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 obviously reading the movie the wrong way around. Nero only wanted to hurt Spock; he had other goals, but only as a consequence of this. Killing a few billion people was his way of achieving his main goal, not a military operation on its own right (because he wasn't a soldier).
Sure, it might be logical for a villain to proceed in a certain way in destroying the Federation. But Nero never had that as his primary goal, the movie never had that sort of villainy. Entire planets were collateral damage in the monomaniac quest of a madman. You'd need a different movie for a story about a clever threat to the Federation.
"Star Trek 2009: Disgruntled Romulan chases Spock to his past where young Kirk saves the day."
I'm not sure why you're asking "when did he have a problem killing somebody?" regardless when he should have he didn't.
Only if you remove Nero and place yourself as the villain of the story, with a completely different set of motivations and goals.
Certainly there is no sense in thinking that a villain must kill everybody within his reach, save (most) henchmen.
It's a very incoherent line.
Definitely. But Nero does seem to think that he has either already done things to make the future better, or is on the path of completing that quest. You thus can't blame him for neglecting actions towards such a goal, because he's performing to the best of his ability. You might be more clever than him in achieving the goal, but you aren't Nero. Nero is.
Incoherent. Relevancy of Kirk's fight, Spock kissing and Checkov speaking funny to the plot.
I can't argue with somebody who doesn't type English, sorry. Try entire sentences next time.
Of course, Kirk, Spock and Chekov's above actions all were critical to the plot, while none were dictated by the premise of the plot where Nero travels back in time and engages in villainy. A plot (unless it is a very primitive one) doesn't consist of a single cause and its effects 1 through n. It consists of multiple causes, multiple effects and multiple consequences, some of these amounting to story arcs, some not. Thus, there's nothing wrong with all our characters engaging in seemingly random
a priori actions that define their characters and lead to plot developments.
You're the one that said the jamming blinded them. Therefore you're the one that needs it both ways.
Only the plot would need it both ways. I argue that jamming keeping the skydivers safe is logical, while Nero talking to Pike is a plot hole. You argue that both of them are plot holes, which is unnecessary and just plain mean. And then you dare argue that both need to be removed simultaneously for the plot holes to go away? Nope. The writers covered one hole, while the other one wasn't covered. And that's that.
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.
Destroying things was obviously a goal, but just as obviously it wasn't a sole or primary goal. You're just trying to claim that it would be, because that creates "artificial plot holes" regarding Nero's treatment of Spock. But you're not entitled to that.
Relevant information is exclusive to plot not the viewer.
Apparently not. Nothing I have postulated before has been derived from things that wouldn't have been visible or audible in the movie. It's quite possible that the movie had even more data the authors wanted the audience to "get", but certainly it had a sufficient load to cover a vast majority of your so-called "plot holes".
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.
Warp drive and transporters contain zero "thought", "reason" or "known scientific data", too. Beyond, of course, the thought that went into making them dramatically effective. A galaxy-endangering supernova in no way differs from the lot. Certainly no more than a time-travel-enabling black hole or a magnetically disruptive Saturnian belt or a copper-blooded protagonist, all full-blooded scifi concepts where a somewhat familiar keyword (supernova, black hole, Saturn's rings, blood) gives pseudo-credibility to a flight of imagination.
Really, if cheap shots like this are the best you can do, you shouldn't bother at all.
The plot did not isolate that they could not fire thus,not nicely written at all.
You are no longer even being childish, you're getting infantile. The heroes face an enemy who points a big gun towards them, with everybody (including you) aware that if the gun goes off, the heroes die. And you think the movie fails to properly establish that the heroes can't start firing on the villain's weak point at that time?
If that needs "establishing", then you simply aren't a competent moviegoer.
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)
And your argument is that there's a difference?
Of course there is. The
Kelvin is rendered just as helpless as the
Enterprise with the first volley (weapons temporarily gone, warp drive gone for hours, no shielding left), despite the fact that Nero has just emerged from the future and has to get his bearings. Then follows a period where Nero has no immediate destructive intentions, and both victim ships launch their respective hostage shuttles. Then Nero returns to destructive intentions, but not aimed at Robau's starship - aimed at his shuttlecraft. He's unsuccessful there, just as he's unsuccessful in his later attempts at opposing shuttlecraft-sized enemies (George Kirk shoots down his missiles with phasers, or the
Enterprise shoots down his missiles with phasers). If you want more "consistency" than that, I suggest Cardassian literature, where the same thing is told over and over seven times in a row, rather than just two!
We then get an extra act in battle A, something we don't get in battle B: Nero tries to rip an already destroyed starship to such small pieces that it can't ram him. That takes him a bit more time than merely disarming Robau or Pike's ships; indeed, he fails. Which in turn is nicely consistent with his later demonstrated limitation in firing his sole type of weaponry: he can't get more than about twenty of his birds in the air before having to stop to do something, probably reload.
It's consistency city in this respect. And probably a Star Trek first, as the show generally tends to be extra sloppy with its space combat scenes.
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
are quite entitled to childish bouts of rage. Still, your plot hole claim was countered by my above analysis of the battle, hinging on it consisting of stages (such as the punctuation provided by the hostage-taking scenes) rather than being a homogeneous lump as you originally postulated.
You should really stop to think before you type in rage, as it would then be obvious to you that Nero can both "want prisoners" and "kill witnesses". It's even possible for the character to "eat" and "sleep" both! (Hint: he just doesn't do those at the same time.)
That the use of escape pod is irresponsible.
And that's a plot point rather than a plot hole: nuSpock is being an emotion-driven idiot. This is a key element in driving the plot forward, as oldSpock then prompts Kirk to strike back at Spock through this fact. So where's the problem?
In Spock being a criminal a problem? Hardly. The fact that he performs a criminal deed is an integral plot element, just like Kirk's criminal sneaking onboard the
Enterprise was a key element. Spock pays the price but dodges the jail, as all heroes do at the end of the day. That's no different from, oh, 85% of the other plots of Star Trek, where our heroes triumph because they break the rules, or suffer because they behave unlike machines.
The stupidity is definitely well founded in the plot. But founded or not...it's still stupid.
Oh, okay, I get what you mean. But the stupidity doesn't detract from the plot, when it's the sort of stupidity one can expect of real people placed in the same situation.
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.
Nothing prompts them to go, either. Vulcan is already destroyed. So your objection makes no sense - there isn't a scene where we should see Spock struggling towards the outpost but don't.
It didn't work and thus they should be swallowed by a black hole.
Why do you say it didn't work? Because it didn't work in your head? It worked in the movie just fine.
There, that's all pure facts (*), and purely from the movie. Now stop trying to pretend that your own, quite possibly superior solutions to the plot should take precedence over the solutions of our heroes. You aren't Nero, and you aren't Kirk. You can't arbitrarily give Nero clarity of mind, or turn Kirk into a sober stack of book with legs.
Timo Saloniemi
(* save for the remarks and insults, but consider it a process of civil de-escalation: there's a lot less there than in your previous post, and I hope to keep reducing even further if I get a comparable response.)
