• 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

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.

Well, they were going for a stealthy, hopefully quick operation.

And Scotty said he'd put them somewhere safely out of sight
But we all know where he ended up beaming them. :lol:
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Didn't TOS phasers have multiple settings? Light stun, stun, heavy stun, then kill? These phasers seemed to have only two choices: stun and kill.

Regardless of whether or not Kirk and Spock should've had their phasers set on kill, if you're in a situation where you're not sure how well the stun setting is going to work on an opponent, then having to go straight to the kill setting as the only alternative doesn't make it a very useful non-lethal weapon, does it?
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Genocidal Romulans do not deserve the stun setting, mister.
Yeah, well, that's your opinion, and mine, too, but still not in the spirit of Trek. I myself wouldn't have given Kruge a hand when he was about to fall off that cliff, yet Kirk did. Kirk even wanted to board the ship and save Khan's crew after Enterprise disabled the Reliant. So phasers set to kill is the VERY LAST option in Star Trek. And it's sad what they did in the new movie. At the very end Kirk was kind of executing Nero, and Spock agreed with him. That's bad.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

What bothers me most about such scenes is that:
Here we have a 23rd century warship, full of gadgets and future weapons and many hardened soldiers and cadets that have been training for security duty for years...

and what do they do? You beam in two guys with phasers that go in guns blazing? If those Rommies had had an auto-defense system or hadn't sucked at fighting...
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

and what do they do? You beam in two guys with phasers that go in guns blazing? If those Rommies had had an auto-defense system or hadn't sucked at fighting...

It's JJ Abrams. He follows Star Wars logic, not Star Trek logic.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

and what do they do? You beam in two guys with phasers that go in guns blazing? If those Rommies had had an auto-defense system or hadn't sucked at fighting...

It's JJ Abrams. He follows Star Wars logic, not Star Trek logic.

Actually, Star Trek "logic" or movie-land "logic" is exactly what he used.
You can perhaps tell me he didn't use real life combat wisdom & logic but please....don't talk to me about Star Trek fighting & combat logic :lol:
Have some mercy.


And I will point out the obvious yet again that it was supposed to be a stealthy operation, not a hostile invasion and take over of Narada.
Scotty was supposed to put them in an out of sight cargo bay. Not the middle of their operations center.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

and what do they do? You beam in two guys with phasers that go in guns blazing? If those Rommies had had an auto-defense system or hadn't sucked at fighting...
Don't think too hard about the logic of Trek overall. Little things like this have been in the back of my mind with Trek for years, but you need to put them aside since they're so well established in the universe. It never made sense to me in the original series (even as a kid) that Kirk and Spock both went on landing party missions (one of them sure, but not both). It also never made sense that they'd go into potential fire fights or dangerous situations and not wear some type of body armor, or all have some type of medical kits on them and melee weapons. Yet it happened over and over. The way I saw it, this just followed tradition.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

What bothers me most about such scenes is that:
Here we have a 23rd century warship, full of gadgets and future weapons and many hardened soldiers and cadets that have been training for security duty for years...

and what do they do? You beam in two guys with phasers that go in guns blazing? If those Rommies had had an auto-defense system or hadn't sucked at fighting...

You must've hated it when Shatner's Kirk put himself in situations where he pummeled his adversary single-handed...
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Genocidal Romulans do not deserve the stun setting, mister.
Yeah, well, that's your opinion, and mine, too, but still not in the spirit of Trek. I myself wouldn't have given Kruge a hand when he was about to fall off that cliff, yet Kirk did. Kirk even wanted to board the ship and save Khan's crew after Enterprise disabled the Reliant. So phasers set to kill is the VERY LAST option in Star Trek. And it's sad what they did in the new movie. At the very end Kirk was kind of executing Nero, and Spock agreed with him. That's bad.

ah in the end kirk got tired of kruge (even told him so :p )
young new kirk offered to rescue the narada crew.
once they refused he just wasnt going to take the chance that the parts of the narada or escape pods could have slipped throuhg the singularity into some other time.

not with some possible advanced weaponry.

and as been noted by several people in this thread there may have been logical reasons why they had the phasers set to kill so it may have been the only option.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Genocidal Romulans do not deserve the stun setting, mister.
Yeah, well, that's your opinion, and mine, too, but still not in the spirit of Trek. I myself wouldn't have given Kruge a hand when he was about to fall off that cliff, yet Kirk did. Kirk even wanted to board the ship and save Khan's crew after Enterprise disabled the Reliant. So phasers set to kill is the VERY LAST option in Star Trek. And it's sad what they did in the new movie. At the very end Kirk was kind of executing Nero, and Spock agreed with him. That's bad.
Logic can be cold sometimes. Nero had been imprisoned before, escaped, and caused untold detestation. He was too dangerous to be allowed to live.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Those Romulans killed billions and wanted to kill billions more... I'd set phasers to kill too.
If nothing else, just in case they wake up while I'm still trying to destroy the drill and have to fight them all over again or they somehow manage to screw my plans.

Yeah, that sounds like it might be a good reason enough to set to kill... I forgot they even did this...
 
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...

what is the purpose of setting your phaser to stun if at the end your objective is to destroy their ship???
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

i think the greater question is why didnt these phasers vaporize them like the phasers from tos? they seemed more like star wars blasters than phasers.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

i think the greater question is why didnt these phasers vaporize them like the phasers from tos? they seemed more like star wars blasters than phasers.
I agree in principle, however, when you get down to the nitty gritty of it - phasers do a lot of things. They can fire in beams or pulses. All different colors. All kinds of different beam intensities... including several settings that kill without "vaporizing".

Instead of Beam+Vaporize they were set to Pulse+Kill. :)
 
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

But thats the Star Trek theme!!

:guffaw:

We come in peace

Shoot to kill!

Shoot to kill !

We come in peace .

Shoot to Kill !

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

For anyone unfamiliar with my reference, it is this scene from DS9 - the first few seconds of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1RTWnXfcdU
Of course, he says it (and with perfect delivery!) just once in the actual scene, but the makers of the video edited it to make it seem like he's repeating it over and over.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Those Romulans killed billions and wanted to kill billions more... I'd set phasers to kill too.
If nothing else, just in case they wake up while I'm still trying to destroy the drill and have to fight them all over again or they somehow manage to screw my plans.

I thought the stun setting was able to put Romulans out for a long time, based on evidence we saw of the stun's effects on Vulcans and Romulans in the other series...

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.

I admired Star Trek's reluctance for killing - that's why I watched it as a child. It was one of the only shows where the heroes showed as much mercy as they could even to their enemies.

Genocidal Romulans do not deserve the stun setting, mister.

Don't call me "Mister", please, cause you ain't my captain.;)
The only reason Kirk wanted then stuned is because....They all owed him money. :)
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

The guy who would usually suggest mercy and the preservation of all life just had his mother killed right in front of him. So, he's definitely not in the mood to make friends with anyone on board this ship. As mentioned before, Vulcans are (in canon) three times stronger than humans (hence the reason Kirk keeps getting his ass handed to him through out the movie). Romulans and Vulcan are similar enough tha this is likely true for bothe species. If you set a phaser to stun it might knock out a full grown man for fifteen minutes or more. Do the same a to a very pissed off Romulan it may do it for only five minutes. It seems like they've made a point of that at least once in every series. They shoot the badguy coming at them, and they keep coming, so they set it for the next highest level, etc implying that stunning isn't guaranteed to work for everyone equally. The same way that a taser gun isn't gauranteed to be non-lethal either.
 
Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

kill em all... let the federation counsel sort them out....
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top