NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

[Pauln6]

For ST09, I'm left wondering what purpose the scene with the discussion of what to do with Nero serves. Is it to show that new Spock has a bloodlust? Is it to show that Kirk is willing to entertain alternatives? Is it to show that Nero is an asshole? Is it to show that they even have time to entertain such decisions? I think it's primarily to make the audience feel good by toppling the bad guy they so easily built up. Everyone loves to see the bully get his comeuppance in a movie, and this is just playing to that trope.

I just think that the way they handled the scene didn't work out. Kirk was realistically going to offer assistance when they could barely escape themselves? Why even offer such a thing if it's truly just a battle situation? That the alternative is even raised is why this is an issue. It implies there is actually time or ability to do something. If it had cut from the Jellyfish colliding to the Enterprise opening fire, I don't think I would have a had a problem with it.

Yeah I think this probably sums it up. It was the tone of the scene that was wrong for me. But it is a trope that crops up in many movies because movie-goers love to see villains get their cumuppance. It should come as no surprise that many people have no problem with the scene - they are the audience for whom it was intended.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

And it makes perfect sense for Spock's character that the thing that would bring him back to sanity would be his brotherly love for Kirk.

Which is why, in my version, Uhura breaks through his Vulcan rage by invoking Kirk--the Kirk who listened to Spock and decided not to summarily execute the man who killed the closest thing Kirk ever had to a father.

 

[sonak]

For ST09, I'm left wondering what purpose the scene with the discussion of what to do with Nero serves. Is it to show that new Spock has a bloodlust? Is it to show that Kirk is willing to entertain alternatives? Is it to show that Nero is an asshole? Is it to show that they even have time to entertain such decisions? I think it's primarily to make the audience feel good by toppling the bad guy they so easily built up. Everyone loves to see the bully get his comeuppance in a movie, and this is just playing to that trope.

I just think that the way they handled the scene didn't work out. Kirk was realistically going to offer assistance when they could barely escape themselves? Why even offer such a thing if it's truly just a battle situation? That the alternative is even raised is why this is an issue. It implies there is actually time or ability to do something. If it had cut from the Jellyfish colliding to the Enterprise opening fire, I don't think I would have a had a problem with it.

Yeah I think this probably sums it up. It was the tone of the scene that was wrong for me. But it is a trope that crops up in many movies because movie-goers love to see villains get their cumuppance. It should come as no surprise that many people have no problem with the scene - they are the audience for whom it was intended.

In other words, if we disagree with you about the scenario, we're the type of audience that cheers at kewl 'splosions and wets our pants with laughter when someone farts on screen.

 

[Amaris]

I think at the end of the day the basic justification for killing Nero is "he's an evil man who did evil things and therefore he deserves to die".

In essence, it's the same question whether you support the death penalty or not. Is it justifiable to do to an "evil" man what he has done to others? Or is such an action also evil in itself?

And to say that Nero was maybe still a threat and therefore it was necessary to kill him is just a rationalization for those who are getting uncomfortable facing that question.

nope,not at all, totally off base


I'm against the death penalty, but the situation in STXI wasn't criminal justice it was battle. Also, Arguing that actual reasons are just "rationalizations" isn't an argument. Either Nero was escaping and WAS a threat, or he was dying and what Kirk did didn't matter.

I'm not uncomfortable with the question at all-I don't even think it was a big dilemma.

This exactly.

 

[M'Sharak]

For ST09, I'm left wondering what purpose the scene with the discussion of what to do with Nero serves. Is it to show that new Spock has a bloodlust? Is it to show that Kirk is willing to entertain alternatives? Is it to show that Nero is an asshole? Is it to show that they even have time to entertain such decisions? I think it's primarily to make the audience feel good by toppling the bad guy they so easily built up. Everyone loves to see the bully get his comeuppance in a movie, and this is just playing to that trope.

I just think that the way they handled the scene didn't work out. Kirk was realistically going to offer assistance when they could barely escape themselves? Why even offer such a thing if it's truly just a battle situation? That the alternative is even raised is why this is an issue. It implies there is actually time or ability to do something. If it had cut from the Jellyfish colliding to the Enterprise opening fire, I don't think I would have a had a problem with it.

