Wouldn't It Make More Sense....(Spoilers)

[slappy]

Just to assume all the spoiler stuff is true...

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Romulans to attempt to travel back in time and kill Spock than Kirk? Spock was the key to the success of the theft of the original cloaking device. Spock was responsible outing Valeris and foiling the Klingon/Romulan/Fed assassination plot. It is Spock who is causing waves of dissent on Romulus and threatening to spread reunification propoganda.

Off Spock.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Well, if I remember correctly (and assuming the rumors were true), the Romulans found themselves accidentally thrown back in time, so it might have been a "Hey, isn't that Kirk's dad right in front of us? Might as well kill him." kind of moment.

Plus, Nimoy would probably have less to do in the film if they killed Spock.

 

[Kegek]

Plus, Nimoy would probably have less to do in the film if they killed Spock.

He could always direct the sequel.

But seriously... accidentally kill Kirk? It was stretching it as it was with their special kill Kirk time plot. It's kind of, well, like when McCoy changes history in "City."

 

[ChristopherPike]

I think you might've just spoiled the climax to the film! Classic Romulan mis-direction.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I think Spock may have accomplished those couple of things against the Romulans, but for an overall change to the Federation, killing Kirk would likely be far more effective.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Well, the original spoiler was by a guy who claimed to have some knowledge about the plot, and then he personally speculated on other things based on that plot. And it was very difficult to tell what was his speculation and what came from the (alleged) plot.

But I think he speculated that the Romulans accidentally ended up back in time and decided to take the newfound opportunity to kill Kirk's father, thereby eliminating Kirk, etc.

Sounds ridiculous to me, but then so do many other Star Trek episodes/movies when reduced to a synopsis.

 

[Kryton]

Spock should cut open Kirk's brain and find out what makes him such a good leader.







What?

 

[Akira Class]

No, what they should do is take a cell from young Kirk and clone him. Then, they could raise the Kirk clone on their own and replace him at a later time in history. If that doesn't work, they could always have the clone work in the mines of Remus or something.

 

[Corran Horn]

well, if we're playing the "Wouldn't it make more sense" game, wouldn't it make more sense for the Romulans to have gone back to the 5th century and just bomb the shit out of the Romans and Egyptians and everybody? In "First Contact", wouldn't it have made more sense for the Borg to have gone back to the primordial Earth and just gummed up the works for the evolution of humans?

It doesn't matter what would make more sense. Whatever they're gonna do in the movie, that's what they did.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Samuel T. Cogley said:
Well, the original spoiler was by a guy who claimed to have some knowledge about the plot, and then he personally speculated on other things based on that plot. And it was very difficult to tell what was his speculation and what came from the (alleged) plot.

But I think he speculated that the Romulans accidentally ended up back in time and decided to take the newfound opportunity to kill Kirk's father, thereby eliminating Kirk, etc.

Sounds ridiculous to me, but then so do many other Star Trek episodes/movies when reduced to a synopsis.

There's a sort of a rule in storytelling - I forget where and when I first saw someone explicitly formulate it - that the audience will generally forgive you one huge coincidence or happenstance in order to get a story started. Only one, and it better come real early.

 

[Kegek]

Starship Polaris said:
There's a sort of a rule in storytelling - I forget where and when I first saw someone explicitly formulate it - that the audience will generally forgive you one huge coincidence or happenstance in order to get a story started. Only one, and it better come real early.

It's been my experience audiences will forgive coincidences in the story at any stage so long as they're not that obvious and the material is good enough to warrant it.

Coincidences, of course, are hardly unknown in Star Trek plotting. Exhibit A: Picard just happens to discover that the commander of a Romulan fleet that is manipulating the Klingon civil war (in which is current tactical officer is playing a decisive role) is in fact the daughter of an alternate universe version of his previous tactical officer who went back in time and was captured by the Romulans.

When you spell it out like that, it sounds like the plot for some absurdist farce or spoof of bad sci-fi.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kegek said:

Starship Polaris said:
There's a sort of a rule in storytelling - I forget where and when I first saw someone explicitly formulate it - that the audience will generally forgive you one huge coincidence or happenstance in order to get a story started. Only one, and it better come real early.

