It also underscores just how deep his brotherly love for Kirk runs and just how fragile watching his mother and his home planet die has left him, a year or so on. And then, before he can take it too far and cross a line he would have a tough time living with himself for crossing, Uhura stops him. Again, so far so good.

But her rationale? "He's our only chance to save Kirk!" (And why couldn't any of the other superpopsicles--products of the same gene manipulation and selective breeding--have done the same?) Pretty selfish, you ask me. How about: "Spock, stop! This is not you! This isn't Vulcan! This isn't your mother, it isn't Kirk!" Dramatically, I'd have saved the miracle blood reveal until after they had Khan in custody.

This stuff really bugs me. If our heroes are moral only until it affects them personally, they fail to be heroes, like their TOS counterparts. Heroes do the right hings for the right reasons. If I want selfish, brutal killers as protagonists, I'll watch The Sopranos or Breaking Bad (and I did and do watch them--they are two of my favorite shows; The Sopranos vies with TOS for my all-time favorite). I expect better of Kirk and Spock and I expect better of those writing for them.

All good points...

Except that I'm pretty sure Khan exhausted their supply of moral enlightenment when he took over the Vengeance and tried to kill them all. This, after Kirk and crew had risked their lives coming down to apprehend him and make him stand trial instead of assassinating him outright, after they put themselves in harms way to serve justice instead of petty revenge. If there was any shred of forgiveness left on the Enterprise after Kirk died, Khan smashed it to a pulp when he intentionally crashed the Vengeance into San Francisco.

 

[iguana_tonante]

it doesn't really have one at all, it's basically just action sci-fi (shoot teh villains and beat them with cool special effects and dat)

the morality of such films is non existent sadly, but just take them as what they are and don't expect it and you can still enjoy them to an extent.

It's funny when people take their own lack of analysis and insight as a proof of the movies's faults.

Say what you will about its quality (there is no accounting for taste), but you can't ignore it tackles very current issues like the lawfulness of preemptive strikes, drone warfare, state-sponsored terrorism, etc.

 

[Rory1080p]

it doesn't really have one at all, it's basically just action sci-fi (shoot teh villains and beat them with cool special effects and dat)

the morality of such films is non existent sadly, but just take them as what they are and don't expect it and you can still enjoy them to an extent.

It's funny when people take their own lack of analysis and insight as a proof of the movies's faults.

Say what you will about its quality (there is no accounting for taste), but you can't ignore it tackles very current issues like the lawfulness of preemptive strikes, drone warfare, state-sponsored terrorism, etc.

as opposed to your analysis which is clearly that of someone who did a degree in the film? arrogance does not equate superiority my friend.

like I said I think the films are good if you take them in their own right, but within Trek? they just aren't anything like as deep or meaningful to me, maybe it's because I grew up with the original Trek and TNG, but it just doesn't make me think or feel in the same way when I watch the new films, as action sci-fi? they are among the best out there for sure. thats just the thing though, they don't really tackle those issues, the issues are there yes but there is no in depth discussion about them, no exploration of what they mean, no wider debate within the film about them being right or wrong...in old Trek films and series there would have been, for me that's the key difference, the older Trek would go deeper, it would explore issues not just have them there to give reason to the special effects, the new films are more about the action and are very light on the deeper meanings of the issues at play.

you are entitled to disagree of course, but this is how I feel about the new films, like I said taking them for what they are they are great, but as what sci-fi does at its best or what Trek is about? they can't hold a candle to the older stuff.

 

[Commishsleer]

But do you want to chance that part of the Narada and her crew survives the fall through the black hole to wreck havoc on some other part of the timeline?

That makes sense, of course, but he film does a piss-poor job of telling us why Kirk decides to flat-out murder Nero and his crew. It's a clear symptom of the writers strike and the filmmakers have mentioned more than once that they would have gone back to tweak that scene, if they could.

I always felt cheated when Kirk ordered all weapons to be fired on the Narada. Kirk actually wants to help, telling Spock that he figured this all out logically (Even though we never established that we weren't at peace with Romulus), yet Spock isn't down with that. And this is the actual end to Spock's development ark. He decides that he doesn't want to follow logic and instead chooses to murder Nero and his crew while they're defenseless and on the brink of destruction!

Kirk did not 'murder' Nero anymore than a policeman who fires a gun to stop a fleeing killer is a murderer.

Nero destroyed a planet.

He intended to destroy more.

He had the means to do it.

It would have been highly irresponsible for Kirk and crew to let him have a fraction of a chance of surviving. The Enterprise and all her sister ships and their crews are the law put there to save the Federation from people like Nero.
If Nero survived and then escaped, Kirk would have been blamed and rightly so.
I wouldn't have even given Nero the chance of surrender. You can't take a risk like that.
And I know Kirk tried to save Kruge after he had ordered his son killed in TSFS but Kruge didn't have Genesis and Kruge didn't have a powerful ship that could take out 12 Federation starships and he wasn't yet near threatening to wipe out every Federation world.

