STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
You obviously haven't seen me post in other threads, then.
I am VERY critical of Star Trek. There's tons of things I don't like from each series and movies and from the franchise in general.
But I love Star Trek and I understand that movies and series and fiction in general have flaws. If I'd let, say, a small mistake like calling Klingon ships "warbirds" prevent me from enjoying it, then I wouldn't like many movies or series, and I would be the only loser in that deal.
I'd rather enjoy the show, so I'm willing to ignore the small stuff.
Finally saw the movie this week. While Cumberbatch gave a good performance I couldn't quite buy him as Khan. The scene where he revealed his identify wasn't very dramatic. I am sure I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been spoiled about it, but still.
Despite that I loved the movie. Probably my favorite of all the Trek movies.
Despite that I loved the movie. Probably my favorite of all the Trek movies.
The fact that I consider most of your attempted criticisms trivial and wrong-headed doesn't mean that I'm "uncritical." It means that I have different tastes.
It's true that I tend to criticize things that I dislike more often than nitpick something that I'm enjoying.
Spock is willing to forgo the possibility of peace with the Romulans because he personally wants vengeance.
At what point do we toss aside the right to a trial then? Where's your dividing line? If you start carving out exception to fundamental rights then you're eroding them bit by bit. Either the right to a trial exists or it does not.
Spock specifically states that the right to a trial ONLY exists if the accused is a citizen of the Federation. Apparently he was totally within the law by what he did in ST09, much like the drone strikes are now. Americans are not to be targeted by drones, regardless of their connections with or actions involving terrorist activities while non-Americans are fair targets even if they lead to the death of uninvolved civilians (the so called collateral damage). That's the message that's contained in SRID when they state that the right to a trial only applies to Federation citizens.
Spock never stated that.
Spock never states that ONLY Federation citizens have a right to a trial, he simply states that they do, without any exclusionary statement. I have plenty of problems with the final Nero scene in Trek 09, but your attempts to paint some sort of picture here just doesn't wash.
This is particularly true as the writers of Trek 09 have stated on more than one occasion that the scene did not play out very clearly and that their intent was to demonstrate that Nero could not be allowed to transit through the black hole on the chance that he and his ship could emerge on the other side to run amok again. As there was a writers strike on during the production of Trek 09, they had no opportunity to fine-tune or rewrite scenes before or during production.
As such, it's far more instructive to view Spock's objections to the mission within the confines of STID itself, rather than a wrongheaded attempt to draw a parallel to modern events using a flawed scene that has been criticized by the writers themselves as inadequate.
Really ? I never read that, but it does clarify quite a bit about that scene.
It would have been irresponsible of Kirk or Spock to allow Nero to escape where he had the ability and intention to destroy worlds. Maybe just maybe if you were certain you could capture Nero and be 110% certain he was disarmed you might try to save him. I even think the Romulan empire would have wanted him stopped before he turned his crazies on them. In TOS Spock advocates chasing down the Roulans so Starfleet not appear weak.
Spock's call for compassion for Khan is different IMO. Although it was pretty obvious he was guilty of some crime, its not certain which were from his own instigation and which were at the Admirals. And he wasn't at that time holding control over a planet killing weapon.
Both Kirk and Spock may also now regret extinguishing Nero the way they did, but have not expressed those feelings aloud.
They shouldn't. It would have been irresponsible. OK OK IMO.
And they didn't extinguish Nero. He got pulled into a black hole.
In the end they barely made it themselves. They probably couldn't have even saved Nero and themselves if they tried.
I know all that. I enjoyed the scene myself. It got a rousing cheer in the cinema on opening night. As the writers intended.
But it was a huge bone of contention for some fans on this site.
Lots of things annoyed me from ST09 and this was not one of them. I suppose that some people would give a pass to the things that concerned me.
Sometimes captains have to make the hard decisions, like Archer stranding that ship, like him cloning Trip and killing the clone (which I totally don't agree with) and even Picard had to make a hard decision once (in INS). Sometimes the good of the many outweighs the good of the one
The writers intent doesn't enter into it. Their intent is not what's on the screen. It was also the writers intent that they film a scene with Shatner. SHould we therefore assume that such a scene exists?