Yeah I think this probably sums it up. It was the tone of the scene that was wrong for me. But it is a trope that crops up in many movies because movie-goers love to see villains get their [comeuppance]. It should come as no surprise that many people have no problem with the scene - they are the audience for whom it was intended.

In other words, if we disagree with you about the scenario, we're the type of audience that cheers at kewl 'splosions and wets our pants with laughter when someone farts on screen.

Okay, while Pauln6's comment might be read as condescending generally, an exaggerated response of this sort really isn't very helpful. There had to be a better way to make that point.

 

[Pauln6]

For ST09, I'm left wondering what purpose the scene with the discussion of what to do with Nero serves. Is it to show that new Spock has a bloodlust? Is it to show that Kirk is willing to entertain alternatives? Is it to show that Nero is an asshole? Is it to show that they even have time to entertain such decisions? I think it's primarily to make the audience feel good by toppling the bad guy they so easily built up. Everyone loves to see the bully get his comeuppance in a movie, and this is just playing to that trope.

I just think that the way they handled the scene didn't work out. Kirk was realistically going to offer assistance when they could barely escape themselves? Why even offer such a thing if it's truly just a battle situation? That the alternative is even raised is why this is an issue. It implies there is actually time or ability to do something. If it had cut from the Jellyfish colliding to the Enterprise opening fire, I don't think I would have a had a problem with it.

Yeah I think this probably sums it up. It was the tone of the scene that was wrong for me. But it is a trope that crops up in many movies because movie-goers love to see villains get their cumuppance. It should come as no surprise that many people have no problem with the scene - they are the audience for whom it was intended.

In other words, if we disagree with you about the scenario, we're the type of audience that cheers at kewl 'splosions and wets our pants with laughter when someone farts on screen.

Well, obviously not, if that's your interpretation of the scene. I think you're being more judgmental than I am about other people's opinions. I simply meant that the writers didn't come up with their idea in a vacuum. People like bloodthirsty heroes. I do too. However, I am glad that STiD back pedalled away from that path.

Also - I laugh (loudly) at all the Scary Movie spoofs. Don't knock fart jokes.

 

[sonak]

Yeah I think this probably sums it up. It was the tone of the scene that was wrong for me. But it is a trope that crops up in many movies because movie-goers love to see villains get their [comeuppance]. It should come as no surprise that many people have no problem with the scene - they are the audience for whom it was intended.

In other words, if we disagree with you about the scenario, we're the type of audience that cheers at kewl 'splosions and wets our pants with laughter when someone farts on screen.

Okay, while Pauln6's comment might be read as condescending generally, an exaggerated response of this sort really isn't very helpful. There had to be a better way to make that point.

it was the deliberate exaggeration and sarcasm that helped MAKE the point, though But your reprimand is taken.

 

[Pauln6]

In other words, if we disagree with you about the scenario, we're the type of audience that cheers at kewl 'splosions and wets our pants with laughter when someone farts on screen.

Okay, while Pauln6's comment might be read as condescending generally, an exaggerated response of this sort really isn't very helpful. There had to be a better way to make that point.

it was the deliberate exaggeration and sarcasm that helped MAKE the point, though But your reprimand is taken.

Irony is ironic.

 

[sonak]

Yeah I think this probably sums it up. It was the tone of the scene that was wrong for me. But it is a trope that crops up in many movies because movie-goers love to see villains get their cumuppance. It should come as no surprise that many people have no problem with the scene - they are the audience for whom it was intended.

In other words, if we disagree with you about the scenario, we're the type of audience that cheers at kewl 'splosions and wets our pants with laughter when someone farts on screen.

Well, obviously not, if that's your interpretation of the scene. I think you're being more judgmental than I am about other people's opinions. I simply meant that the writers didn't come up with their idea in a vacuum. People like bloodthirsty heroes. I do too. However, I am glad that STiD back pedalled away from that path.