The problem I had with the scene in question in ST09 was Spock's response to Kirk's offer to Nero. As emotionally compromised as Spock was, and staring the butcher of his mother and almost his entire race in the face, imagine how "Trek-like" it would've been if Spock had agreed with Kirk that something should be done to try to rescue Nero and his men. I'm sorry, I can't give Spock a pass on that no matter what he'd been through. Allowing what amounted to cold-blooded vengeance wasn't going to bring anyone back, and I doubt it made Spock feel any better. Indeed, I'd be bothered if it did. It was the sentiment of a thug, not a Starfleet officer. It was a low point for the character of Spock.

As far as STID goes, I didn't have a problem with what Uhura said. That wasn't the time nor place for long explanations. She also seemed genuinely shocked at Spock's cruelty and just wanted it to stop.

IMO Uhuru didn't believe people think Spock was 'cruel'. Did you see Khan break Marcus neck, break Carol's leg? That was cruel. Spock was trying to stop Khan from more killing and more havoc but Khan could have won without killing Marcus or hurting Carol.
Spock was trying to stop a murderer, an elitist who thought most people were beneath him and would not hesitate to kill in his effort to control and wreak vengeance.
Spock was fighting for his life. Phasers on stun had no effect on Khan. Was he supposed to maybe let Khan get the upper hand and escape?

 

[iguana_tonante]

It's funny when people take their own lack of analysis and insight as a proof of the movies's faults.

Say what you will about its quality (there is no accounting for taste), but you can't ignore it tackles very current issues like the lawfulness of preemptive strikes, drone warfare, state-sponsored terrorism, etc.

as opposed to your analysis which is clearly that of someone who did a degree in the film? arrogance does not equate superiority my friend.

like I said I think the films are good if you take them in their own right, but within Trek? they just aren't anything like as deep or meaningful to me, maybe it's because I grew up with the original Trek and TNG, but it just doesn't make me think or feel in the same way when I watch the new films, as action sci-fi? they are among the best out there for sure. thats just the thing though, they don't really tackle those issues, the issues are there yes but there is no in depth discussion about them, no exploration of what they mean, no wider debate within the film about them being right or wrong...in old Trek films and series there would have been, for me that's the key difference, the older Trek would go deeper, it would explore issues not just have them there to give reason to the special effects, the new films are more about the action and are very light on the deeper meanings of the issues at play.

you are entitled to disagree of course, but this is how I feel about the new films, like I said taking them for what they are they are great, but as what sci-fi does at its best or what Trek is about? they can't hold a candle to the older stuff.

Arrogance does not equate to superiority, but ignorance does not equate to observation either. You are obviously entitled to your own opinion, but it's still wrong.

I know the explosions were kinda loud and the lens flares kinda distracting, but if you got out of the cinema not knowing if the narrative condemned or condoned preemptive strikes and drone warfare, you simply weren't paying attention. Kirk went along with that plan, and almost lost his soul for it (and he did lost his life, magic blood notwithstanding).

Of course old Trek would have handled thing differently: they would have briefings, and stuffy discussions, maybe an impassioned speech or two. People would talk and time will pass. Don't get me wrong, I love TNG and TOS, but this is a different product. You don't like it, that's fine. But you can't condemn it because it's different. Beside, it's not like TOS was a hugely cerebral show: it just looks like that compared with the dreadful landscape that was TV in that period.

Also, funny how you assume people who like the new movies didn't "grew up" with TOS and TNG. Because of course a "real fan" can't like the new movies. We must all be whippersnappers and hipster punks.

 

[Rory1080p]

It's funny when people take their own lack of analysis and insight as a proof of the movies's faults.

Say what you will about its quality (there is no accounting for taste), but you can't ignore it tackles very current issues like the lawfulness of preemptive strikes, drone warfare, state-sponsored terrorism, etc.

as opposed to your analysis which is clearly that of someone who did a degree in the film? arrogance does not equate superiority my friend.

like I said I think the films are good if you take them in their own right, but within Trek? they just aren't anything like as deep or meaningful to me, maybe it's because I grew up with the original Trek and TNG, but it just doesn't make me think or feel in the same way when I watch the new films, as action sci-fi? they are among the best out there for sure. thats just the thing though, they don't really tackle those issues, the issues are there yes but there is no in depth discussion about them, no exploration of what they mean, no wider debate within the film about them being right or wrong...in old Trek films and series there would have been, for me that's the key difference, the older Trek would go deeper, it would explore issues not just have them there to give reason to the special effects, the new films are more about the action and are very light on the deeper meanings of the issues at play.

you are entitled to disagree of course, but this is how I feel about the new films, like I said taking them for what they are they are great, but as what sci-fi does at its best or what Trek is about? they can't hold a candle to the older stuff.

Arrogance does not equate to superiority, but ignorance does not equate to observation either. You are obviously entitled to your own opinion, but it's still wrong.

I know the explosions were kinda loud and the lens flares kinda distracting, but if you got out of the cinema not knowing if the narrative condemned or condoned preemptive strikes and drone warfare, you simply weren't paying attention. Kirk went along with that plan, and almost lost his soul for it (and he did lost his life, magic blood notwithstanding).