Spock may not have stated that only Federation citizens are entitled to a trial but he did specifically state it applying to Federation citizens. Why make the distinction if it's the right of everyone to face their accusers in a trial? Why not simply state that Starfleet officers are entitled to a trial? Or humans? Or males with brown hair and British accents? Why use the qualifier "Federation citizen"? The writers were trying to draw a parallel to the current drone war and in doing so made the case that it's wrong to target your own citizens but non-citizens are fair targets.
Unlike Spock the audience are not telepaths. If he had a change of heart we should have seen it.
Kirk was prepared to rescue Nero and his crew and he took Spock's rejection of the offer as a chance to execute Nero. The ship was not going through a black hole. The black hole was going through the ship. It was being visibly crumpled and crushed. When it first appeared it came through basically undamaged and fully operational. There was no suggestion that Nero could escape the same way he arrived.
In both cases, the Kirk had a chance to kill his adversary and his target could not fight back. Nero on his ship as it's being destroyed and Harrison as a human being versus a spread of torpedos. In one case he followed through and in the other he didn't. We're told by Spock that the reason they should not kill Harrison was that he was a Federation citizen. That's what we have been presented with. They may be different movies but other plot elements carried over, Spock and Uhura's problems and Spock's explanation about the destruction of Vulcan for one and Pike's ongoing relationship with Kirk for another.
And the idea that a theatre of people would give up a rousing cheer over the execution of a foe that's been rendered helpless makes me wonder just what they feel. If these same people watched Balance of Terror would they be calling for Kirk to blow away the Romulan Commander? His actions could have started a war that could have lead to the loss of a lot more than just Vulcan.
We don't have to bring ourselves down to the level of those we're fighting.
You really want movies to spoonfeed you, and to have the writers and director remove all such ambiguity from important scenes? That leaves very little to discuss afterwards except perhaps how did the creators do?
It's fun to ponder why and how characters do particular things. In real life we often don't know what's really going on in a person's head, and we must interpret from his or her actions. And we may well be wrong.
I guess you hate those episodes of CSI when the screen fades to black but not everyone has received their comeuppance?
I've never seen CSI. I know it's some sort of crime drama but I've had no desire to watch it. From what I've heard the science on it is about as far removed from reality as Star Trek's is though. That's about all I know of it.
No, I don't need things spoon fed. What I do like is seeing characters act in a way that's consistent with what we've seen of them previously. If Kirk suddenly wasn't interested in women, acting shy and withdrawn around them in STID you'd wonder what had happened since the first film.
In the fight that Spock and Uhura have on the way to Quo'Nos we find out more about their relationship and why Spock is acting as he is. Why bother having that scene if not to explain his behaviour and how it's impacting their relationship? I would have liked to see something similar to explain whey Spock was so gung ho to Take out Nero but is suddenly getting all high and mighty about the necessity of bringing Harrison back for a trail. Spcok's action at the end of the last movie was a pivotal scene. When something thematically similar came up in this one it would have been nice to see just why he's suddenly pulled a 180 from his previous position. You're perfectly welcome to ignore or speculate on it as you like.
No, I don't need things spoon fed. What I do like is seeing characters act in a way that's consistent with what we've seen of them previously. If Kirk suddenly wasn't interested in women, acting shy and withdrawn around them in STID you'd wonder what had happened since the first film.
In the fight that Spock and Uhura have on the way to Quo'Nos we find out more about their relationship and why Spock is acting as he is. Why bother having that scene if not to explain his behaviour and how it's impacting their relationship? I would have liked to see something similar to explain whey Spock was so gung ho to Take out Nero but is suddenly getting all high and mighty about the necessity of bringing Harrison back for a trail. Spcok's action at the end of the last movie was a pivotal scene. When something thematically similar came up in this one it would have been nice to see just why he's suddenly pulled a 180 from his previous position. You're perfectly welcome to ignore or speculate on it as you like.
You've interpreted things one way and I've interpreted them another way.
You think of Spock as a crazy murdering hypocritical idiot and I've thought of Spock as taking his commission seriously and realising that Nero is mad and will keep on doing what he's doing no matter what. He doesn't have the luxury of giving Nero mercy, he has the responsibilty to stop him.
In the second instance, Khan has not revealed himself to be a planet destroying crazy yet. When he did realise this he attempted to stop him to the best of his ability by blowing up the torpedoes after they had been transported to the Vengeance. Perhaps Spock was also a murderer in that case. Perhaps he should have shown mercy to Khan again and given him one more chance to blow them up, take out the Enterprise and have control of a supership.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
