• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoiler)

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

^^ really.. it just occured to me that mister crane in mentioning the above
Star Trek has always promoted stun first. Even when Kirk and Spock made their assault on Kor's compound on Organia in TOS, they shot the guards on stun. Kirk said they would kill "if necessary", and there, they were hopelessly outnumbered, yet still shot to stun.
maybe forgot they had already destroyed a klingon ship at the start of the episode.

and really remembering the movie is pre time period for errand of mercy it is interesting to really explore kirk in it.
he was very much in favor of using violence knowing the federation was facing a war with the klingons.
he even called the organians sheep until they smacked him on the nose with what they really were.

i always thought that errand of mercy should have come before arena.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

In the scenes on the Narada, Kirk and Spock shoot to kill on most of the Romulan guards, only stunning one of the guards so that Spock can mindmeld with him to locate the Red Matter/Pike.

Based on every other Trek series we've seen, isn't the usual policy "shoot to stun"? That was what I always liked about Trek - they tried not to kill unless absolutely necessary...

...the one exception I can think of was in DS9, where they would shoot to kill Jem'Hadar...however, I always assumed that was because these genetically-engineered soldiers had been designed to resist stun-settings...

They probably didn't want the them getting back up after the stun wore off and have to stun them again. Makes perfect sense to me.
:wtf:
Yeah cos stun doesn't seem to be worth shit in this movie so lets just kill them instead because they declared war. The Borg got more mercy than that.

What!? Mowing down Borg Drones with tommy gun fire and ripping their internal organs apart is showing more more then a quick lethal phaser blast that hits you before you know it :wtf:
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

In the scenes on the Narada, Kirk and Spock shoot to kill on most of the Romulan guards, only stunning one of the guards so that Spock can mindmeld with him to locate the Red Matter/Pike.

Based on every other Trek series we've seen, isn't the usual policy "shoot to stun"? That was what I always liked about Trek - they tried not to kill unless absolutely necessary...

...the one exception I can think of was in DS9, where they would shoot to kill Jem'Hadar...however, I always assumed that was because these genetically-engineered soldiers had been designed to resist stun-settings...

They probably didn't want the them getting back up after the stun wore off and have to stun them again. Makes perfect sense to me.
:wtf:
Yeah cos stun doesn't seem to be worth shit in this movie so lets just kill them instead because they declared war. The Borg got more mercy than that.

Yeah but that in the Prime Verse. The Primeverse is nicer with clean cut heroes etc etc. This is a harder Verse, with multiple torpedoe launchers and Phaser turrents that spew lasar carnage. Where madmen implode one off the Founding planets of the Federation and IT DOES NOT GET RESET.

Also where Starfleet is a Peace keeping force and more military minded.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Militarily speaking, it would seem more sensible to stun than kill. Killed soldiers are not cared for (except perhaps hours, days or weeks after the battle, by some overburdened field chaplain and his two shovel-toting assistants), since they aren't worth anything. But stunned ones are valuable combat resources once they wake up, so their fellows would be interested in dragging them to safety, or otherwise securing them against further threats. Thus, killing one guy stops one guy (and perhaps at best makes the others hesitate a bit) but stunning one guy stops three guys at least. That was one of the considerations when NATO went for 5.56 mm bullets rather than the more powerful 7.62 mm standard of their opponents: wounding is more effective than killing.

We've never really seen people recover from stun blasts in a matter of mere minutes, unless the stun was deliberately administered to be of little effect (say, "Samaritan Snare" where the Pakleds toy with LaForge). Stunned people tend to remain stunned. And our heroes seem to trust their lives on this, too, never bothering to secure a stunned victim with, say, futuristic cable binders or duct tape.

There thus shouldn't be any technological or tactical reason to use kill over stun in that fight, not unless the STXI timeline Starfleet had somehow failed to develop sufficiently good stun guns where the TOS timeline Starfleet had demonstrably succeeded. The reasons would be purely psychological. I guess ShatKirk would never shoot to kill; he went for the soft approach even in ST3, with the Klingon sons who had just murdered his bastard, and it took a Special Dramatic Moment to turn ShatKirk into a killer and not rescue Kruge from falling into the lava pit. But PineKirk could simply be different.

The more interesting question is, would QuintoSpock be more intent on killing than NimoySpock? The poor guy did just witness death of his planet and mother and so forth - but NimoySpock had seemed psychologically incapable of feelings of vengeance, and QuintoSpock was supposed to be the same as NimoySpock at least right until meeting Cadet PineKirk. Would QuintoSpock suddenly start killing out of spite?

(Just out of curiosity, how do we know our heroes shot to kill in the movie? Were the beams of different color or what? The one time I saw the movie, I was way too intoxicated to remember much detail.)

Timo Saloniemi
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Militarily speaking, it would seem more sensible to stun than kill. Killed soldiers are not cared for (except perhaps hours, days or weeks after the battle, by some overburdened field chaplain and his two shovel-toting assistants), since they aren't worth anything. But stunned ones are valuable combat resources once they wake up, so their fellows would be interested in dragging them to safety, or otherwise securing them against further threats. Thus, killing one guy stops one guy (and perhaps at best makes the others hesitate a bit) but stunning one guy stops three guys at least. That was one of the considerations when NATO went for 5.56 mm bullets rather than the more powerful 7.62 mm standard of their opponents: wounding is more effective than killing.

