It's pure character consistency - he consistently says he wants to leave Spock alive to suffer. He declares that as his objective. If this goes against your expectations of how the villain of the story ought to behave, too bad. It doesn't go against what is previously and subsequently established in the movie itself.
I'm not contradicting his secondary objective of "suffering".
It's the contradiction with his primary objective of destroying Earth and the Federation which he sacrificed for this objective. Also Spock suffering is plot relevant. His destroying the Federation is.
You're seeing things again. When did Nero have a "problem" killing somebody? He killed left and right. He simply varied his methods to match the situation - savoring some kills, performing some in desperate self-defense, callously shrugging off others. Kirk did the same, and I don't see you complain there.
I'm not sure why you're asking "when did he have a problem killing somebody?" regardless when he should have he didn't.
Nero does say he prevented the genocide. If you miss a line, it's not a "plot hole", it's an "attention hole".
It's a very incoherent line.
(Nero: No. I prevented genocide! In MY time, where i come from, this is a simple mining vessel. I chose a life of honest labor, to provide for myself and my wife who was expecting my child. i was off planet doing my job, while your Federation did NOTHING and allowed my people to burn while their planet broke in half. And Spock...he didn't help us. He betrayed us. )
Nero replies in response Pikes Accusations. It's difficult to tell from this diatribe just how Nero believes he's prevent suicide. Clearly you think it means he saved Romulus but that is not what it says.
That argument makes no sense, either. Nothing "required" Kirk to start a fight in that Iowa bar, or Spock to kiss Uhura, or Chekov to speak in a funny accent.
Incoherent. Relevancy of Kirk's fight, Spock kissing and Checkov speaking funny to the plot.
Nero's explicit 25-year plan was to have Spock watch the death of Vulcan from afar and survive to suffer. He executed that to the hilt. Trying to force other ideas into the head of the villain character is not your prerogative.
And I haven't.
It's a matter of record that his objective was to destroy the entire Federation. If you above quote was the only objective he had then he would not have proceeded to Earth but rather return home to Romulus.
Which varies for viewer to viewer, of course. A movie always only caters for a specific group somewhere in the middle of the bell curve.
Relevant information is exclusive to plot not the viewer.
That's purely a matter of personal opinion, because you already accept that warp drive isn't stupid and transporters aren't stupid...
Stupid means a lack of intellectual acuity. Intelluctual is thought and reason based on the knowledge. Given that these scenes have not used thought or reason or even known scientific data to extrapolate it's fiction then it's not about personal opinion. Stupid is stupid.
With what? Their destroyed starship, the one that couldn't take even half a hit more? The plot was very nicely written to eliminate that easy out.
I will thank you not to add your own spin to my quotes.
Your reasoning is not proper reasoning as I've seen it so far so don't hybrid our thinking processes because you think it's convenient. Keep your thoughts in your dialogue and my thoughts in the appropriate tags.
The plot did not isolate that they could not fire thus,not nicely written at all. (Distance isn't an issue)
But only that. You can't have it both ways.
You're the one that said the jamming blinded them. Therefore you're the one that needs it both ways.
But shown. Weren't you watching when Nero decided to stop shooting at the Kelvin? Or when he decided to shoot at the escaping shuttles? That's once again "attention hole", not "plot hole".
You're becoming difficult to follow. Let's simplify.
Kelvin takes 2 simultaneous strikes of 7 plus weapons at first and then a sustained attack over minutes of similar strikes.
Enterprise takes one (if memory permits)
Nothing stupid about that. Except you again seem to have fallen asleep, and thus failed to notice that Nero had moved from "I want a prisoner" to "I want to eliminate witnesses". The plot sure looks holey if you keep napping every two minutes!
Why are you attempting assail me with your weak thinking and rationalizations what you think I was doing? Stop being petulant. This is your defense so get yourself together and focus on your reasonings. You answered my criticisms of the battle with the simple dunder-head style explanation as "he wanted prisoners." Clearly he didn't since he shot down shuttles.
You figure out which defense you're going use and I'll wait while you get yourself together.
,That the use of escape pod is irresponsible.
Lifepods are emergency equipment for life saving" not for the expulsion of insubordinate crew members. That is what a brig is for. In fact putting a person off a ship in such a manner puts the persons life at risk instead of simply transporting him down to the outpost. Kirk was placed in an indefensible pod while they went into battle and left without proper gear in in an inhospitable environment. Spock would have been guilty of murder if Kirk had lost his life on that planet or in route to the planet because AS Captain Spock's responsibility is to his crew. Your logic here is hugely ridiculous.
Spock gets rid of a menace that already once broke onto his bridge,
Irrelevant.
Humans have rights.
Everybody agrees that it's completely against the regs, that the seemingly calm Spock is royally pissed off, and that the next step would probably have been Spock murdering Kirk in cold blood.
Irrelevant.
But well founded in the plot.
The stupidity is definitely well founded in the plot. But founded or not...it's still stupid.
No, it's not. Which part of "stranded on icy wastelands" fails to convince you that Spock couldn't trivially phone home? Please have some coffee before going to movies - not after!
You arel itterally dreaming...coffee and phones? Where are you Timo? Come back to Earth for a second. It's the responsibility of the writers to remove gaps in their own imperatives. Being petulant isn't a defense for the lack of common sense.
So if it was Spocks intention was to go to the outpost then exactly why he's waiting there must be explained because nothing stops them from leaving at that point even after the monster attack.
It's not your prerogative to say they are wrong, when they clearly are right. A claim like that is quite comparable to you claiming that Nero is a Klingon and the heroes and fellow villains are wrong to consider him Romulan. It's complete nonsense limited to your end of the process, not part of the movie at all. In the movie, ejecting and blowing up the cores gets your ship kicked out of danger, and expert heroes do so because they know what they are doing.
I don't need "prerogative" all I need is the logic.
It didn't work and thus they should be swallowed by a black hole. It didn't happen the wave logic dictated there for...(really a plot hole) stupid.
Naah, you disabled those by inattention. The writers did their best to please you, but apparently you aren't easily pleased...
Petulance is not a defense for stupidity.
You need to try and be more...logical in your thinking. Just because you find some inane way to justify what you saw, the lackings of the script doesn't mean I should be satisfied with anything short of reasonable expectations of good sense and writing. Trek 2009 falls shorts or both standards.
That's not your prerogative, either - not as long as you keep throwing imaginary plot holes (or attention holes) at the board and claiming that everybody else should see your invisible friend, too.
Timo Saloniemi
No privilege is necessary to use a definition but you've certainly have proved that a petulant retort can certainly do everything to avoid a the definition.
