The Undiscovered Country

[fireproof78]

I know this isn't the thread, but to me they're just lame, worthless, pathetic idiots.

- Spock? Far too pouty and emotional (and command-compromised by his relationship with Uhura).

- Kirk? A boastful, arrogant, violent sleazeball who basically bullies and punches his way into the captain's chair and commits genocide at the end (along with out-of-character prompting by Spock).

- Chekov? Sad that the actor died, but his character elicits little emotional response or admiration from me. An autistic bore who just sits there and apathetically explains that Vulcan is being rapidly devoured by Nero's ludicrous weapon.



Nero has no believable character motivation. He's just irredeemably savage and impossibly spiteful and crazed, right from the moment he decides to viciously attack the U.S.S. Kelvin and execute her captain who goes over to Nero's ship in good faith. These antagonists are all dark-hearted, aggressive, and idiotically malevolent because the filmmakers aren't interested in rounded character traits or an exploration of what makes people behave badly or desire different outcomes to "the heroes".

I completely disagree. But, seeing as how there is no sympathy for the characters I don't think there will be mutual understanding. So, agree to disagree at this point.

 

[BillJ]

In the 110th minute:

http://structureddream.blogspot.com/2010/06/star-trek-by-minute-110-no-mercy.html

That's not remotely genocide. Kirk offered mercy, a mercy that Nero knew would lead to him being held accountable for the lives he took at Vulcan (which would be far closer to what genocide actually is) by Starfleet and the Federation. Once he rejected it, Kirk took the initiative and made sure nothing of Nero's sizable armory survived falling through another Red Matter-created time tunnel.

Once the offer of mercy was rejected, Kirk did the right thing.

 

[BillJ]

As far as Spock's reaction goes, the man just watched his mother and his entire world die. I'd say that would provoke a non-standard reaction in pretty much anyone.

 

[Cryogenic]

That's not remotely genocide.

And that's not a refutation of the genocide that Kirk clearly and obviously commits.

Kirk offered mercy, a mercy that Nero knew would lead to him being held accountable for the lives he took at Vulcan (which would be far closer to what genocide actually is) by Starfleet and the Federation. Once he rejected it, Kirk took the initiative and made sure nothing of Nero's sizable armory survived falling through another Red Matter-created time tunnel.

Once the offer of mercy was rejected, Kirk did the right thing.

I find your justification of Kirk ordering mass murder indefensible.

It is absolutely a genocide that Kirk orders -- Sulu is even smirking when Kirk gives the order:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Specifically: 1:36

I'll quote from the page I just gave a link to:

“I would rather suffer the death of Romulus a thousand times, I would rather die in agony than accept assistance from you.” Given what he’s been through and the behavior of these monsters, one can understand and empathize with his hatred.

“You got it,” Kirk sneers in a toughboy wannabe voice. In Abrams’ world, murdering the defenseless and/or insane is strong and heroic. Actually, it would be more correct to say that for his worldview and those of many others, a hero committing murder is a logical impossibility – it simply cannot exist. In the United States for example, the concept of “US terrorism” is unthinkable. I once mentioned that a National Science Foundation study of international terrorism featured all the major militaries in the world except the largest one, that of the U.S., and I was unable to get any explanation from anyone I could find associated with the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism database. Nothing the U.S. does can be considered terrorism, by definition. Similarly, for this guy, (http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/route_17/just_torpedo_next_flotilla) the murder of 9 peace activists is “being polite,” which he ridicules as “weakness”. Instead, Jonathan Mark advocates making the (non-Jew) world “furious”, that everyone should “fear Israel”, that Israel should “take out Iran”, and sink every "fake humanitarian" flotilla, with torpedoes. He claims that inducing fear, perhaps even more fear than the Nazi’s were able to generate with their created war, is the way for Israel to “win it” with theirs. This is a view echoed in this film as Kirk orders: “Arm phasers, fire everything we’ve got.”

The remainder of this segment shows the inexcusable, stupid, criminal, and murderous attack against a helpless enemy by the Enterprise.

http://structureddream.blogspot.com/2010/06/star-trek-by-minute-110-no-mercy.html

As the author points out, Nero and his crew were completely helpless. Even worse, Kirk endangers his own crew by sticking around to watch, despite the imminent danger posed to the Enterprise by the black hole. But asshole Kirk survives anyway and gets a medal at the end, including an instant promotion to Captain.

Again, I know this movie has its fans (look how quickly you two have rushed to defend the film in a TUC thread), but ST09 -- to me -- is a disgustingly violent spectacle...

About as far from Gene Roddenberry's conception of Star Trek as it is possible to get. "Star Murder" (or "Stellar Remnant Murder") might have been a better title for that Abrams filth.