We've never really seen people recover from stun blasts in a matter of mere minutes, unless the stun was deliberately administered to be of little effect (say, "Samaritan Snare" where the Pakleds toy with LaForge). Stunned people tend to remain stunned. And our heroes seem to trust their lives on this, too, never bothering to secure a stunned victim with, say, futuristic cable binders or duct tape.

There thus shouldn't be any technological or tactical reason to use kill over stun in that fight, not unless the STXI timeline Starfleet had somehow failed to develop sufficiently good stun guns where the TOS timeline Starfleet had demonstrably succeeded. The reasons would be purely psychological. I guess ShatKirk would never shoot to kill; he went for the soft approach even in ST3, with the Klingon sons who had just murdered his bastard, and it took a Special Dramatic Moment to turn ShatKirk into a killer and not rescue Kruge from falling into the lava pit. But PineKirk could simply be different.

The more interesting question is, would QuintoSpock be more intent on killing than NimoySpock? The poor guy did just witness death of his planet and mother and so forth - but NimoySpock had seemed psychologically incapable of feelings of vengeance, and QuintoSpock was supposed to be the same as NimoySpock at least right until meeting Cadet PineKirk. Would QuintoSpock suddenly start killing out of spite?

(Just out of curiosity, how do we know our heroes shot to kill in the movie? Were the beams of different color or what? The one time I saw the movie, I was way too intoxicated to remember much detail.)

Timo Saloniemi

But why take the risk.

They are there on a do or die mission. Retrive the Captain and stop Nero. They're not there to pick up intel or be nice about it. That being said should'nt they have gone with more men?
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

That being said should'nt they have gone with more men?

In-universe reason: Perhaps they weren't sure how many Romulans they were facing, which considering the size of the ship, could have been considerable so instead of trying to outboard the Rommies, they decided to try and go for the sneaky approach with just Kirk and Spock.

Real-world: That would have meant more extras, and potential red-shirts to die, when this is meant to be a moment focusing on the main duo and their ascent to their destinies?
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

That being said should'nt they have gone with more men?

That wouldn't be "heroic" enough for generic popcorn summer movies. The heroes have to do everything themselves.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

What's that human expression? 'Shoot to kill'. :cardie:

Sorry, couldn't resist. :p
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

(Just out of curiosity, how do we know our heroes shot to kill in the movie? Were the beams of different color or what? The one time I saw the movie, I was way too intoxicated to remember much detail.)
Near the end of the firefight aboard the Narada, there's a close-up of Kirk's phaser as he pushes a button on the handgrip, switching from the red (kill) emitter to the blue (stun), so that he can knock down one of the Romulans alive for Spock to meld with, in order to learn the locations of Pike and the Vulcan jellyfish craft. From this, it's inferred that both had been using the kill setting up to that point.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

again, i want to emphasise the self-defense idea. the romulans were out to kill them all, indiscriminately. if this wasn't a moment for killing before they kill you, then i guess i have no idea what is.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

This is not your hippy father's Star Trek, remember?
Killing ugly aliens is kewl.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

If they were all for killing these Romulans to begin with, why show them compassion? Inconsistencies man.

Killing will not bring those dead people back. Those were Spock's words, and I'll be danged if I have to like and accept a Spock who's sole character development stems on him deciding to let Romulans die than offer help. I've had it up to here with these a**holes.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

groan2.gif
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

IIRC didn't Spock want Kirk to kill the Horta before Spock did the mind meld with it?
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

IIRC didn't Spock want Kirk to kill the Horta before Spock did the mind meld with it?

Ar first he was arguing for Horta's life to live. But he changed his mind when Kirk's life seemed to be in danger.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

To quote Patrick, "That's a stupid question!"

The same reason the DS9 crew didn't stun the invading Klingon soldiers in "Way of the Warrior". Same reason feds didn't stun the Jem'Hadar. To have a "shoot to stun" policy in general is one thing. But once the gloves are off and your opponent is shooting to kill at your guys? Especially in this case where it's 2 guys vs the Narada's crew? At that point, no one's gonna get court-martialed (lled?) for responding to that sorta threat with deadly force.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Yeah... I don't get the (two guys) against the Narada's crew bit...
Why didn't kirk just tell cupcake (who's probably boasting to his friends "i beat up the captain") cupcake I want u and 100 of your security officers to accompany me...

with a crew of 1100+ on that ship there should be no shortage of security officers.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

IIRC didn't Spock want Kirk to kill the Horta before Spock did the mind meld with it?

Ar first he was arguing for Horta's life to live. But he changed his mind when Kirk's life seemed to be in danger.

very true..

i also still go back they didnt know the time period for which the romulans would be out.
the romulans and vulcans are not exactly the same.
they never had or least we are not aware of their getting any info about romulan reaction to being stunned.

they just couldnt take the chance they would only be out for say ten minutes or less considering all they had to do .


as for why not take more people.. heck ask that of tos itself.
as for the movie the element of suprise ect could play a part.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

I had forgotten who some of the members of Team MattJC are. With this thread, I now remember one. :p
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

^ How many times have I asked you not to do that?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top