What Amazes Me

[ProwlAlpha]

I wouldn't call the Narada's crew defenseless nor innocent. They all knew what they were doing and taking part in. It wasn't even a military vessel, so they were not there out of duty but rather they wanted to be there.

Besides would you risk your life and crew to save a group of people who just annihilated Vulcan, attacked your home planet, and killed many of your comrades? Talk about armchair heros: "I would do it only if I don't have to leave my chair or the relative safety of my home"

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Still, you're right I think, a throw away line about not being able to use the transporters wouldn't have killed anybody (No...pun intended).

Agreed.

A lesson learned in DS9 reiterated by those actions in this film is...? You don't promote people to Captain straight out of the academy. When you do they get trigger happy for some reason.

I have to agree with that too. And that was one of my biggest complaints about the film. Kirk shouldn't have been promoted so soon. He needed more experience.

"Abramsprise..." That's all you really have to say.

-Withers-​

And what is that supposed to mean? Yeah, I loathe that ugly, bloated, kitbashed caracature of Matt Jeffries' timeless and elegant design. And I can't, in good concience, bring myself to call that disproportionate behemoth the "Enterprise". Because it's not. At least to me. And that's the way I feel about it.

 

[Withers]

And what is that supposed to mean?

Easy tiger. I'm with ya- all I was saying is (aside the Valiant) that's the only place something like that would happen.

-Withers-​

 

[Pauln6]

After 25 years if the hypothetical Romulan prisoners in the Brig that had a problem with what Nero was doing (and lets be honest- that's a pretty big stretch) hadn't escaped they weren't trying very hard were they? I mean it was a civilian ship anyway. Wouldn't it ergo that they wouldn't even have a brig? Why would a mining ship need one?

But, either way, its totally speculation. What I would know (had I been there) is that the ship destroyed the Kelvin, torched a bunch of Klingon ships, blew up Vulcan and tried to do the same to Earth. I'd be a pretty ineffective combat commander if I took the time to consider that there might be prisoners in the Brig from the crew that dissented from their Captain before I destroyed it.

That's the point I'm trying to make though. It shouldn't be necessary to speculate.

1. Scan the Narada - is she a threat? No - she is trapped in the sigularity, she has insufficient power to escape, her shields are failing, her weapons are inoperable.

2. Open hailing frequencies & offer assistance: Rejected by Nero.

3. Move to a safe distance to avoid being caught in the gravity well (as it's pull increases when it consumes more matter), being damaged if the Narada's warp engines explode, or being damaged if the singularity gives off a radiation burst. If this proves impossible at this stage then move to stage 4 followed by 6.

4. Scan for life forms & transport as many of the crew as possible to be arrested for trial. If it is impossible to get a lock, regulations and the Geneva Convention are satisfied and Kirk's conscience is clear.

5. If there is the slightest possiblity that the black hole isn't going to destroy the ship then destroy it from a safe distance.

6. Eject warp core to generate an energy wave and hope that this is enough to escape the event horizon without destroying the ship.

7. Limp to Earth.

8. Gain commendation and promotion to Lt-Commander as first officer on Uss Hood or whatever. Spock acknowledges that Kirk is on his correct path.

9. Promotion to Captain of Enterprise 5 years later at the start of the next movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I can't believe this thread is still going on. If the moderator knew about this...

I was glad to see Nero fry, so I don't have a problem with this.

That is scary. This statement is indicative of why the world is in the state it's in at this time.

Then be scared. I watched Gunfight At the OK Corral, with Lancaster and Douglas, the other week. Great movie. I love classic western movies, "frontier justice" and all.

Oddly enough, I can love westerns without asking that they serve as blueprints for contemporary law enforcement.

They're just movies.

That anyone at this late date looks to Star Trek to serve as an example of what "the future" ought to be like rather than simply enjoying it as a movie, uh, "scares" me.

 

[Pauln6]

I wouldn't call the Narada's crew defenseless nor innocent. They all knew what they were doing and taking part in. It wasn't even a military vessel, so they were not there out of duty but rather they wanted to be there.

Besides would you risk your life and crew to save a group of people who just annihilated Vulcan, attacked your home planet, and killed many of your comrades? Talk about armchair heros: "I would do it only if I don't have to leave my chair or the relative safety of my home"

The Geneva Convention requires enemy combatants to be rendered assistance. While it's true NERO (not his crew expressly) has refused to surrender, they can still be trnasported across to the Enterprise where they could be taken captive. They are not innocent but to my knowledge summary execution has never been part of the Federation Charter.