Also - I laugh (loudly) at all the Scary Movie spoofs. Don't knock fart jokes.

I guess I just don't see how killing an opponent in battle who is a genocidal war criminal after offering to let him surrender is "bloodthirsty," though. Kirk is a member of an organization that at least has military duties. He MUST have expected to have to go into battle and possibly kill those who pose a threat.

 

[Pauln6]

In other words, if we disagree with you about the scenario, we're the type of audience that cheers at kewl 'splosions and wets our pants with laughter when someone farts on screen.

Well, obviously not, if that's your interpretation of the scene. I think you're being more judgmental than I am about other people's opinions. I simply meant that the writers didn't come up with their idea in a vacuum. People like bloodthirsty heroes. I do too. However, I am glad that STiD back pedalled away from that path.

Also - I laugh (loudly) at all the Scary Movie spoofs. Don't knock fart jokes.

I guess I just don't see how killing an opponent in battle who is a genocidal war criminal after offering to let him surrender is "bloodthirsty," though. Kirk is a member of an organization that at least has military duties. He MUST have expected to have to go into battle and possibly kill those who pose a threat.

Ah yes, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that it was. I simply meant that fans of bloodthirsty heroes would not bat an eyelid at Kirk's actions and would very likely applaud them. And that's not to say that they're the only people who would applaud them.

While I love Wolverine as a character, I used to get sick and tired of the perpetual focus that was placed on him above other X-men. The guy was everywhere because it was 'cool' to be violent. I usually think it's braver of writers NOT to pander to that 'baser' instinct because this is Star Trek. The Spectre of the Gun keeps echoing. But maybe I'm just reliving my childhood.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

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.

You are entitled not to like the new movies for what you consider 'moral defects' with regards to TOS and TNG, but remember that you're in the minority about the movies as far as what you feel is concerned.

Just sayin'.

Oh, BTW, a reminder about what the movies have been;

(TMP) Somewhat cerebral. Mostly a 2001 knockoff. Illia in a ridiculously short skirt.
TWOK) Revenge. Explosions. Getting old. KHAAAAAAAN! A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
TSFS) GE-NE-SIS?! Kirk's son killed. Get out! Get out of there! Lots of Pew!Pew!
TVH) They are not the hell your whales. One damn minute, Admiral.
TFF) Three boobed cat stripper. Sha-ka-ree. Lots of Pew!Pew!
TUC) Racism. Cold War. Shakespeare. Lots of Pew!Pew!
GEN) Fantasy land. Duras Sisters. Enterprise go Boom. Lots of Pew!Pew!
FC) BOOM! Sweaty Borg. Sexual healing. Drunks. A METRIC FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
INS) Face lift. Forced relocation. F. Murray Abraham on a couch. Lots of poorly paced Pew!Pew!
NEM) Dune buggy. Mentally deficient android. Slowly moving doom device. Lots of random Pew!Pew!

I have highlighted two of the most popular pre-JJ Trek movies in the fandom.
Trek was an action franchise from the second movie installment onward. To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore everything beyond The Motion Picture.

[/QUOTE]


I would also add that the pilot episode of TOS also was action-adventure with some Pew!Pew! in it as well, and that TOS was pitched as an action-adventure show by Roddenberry & Co. This constant 'it's cerebral' thing is getting tiresome.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

"We like explosions."
--DEVO

 

[Pauln6]

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.

You are entitled not to like the new movies for what you consider 'moral defects' but remember that you're in the minority about the movies as far as what you feel is concerned.

Just sayin'.

As Rory said - they are great fun for what they are and very popular. However, it doesn't automatically follow that they would have been less fun and less popular if they'd had a better grasp of scientific principles, a few more women here and there, and bit more Federation idealism (they even go so far as to imply that Federation idealism is weak when Pike is recruiting Kirk - it always reminds me of that Admiral giving Homer Simpson command if his ship... )

 

[Yanks]

... 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.

This was just horrible writing. Better to get a chuckle from a "new" audience than write something meaningful for the characters.