 

[fireproof78]

As far as Spock's reaction goes, the man just watched his mother and his entire world die. I'd say that would provoke a non-standard reaction in pretty much anyone.

Indeed, yes. The psychology of these characters, including Nero, is readily apparent to me, and (to your point on another thread) there is the palpable sense of loss for each of these characters. But, more than that, it showcases why each of these characters need each other and why Nero is doomed because he is so singularly focus.

I think the best way I have come to describe it is that Nero is Spock's dark mirror (as noted by Sarek that emotions deeply in the Vulcan race) and possibly where Spock could go if driven purely by that emotion. Kirk, likewise, is defined by his feeling of loss and no direction and Prime Spock centers that back on his dad.

Now, I think 09 ends kind of in an odd way with Kirk as captain but ID picks up those threads well enough to satisfy me. Both Kirk and Spock are such incredibly dynamic characters in these films that I find myself revisiting them because of that interesting psychology.

It is absolutely a genocide that Kirk orders -- Sulu is even smirking when Kirk gives the order:

I think that's reading in to it. I don't see the smirk. And no, I don't agree that it is genocide either.

About as far from Gene Roddenberry's conception of Star Trek as it is possible to get. "Star Murder" (or "Stellar Remnant Murder") might have been a better title for that Abrams filth.

And this is why I struggle with this. There isn't even a place for Abrams Trek to be discussed as Trek. It gets maligned as "filth" and then people wonder why others defend it. Because this Trek, and it is Trek, has to fight for its place at the table.

 

[BillJ]

It is absolutely a genocide that Kirk orders -- Sulu is even smirking when Kirk gives the order:

It isn't genocide. Sorry.

As the author points out, Nero and his crew were completely helpless. Even worse, Kirk endangers his own crew by sticking around to watch, despite the imminent danger posed to the Enterprise by the black hoke. But asshole Kirk survives anyway and gets a medal at the end, including an instant promotion to Captain.

Kirk ensures that Nero doesn't survive to fight another day even earlier in the Federation's past.

Again, I know this movie has its fans (look how quickly you two have rushed to defend the film in a TUC thread), but ST09 -- to me -- is a disgustingly violent spectacle...

You just called it "dumb fun" a few posts ago. Which is it?

 

[Cryogenic]

It isn't genocide. Sorry.

Proof by assertion is an informal fallacy. You're probably the kind of person who doesn't think the police are capable of murder, either.

Kirk ensures that Nero doesn't survive to fight another day even earlier in the Federation's past.

I see. The justification for every murder in history, especially when it is being done by the state.

You just called it "dumb fun" a few posts ago. Which is it?

I was being exceptionally kind.

 

[BillJ]

Proof by assertion is an informal fallacy.

You keep asserting it is genocide. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I see. The justification for every murder in history, especially when it is being done by the state.

If Kirk had allowed him to get away, you'd be asserting that Kirk was complicit in allowing genocide in an earlier time period.

The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948[4] and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It contains an internationally recognized definition of genocide which has been incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Article II of the Convention defines genocide as:

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

There was no intent to destroy Romulans as a race in whole or in part, there was intent to destroy war criminals, who could possibly live to fight another day.

 

[BillJ]

You're probably the kind of person who doesn't think the police are capable of murder, either.

This is pretty poor form to be honest. Someone disagrees with you and you start up with insults that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Just a by-the-by, there are many who I would round up and sentence to prison for a very, very long time.

 

[Cryogenic]

You keep asserting it is genocide. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Interesting. I'll come back to that in a moment.

If Kirk had allowed him to get away, you'd be asserting that Kirk was complicit in allowing genocide in an earlier time period.

What? No. That's putting words in my mouth. The film clearly portrays Nero's ship to be disintegrating; or "compromised" as Kirk pithily puts it. Kirk and Spock just murder Nero for the sake of it. Of course, they were also portrayed as "emotionally compromised", so I guess they were only avenging their lost parents. The film has a singular wit when it comes to the word "compromised", I'll give the writers that.

There was no intent to destroy Romulans as a race in whole or in part, there was intent to destroy war criminals, who could possibly live to fight another day.

Erm... The miners are all Romulan. Romulans that hail from the future. By that frame of reference, Kirk was absolutely giving the order to commit genocide.

This is pretty poor form to be honest. Someone disagrees with you and you start up with insults that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander." If you don't recognise a major mass-murder as a murderous incident in a fictional context, with blinding lights and stereo sound, it's doubtful you can penetrate reality deep enough to recognise or admit murderous intents and outcomes by a police force aligned against many of its country's citizens.

Just a by-the-by, there are many who I would round up and sentence to prison for a very, very long time.