It's been my experience audiences will forgive coincidences in the story at any stage so long as they're not that obvious and the material is good enough to warrant it.

They may indeed, but woe betide the writer who's foolish enough to rely upon it and so indulge himself.

 

[Sharr Khan]

When you spell it out like that, it sounds like the plot for some absurdist farce or spoof of bad sci-fi.

Someone mentioned when reducing Star Trek plots down to summaries they tend to sound... mmm lacking. Though I think that applies to alot of fiction in general. Some of scifi's conceits amplify the matter more though.

Once again, none of us are in position to evulate the internal logic of the story - unless we've seen a script of course.

Within the canon of Trek its general treated that Kirk is a lynch pin figure that is really all the reason any power would need to deliberately screw with Kirk's life.

Sharr

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kirk's the guy who may have prevented the Romulans from launching a possibly successful war of aggression against the Federation in "Balance Of Terror."

It's not implausible to figure that some Romulan strategists a century later might view this as a pivotal event and a lost opportunity for their empire. Since Kirk violated standing orders in that case in deciding to pursue the Roms into the Neutral Zone (whether it came to that or not, I don't recall, but his actions beyond a certain point in the story proceeded from that decision) it might also be argued that another Starfleet captain would not have made the same crucial decision.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Starship Polaris said:
Kirk's the guy who may have prevented the Romulans from launching a possibly successful war of aggression against the Federation in "Balance Of Terror."

It's not implausible to figure that some Romulan strategists a century later might view this as a pivotal event and a lost opportunity for their empire. Since Kirk violated standing orders in that case in deciding to pursue the Roms into the Neutral Zone (whether it came to that or not, I don't recall, but his actions beyond a certain point in the story proceeded from that decision) it might also be argued that another Starfleet captain would not have made the same crucial decision.

That would make a nice call back. "Nero explains to his henchmen. You know if Kirk never prevented our exploratory bird-of-prey from destroying more bases we'd be in a position of power now not groveling to the Feds to help us restore order in our government." it even works in Nem. kinda...

Sharr

 

[slappy]

They should just change "kill Kirk" to "destroy the pre-Enterprise A crew(s)" and there you have it. Nice and vague.

 

[Sharr Khan]

slappy said:
They should just change "kill Kirk" to "destroy the pre-Enterprise A crew(s)" and there you have it. Nice and vague.

Well removing Kirk, would effect how the Enterprise and its history functioned in the broader scheme of the Universe. I guess I come from the assumptions that history is made up of individuals and if you remove one it creates a domino effect. This would be a variation of toppling the king.

Sharr

 

[ralph]

Samuel T. Cogley said:
Well, if I remember correctly (and assuming the rumors were true), the Romulans found themselves accidentally thrown back in time, so it might have been a "Hey, isn't that Kirk's dad right in front of us? Might as well kill him." kind of moment.

Orci said that the second draft was changed.
They could have changed the word "accidentally" to "intentionally".

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

ralph said:

Samuel T. Cogley said:
Well, if I remember correctly (and assuming the rumors were true), the Romulans found themselves accidentally thrown back in time, so it might have been a "Hey, isn't that Kirk's dad right in front of us? Might as well kill him." kind of moment.

Orci said that the second draft was changed.
They could have changed the word "accidentally" to "intentionally".

You change a TV GUIDE log-line that way, not a script.

 

[slappy]

Sharr Khan said:

slappy said:
They should just change "kill Kirk" to "destroy the pre-Enterprise A crew(s)" and there you have it. Nice and vague.

Well removing Kirk, would effect how the Enterprise and its history functioned in the broader scheme of the Universe. I guess I come from the assumptions that history is made up of individuals and if you remove one it creates a domino effect. This would be a variation of toppling the king.

Sharr

That's giving Kirk way too much credit. Love the character to death, but he was just one guy. Besides, which is easier...taking the right card out of your opponent's hand or taking a steamroller and simply running your opponent over? I'd go with steamroller for certain victory.