Kirk offers help - check
Spock not agreeing? WTF?
Kirk unloading on the Narada - WTF?
Spock not correcting him - WTF?
Kirk or Spock or ANYONE else on the damn bridge not keenly aware of their proximity to the big FRAKIN BLACK HOLE...no one on the bridge is thinking about the safety of the ship and crew???

WTF!!!!!

It's just juvenile writing to a short attention span audience.

They should have been sucked through with the Narada for being dumb asses.

 

[M'Sharak]

"We like explosions."
--DEVO

"Science fiction can, and should, be about reimagining
social possibilities, not just blowing shit up in space;
however, if you can reimagine social possibilities
while blowing shit up in space, I am all for that."​

<snip>

They should have been sucked through with the Narada for being dumb asses.

Not to worry - someone else took care of that. Sort of.

 

[sonak]

Well, obviously not, if that's your interpretation of the scene. I think you're being more judgmental than I am about other people's opinions. I simply meant that the writers didn't come up with their idea in a vacuum. People like bloodthirsty heroes. I do too. However, I am glad that STiD back pedalled away from that path.

Also - I laugh (loudly) at all the Scary Movie spoofs. Don't knock fart jokes.

I guess I just don't see how killing an opponent in battle who is a genocidal war criminal after offering to let him surrender is "bloodthirsty," though. Kirk is a member of an organization that at least has military duties. He MUST have expected to have to go into battle and possibly kill those who pose a threat.

Ah yes, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that it was. I simply meant that fans of bloodthirsty heroes would not bat an eyelid at Kirk's actions and would very likely applaud them. And that's not to say that they're the only people who would applaud them.

While I love Wolverine as a character, I used to get sick and tired of the perpetual focus that was placed on him above other X-men. The guy was everywhere because it was 'cool' to be violent. I usually think it's braver of writers NOT to pander to that 'baser' instinct because this is Star Trek. The Spectre of the Gun keeps echoing. But maybe I'm just reliving my childhood.

I agree on Wolverine-highly overrated, and he does get the attention for exactly the reasons you wrote. He's a cliche violent, '80s "bad boy," anti-hero. It's also why Superman is not considered "cool," because he's not violent or edgy enough.

But again, Kirk is fighting a battle here, and he's a Human soldier in uniform chasing down an enemy. He's not a vigilante acting unlawfully and he does offer Nero the option to surrender.

 

[Yanks]

Not to worry - someone else took care of that. Sort of.

 

[YARN]

This constant 'it's cerebral' thing is getting tiresome.

If you don't have ideas to offer and explore, you don't have sci-fi, but simply action-adventure in a technological setting.

TOS, however it may have been "pitched," was not mere action-adventure, but had ideas to explore, and most often a point to make. A lot of TOS episodes are little morality tales that were snuck past network censors.

Of course, the notion that Trek has not or should not have a significant action-adventure component is wrong-headed. As you stated, there has always been plenty of "pew pew," but to say that Trek should be cerebral is not to say that it should NOT have ANY action, but rather to say that the actions should not push out interesting ideas in favor of more sensual pleasures. Trek, at it's best, should be a balance of both.

 

[Pauln6]

But again, Kirk is fighting a battle here, and he's a Human soldier in uniform chasing down an enemy. He's not a vigilante acting unlawfully and he does offer Nero the option to surrender.

We are going around in circles I agree. There is a grey area in the middle here where some people think there was ample justification and others think other options could have been explored. But I guess that's the very definition of IDIC.

With great power comes great... oh wait - wrong reboot.

 

[sonak]

OK, so here's a way out of the "circle:"


for those who OBJECT to what nuKirk did, what SPECIFIC differences would you include in the scene


What should he have done?

-not fired at all(perhaps have the movie make clear that the ship was going to be destroyed FOR SURE, 100%?)

- repeatedly beg Nero to pretty please surrender with a cherry on top?

-have NuKirk try to beam over to the Narada and drag Nero bodily to transport him away?

-have nuKirk show more regret at the situation?