 

[Pauln6]

I can't believe this thread is still going on. If the moderator knew about this...

That is scary. This statement is indicative of why the world is in the state it's in at this time.

Then be scared. I watched Gunfight At the OK Corral, with Lancaster and Douglas, the other week. Great movie. I love classic western movies, "frontier justice" and all.

Oddly enough, I can love westerns without asking that they serve as blueprints for contemporary law enforcement.

They're just movies.

That anyone at this late date looks to Star Trek to serve as an example of what "the future" ought to be like rather than simply enjoying it as a movie, uh, "scares" me.

Trek is a utopian future. That's the difference.

 

[Withers]

Ah! Alright, how about this;

3. Move to a safe distance to avoid being caught in the gravity well (as it's pull increases when it consumes more matter),

If they had moved to a safe distance would they have been able to transport anybody? Remember how close Enterprise B had to be to those ships at the beginning of Generations? Pretty close right? If Enterprise moved that far away there's nothing to say it would be able to get a lock especially given the conditions.

Again, a throw away line about said option being impossible wouldn't have hurt. I'm with ya on that. Still, while being morally praise worthy I wouldn't think of doing so as morally obligatory given the totality of the situation. (The line fit so I used it )

-Withers-​

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I can't believe this thread is still going on. If the moderator knew about this...



Then be scared. I watched Gunfight At the OK Corral, with Lancaster and Douglas, the other week. Great movie. I love classic western movies, "frontier justice" and all.

Oddly enough, I can love westerns without asking that they serve as blueprints for contemporary law enforcement.

They're just movies.

That anyone at this late date looks to Star Trek to serve as an example of what "the future" ought to be like rather than simply enjoying it as a movie, uh, "scares" me.

Trek is a utopian future. That's the difference.

It was a utopian future. It's not anymore. At least not in the Abramsverse. The utopian view of the future is one of the things that I loved so much about Star Trek in general. That utopian vision of the future seems to have been swept under the rug by the Abrams Administration. Yet another problem I had with this movie.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

And what is that supposed to mean?

Easy tiger. I'm with ya- all I was saying is (aside the Valiant) that's the only place something like that would happen.

-Withers-​

Sorry. I got a little defensive. I really, really, really, really, ad infinitum, despise that ship. Just the thought of it makes me angry. And if I look at it, my blood pressure shoots through the roof. I'll try to calm down in the future.

 

[Withers]

It was a utopian future. It's not anymore. At least not in the Abramsverse. The utopian view of the future is one of the things that I loved so much about Star Trek in general. That utopian vision of the future seems to have been swept under the rug by the Abrams Administration. Yet another problem I had with this movie.

Actually, I'm going to give credit for "The Destruction of Paradise" to Deep Space Nine. The Abrams universe, while still portraying morally dubious behavior, hasn't yet approached the gray areas where DS9 made its mark. Don't give this thing too much credit one way or the other. It didn't change anything in that regard.

Sorry. I got a little defensive.

No sweat. I'd watch out for the moderating team though. They tend to frown on emotional expression in this particular area.

-Withers-​

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I can't believe this thread is still going on. If the moderator knew about this...



Then be scared. I watched Gunfight At the OK Corral, with Lancaster and Douglas, the other week. Great movie. I love classic western movies, "frontier justice" and all.

Oddly enough, I can love westerns without asking that they serve as blueprints for contemporary law enforcement.

They're just movies.

That anyone at this late date looks to Star Trek to serve as an example of what "the future" ought to be like rather than simply enjoying it as a movie, uh, "scares" me.

Trek is a utopian future. That's the difference.

Another difference is that Gunfight At The OK Corral is a far better film than most Star Trek movies, which matters a great deal more than utopian ideology...because, you know, they're just movies.

When the ideologues are permitted to suppress Trek's storytelling virtues are the times that the thing takes on the crippling limitations of utopianism: sterility, boredom and denial of human nature as our nature is expressed both in our real virtues and in our real limits.

That "utopia" literally means "no place" is not accidental. Roddenberrian "utopianism" in particular is superficial and no more sophisticated or observant than the archetypical "and they lived happily ever after" benediction of a fairy tale.