Of course old Trek would have handled thing differently: they would have briefings, and stuffy discussions, maybe an impassioned speech or two. People would talk and time will pass. Don't get me wrong, I love TNG and TOS, but this is a different product. You don't like it, that's fine. But you can't condemn it because it's different. Beside, it's not like TOS was a hugely cerebral show: it just looks like that compared with the dreadful landscape that was TV in that period.

Also, funny how you assume people who like the new movies didn't "grew up" with TOS and TNG. Because of course a "real fan" can't like the new movies. We must all be whippersnappers and hipster punks.

way to ignore of half of what I said, who were you calling ignorant?

I see you are not worth trying to discuss anything with.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

it doesn't really have one at all, it's basically just action sci-fi (shoot teh villains and beat them with cool special effects and dat)

the morality of such films is non existent sadly, but just take them as what they are and don't expect it and you can still enjoy them to an extent.

It's funny when people take their own lack of analysis and insight as a proof of the movies's faults.

Say what you will about its quality (there is no accounting for taste), but you can't ignore it tackles very current issues like the lawfulness of preemptive strikes, drone warfare, state-sponsored terrorism, etc.

as opposed to your analysis which is clearly that of someone who did a degree in the film? arrogance does not equate superiority my friend.

like I said I think the films are good if you take them in their own right, but within Trek? they just aren't anything like as deep or meaningful to me, maybe it's because I grew up with the original Trek and TNG, but it just doesn't make me think or feel in the same way when I watch the new films, as action sci-fi?

I don't know that any Star Trek film since TMP has ever been described as "deep and meaningful." Sure, they all had a theme and a message (STID had one too), but even the TNG movies ultimately degenerated into cookie-cutter sci-fi action flicks with a philosophical message slapped on top of it.

TNG itself had some deeper moments, but TNG was a television series with a lot more room to maneuver. TOS also had its thought-provoking moments (though also an abundance of cheesy moments), but has the same advantage: you can do more in 65 hours of television than you can in 99 minutes of feature film.

in old Trek films and series there would have been

Not in the films, I think. The only one that comes close is TUC, which "tackled the issue" through a series of Shatner monologs.

STID did basically the same thing with Kirk/Spock's discussion in the shuttlecraft , Kirk's change of heart vis a vis Khan's assassination and, finally, with Kirk's closing speech at the memorial event.

Basically: it's hardly a stirring treatise on the morality of preemptivism and/or counterterrorist policy or the inherent pitfalls of trying to play one evil bastard against another and hope for the best, but to say it doesn't address the issue AT ALL is far from the truth.

 

[Belz...]

That's not even remotely the same.

This isn't about science or natural laws, it's about consistency

Seems to me like they're pretty much the same, then: both techs aren't very consistent.

 

[Belz...]

It was right up until it wasn't and that was when Spock spares Khan not out of Vulcan respect for life, not out of Starfleet or Federation respect for the rule of law, not out of disgust at the wild savage he had reverted to but out of the emotionally resonant but ultimately selfish desire to bring Kirk back from the dead.

The issue there was time, as was said before.

Except that I'm pretty sure Khan exhausted their supply of moral enlightenment when he took over the Vengeance and tried to kill them all. This, after Kirk and crew had risked their lives coming down to apprehend him and make him stand trial instead of assassinating him outright, after they put themselves in harms way to serve justice instead of petty revenge. If there was any shred of forgiveness left on the Enterprise after Kirk died, Khan smashed it to a pulp when he intentionally crashed the Vengeance into San Francisco.

And they STILL manage to capture him and put him on ice rather than kill him. I'd say they're pretty moral.

He had the means to do it.

Slight correction: he didn't. He didn't have any red matter left at that point.

 

[Therin of Andor]

In Star Trek, when Nero has been defeated and the Narada crippled, Kirk offers assistance, just as he would in TOS.

And as he did to Kruge in ST III - and then kicked him in the face, over and over and over, until he fell into the molten lava.

There was no guarantee that Nero's crippled ship wouldn't regenerate and start the whole mess all over again.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's worth pointing out that it was the second time Kirk asked Nero for his surrender - the first was at gunpoint on board the Narada.

As for Spock going into a primal Vulcan rage, right or wrong it's something (some) fans have wanted to see forever. I'm still surprised they had the balls to do it. The fight with Khan was epic, especially when Spock countered Khan's skull crushing finisher with a mind meld. Dirty Vulcan fighting!

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I had no problem with Spock losing his cool. I had a problem with how Uhura brings him out of his fugue.

 

[Franklin]

I had no problem with Spock losing his cool. I had a problem with how Uhura brings him out of his fugue.

Come to think of it, it's amazing he even believed her.

What she said also has to be taken in the context of Spock starting out to take Khan alive. He was going to use his phaser, but lost it. He tried the Vulcan neck pinch, but it didn't work. It was Khan who was trying to kill him, and Spock was suddenly in a fight for his life. He was going to have to kill Khan or be killed by him. At that point, it seems almost anything one could say to stop the fighting would be morally acceptable.