Maybe that's why the film appeals to you? Many people may share your vengeful instincts, but that isn't Star Trek. Hence the reason, if I'm in a good mood, I might call the film "dumb fun". But when I'm not feeling kind, I have no problem using blunter language to put my real feelings across.

 

[BillJ]

If you don't recognise a major mass-murder as a murderous incident in a fictional context, with blinding lights and stereo sound, it's doubtful you can penetrate reality deep enough to recognise or admit murderous intents and outcomes by a police force aligned against many of its country's citizens.

Please stop with the insults. I live in an inner city, I understand police/community relations and troubles far more than you probably ever could.

Many people may share your vengeful instincts, but that isn't Star Trek.

KIRK: There's just one thing I want.
SPOCK: The Klingon?
KIRK: One of us must get him.
SPOCK: Revenge, Captain?
KIRK: Why not?

You must have also missed out on Sisko's fixation with Michael Eddington on DS9...

 

[fireproof78]

Please stop with the insults. I live in an inner city, I understand police/community relations and troubles far more than you probably ever could.

The Friday's Child quote is quite apt. ST 09 is more in line with TOS than anything TMP forward. Which is why the vengeance sentiment is such a struggle at times.

For my part, no I didn't read the "smirk" from Kirk or Sulu. I think that it was a resigned awareness of what Nero wanted, while recognizing that Kirk couldn't risk letting them escape. Kirk had not way of knowing where the Narada would end up, and Nero showed no sign of willingness to concede, his mind completely wrecked by the loss of Romulus. It's a sad choice but I don't see Kirk having much option.

 

[Cryogenic]

Please stop with the insults. I live in an inner city, I understand police/community relations and troubles far more than you probably ever could.

You worry about "insults" (and below-the-belt threats to have me censored). I'll worry about police brutalising and murdering black people and other civic minorities for generations.

Your script excerpt from a TOS episode is classic whataboutism, and cherry-picking to boot. You can't deal with the main points, so you have to swerve onto something else.

Personally, I think if Star Trek is being chained to 1960s television standards, that's sad and basically the antithesis of what the series is meant to be about at its core.

 

[BillJ]

Personally, I think if Star Trek is being chained to 1960s television standards, that's sad and basically the antithesis of what the series is meant to be about at its core.

How can the original document be the antithesis of what something is meant to be about? Besides don't you remember Sisko's tiff with Michael Eddington? Picard's
"I will make them pay for what they've done!" I guess Star Trek isn't about a lot of things that are actually in the material.

Also, Kirk's "Let them die!" from Star Trek VI.

You worry about "insults" (and below-the-belt threats to have me censored).

I was trying to have a polite conversation with you. I haven't tried to have you censored. What makes you think I have that kind of authority? And in twenty years here, I have never reported a post. So if someone has an issue, it will be by reading your own words that you have posted here.

 

[Kor]

The entire Romulan civilization of 2258 still existed. I don't understand how destroying a rogue ship from the future constitutes destruction of the Romulan species.

And knowing our beloved elder Spock, we can be sure that when he found himself stuck in this timeline, he came up with some way of getting data to the Romulan Empire about the possible future fate of their star, so they would have over a century to prepare.

Kor

 

[fireproof78]

How can the original document be the antithesis of what something is meant to be about? Besides don't you remember Sisko's tiff with Michael Eddington? Picard's
"I will make them pay for what they've done!" I guess Star Trek isn't about a lot of things that are actually in the material.

Also, Kirk's "Let them die!" from Star Trek VI.

Kirk kicking Kruge off of the Genesis cliff comes to mind as well.

Star Trek is apparently not aloud to reference past Star Trek in telling its stories...also, the first episode with Kirk featured Kirk killing his best friend. Awesome.

 

[BillJ]

Kirk kicking Kruge off of the Genesis cliff comes to mind as well.

Not to mention he used a false surrender to off the crew of Kruge's Bird of Prey. In Star Trek VI, after the first volley of torpedoes struck and obviously disabled Chang's ship, neither the Enterprise nor Excelsior offered him a chance to surrender, they poured it on until it was dust.

 

[fireproof78]

Not to mention he used a false surrender to off the crew of Kruge's Bird of Prey.

I wonder if that's genocide? I mean, he killed most of his crew. O_o

 

[BillJ]

Perfidy is a war crime...

In the context of war, perfidy is a form of deception in which one side promises to act in good faith (such as by raising a flag of truce) with the intention of breaking that promise once the unsuspecting enemy is exposed (such as by coming out of cover to attack the enemy coming to take the "surrendering" prisoners into custody). Perfidy constitutes a breach of the laws of war and so is a war crime, as it degrades the protections and mutual restraints developed in the interest of all parties, combatants and civilians.

 

[fireproof78]

Perfidy is a war crime...

Hmm...the Klingon Ambassador had a good point then.