Utopianism, as distinct from optimism or imagination, did as much to kill Star Trek as any of its other defects. Fuck that noise; let utopian Trek remain unlamented, dead and buried.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I wouldn't call the Narada's crew defenseless nor innocent. They all knew what they were doing and taking part in. It wasn't even a military vessel, so they were not there out of duty but rather they wanted to be there.

Besides would you risk your life and crew to save a group of people who just annihilated Vulcan, attacked your home planet, and killed many of your comrades? Talk about armchair heros: "I would do it only if I don't have to leave my chair or the relative safety of my home"

The Geneva Convention requires enemy combatants to be rendered assistance. While it's true NERO (not his crew expressly) has refused to surrender, they can still be trnasported across to the Enterprise where they could be taken captive. They are not innocent but to my knowledge summary execution has never been part of the Federation Charter.

Geneva Convention only applies to the signators of that compact. Secondly, who knows if any of his crew survived the red matter explosion in the first place, yes there may have a few that survived where Nero was located, but the ship disintegrated within a matter of moments of Nero refusing. Besides, from what we saw about the transporter, it would have a futile effort anyways, since they could not even successfully beam off Amanda from Vulcan, what do you think they can do it beaming off multiple targets with a ship trapped in a black hole.

Like I said, armchair captain.

 

[Withers]

Utopianism, as distinct from optimism or imagination, did as much to kill Star Trek as any of its other defects. Fuck that noise; let utopian Trek remain unlamented, dead and buried.

Bravo. I like that so much I might actually use it as a signature.

-Withers-​

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Bravo. I like that so much I might actually use it as a signature.

Feel free.

The thing is, the original Star Trek was quite optimistic about human beings learning over time to cooperate better, administer our laws more humanely and treat one another with justice and generosity.

And then we build big heavily armed spaceships to explore the Universe and, when necessary, to enforce our ideals at gun point while settling our people on every piece of real estate that looks vacant upon cursory investigation.

Star Trek's roots were in the western genre as much as in science fiction. Even Spock was originally a riff on the stock western "half-breed Indian" character; at the time the show premiered the similarity to Ed Ames's character on Daniel Boone was remarked upon.

There's a dichotomy there which just about every comedian and parodist who's ever taken a look at Trek recognizes and plays with. The notion that Trek represents some kind of thoughtful ideal future where all the parts fit together is an idea entertained mainly by two groups: hard core trekkies who've invested parts of their self-concept in the notion that Star Trek is Significant, and casual observers who draw superficial conclusions for the sake of writing opening paragraphs in puff pieces reporting on the latest movie/comic/actor interview etc.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I mean it was a civilian ship anyway. Wouldn't it ergo that they wouldn't even have a brig? Why would a mining ship need one?

Perhaps the same reason (only more so) that Princess Cruise Lines have them?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I mean it was a civilian ship anyway. Wouldn't it ergo that they wouldn't even have a brig? Why would a mining ship need one?

Shore leave.

 

[Withers]

Perhaps the same reason (only more so) that Princess Cruise Lines have them?

That's hilarious! I didn't know that. Still, there's a difference in having a brig on a ship full of drunken, gambling, dancing, party-going, celebratory folk and having one on, say, a fishing boat. Ostensibly the people on the Narada were at work. Unless you're specifically in law enforcement the idea of a cell for holding people would be off putting at work, right? If I showed up at my job (I'm an editor at a publishing firm) and Max had installed a brig I'd be worried. (Like... "Hey, w-who's the brig for Max?" ) Even for Romulans it seems like you'd get fired not imprisoned for a job not well done.

-Withers-​

 

[ProwlAlpha]

No, the crew on the Narada were not at work. They were there to exact revenge. They ceased to be miners the moment they attacked the USS Kelvin. Like I said, it was not a military vessel, they were not just following orders.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Utopianism, as distinct from optimism or imagination, did as much to kill Star Trek as any of its other defects. Fuck that noise; let utopian Trek remain unlamented, dead and buried.

I would be interested to learn how one of the most successful franchises in entertainment history, a body of work with continuing cultural impact, and a world wide network of ongoing activity can properly called "dead and buried". I wish my personal income and influence were that "dead"!

Spending alot of time with philosophy types these days, I would ask: how does one clearly distinguish utopianism from optimism or imagination?

Can you provide an example of Trek's environment being a galaxy of idyllic paradise where people do not suffer nor have need of hard labor?