The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/index.php)
-   Star Trek XI: The Movie (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Should Kirk have saved Nero and his crew? (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12005)

JR585 12-09-2012 10:10 PM

Should Kirk have saved Nero and his crew?
 
What do you think?

samwiseb 12-09-2012 10:46 PM

Nah. Let them die.

Or better yet, torpedo them to death because you don't feel like waiting around. Sort of like stomping on a person's grasping fingers instead of just letting him fall (cowardly). However...

They're caught in a miniature black hole, so I'm not sure there's much you can do for them.

Nero made it clear he didn't want to be rescued, and wouldn't cooperate if he was.

They're dangerous war criminals already accountable for homicide on a planetary scale.

Having them tried would create more widespread political complications than is worth, since they do not even exist in this timestream legally speaking. If he were bin Laden you'd drop him in the ocean and claim to the world you shot him in self defense. If he were Mussolini you'd pull over in some village town and have him shot. The decision would never even get high enough up for anyone in authority to take public responsibility for him. Deny Nero and the others their voice and shoot them like dogs.

An acting captain who could not grasp these nuances and delivered them to Earth alive would probably never get promoted again.

Captain Tom Coughlin 12-09-2012 11:27 PM

They were offered a chance to surrender, they refused.

thestartrekker 12-10-2012 04:18 AM

Nah, I had enough of Romulan footwear.

horatio 12-10-2012 04:18 AM

Obviously it was virtually impossible to save the crew due to the singularity. But they still should have tried or at least considered the implications of their actions for two reasons, a moral and a political one.
First, the interspecies equivalent of human rights. You do not shoot people "like dogs", neither today nor in a better future (obviously AbramsTrek is reactionary, its future is worse than our present), you do not kill an entire civilian crew just because their leader is a mass murderer. There might very well be people in it who are opposed to Nero's path.
Second, while Kirk knows some tidbits from Spock senior he doesn't really understand the situation and doesn't really know for sure that the ship is from the future so saving the crew is politically prudent. The relations with the Romulans are probably tense anyway.

Instead we got the very opposite, a pubescent Kirk who was basically happy that Nero declined his offer such that he could "pew-pew" him, a character devoid of decency and intelligence. Spock did not even pretend to care and his implicit "come on Jim, kill that sucker who killed my mummy" stands in stark contrast to the Spock from TOS who tells Kirk to kill Mitchell or let Keeler die when it is the only option.

samwiseb 12-10-2012 05:30 AM

Spock never gives a reason for his objection (presumed, and for that matter it didn't sound like a very strong objection to me). "What are you doing?" It could be anything. It could be practical (they're all about to get sucked into a black hole, and almost did because they wasted time firing torpedoes). It could be political. It could be personal. If it's personal it lacks conviction because of the way he delivers his next line. He never says what he's thinking. If there's nothing there there's nothing there. You fill in the cracks and make up your own reason.

The AbramsTrek future is actually worse than today? This is the first time I've heard that, so I'm just making note.

I agree though about not killing all of Nero's crew if you can help it (even though I sort of practically doubt any of them were innocent, given they all would have known the sheer magnitude of what they're leader was doing. It's not like covering your ears in a Bajoran labor camp). And firing the torpedoes seems a bit excessive every time I watch it.

kevin 12-10-2012 09:10 AM

In fairness I think Spock in my reading was kinda expressing disapproval at the offer of assistance, however it was never his decision to make. He's allowed his opinion on such a thing and to disagree but Kirk was in command and the offer was made.

It was clearly not even remotely safe enough to try to save them and I'm not of the view this is a 'what about the innocent contractors on the Death Star' type Clerks discussion. The crew of the ship were likely no more unaware of what was happening than Ayel although you could argue we never get told. We wouldn't anyway really. Were we told Shinzon or R'uafo's henchmen were unaware of their leaders plans? The crew of Kruge's ship? No we weren't.

I would not confuse who henchmen are and create artificial indignation at the lack of attempt to save them.

However, I don't at all subscribe to any notion Abrams future Earth is materially worse and I believe that really has more to do with certain views on the entire film than anything actually shown. Their really has never been much of Earth shown so the minutae and banality of daily living on that planet is heavily unknown in either Universe. I think it's a little more contemporarised and made recogniseable then Roddenberry would ever have shown had he been able to but I don't have a problem with that.

horatio 12-10-2012 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samwiseb (Post 327862)
Spock never gives a reason for his objection (presumed, and for that matter it didn't sound like a very strong objection to me). "What are you doing?" It could be anything. It could be practical (they're all about to get sucked into a black hole, and almost did because they wasted time firing torpedoes). It could be political. It could be personal. If it's personal it lacks conviction because of the way he delivers his next line. He never says what he's thinking. If there's nothing there there's nothing there. You fill in the cracks and make up your own reason.

Let's first take a look at the actual text:

KIRK: This is Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise. Your ship is compromised. Your too close to the singularity to provide assistance, which we will provide.
SPOCK: (to Kirk) Captain, what are you doing?
KIRK: You show them compassion may be the only way to earn peace with Romulus. It's logic, Spock. Thought you'd like that.
SPOCK: No, not really. Not this time.
NERO: (on viewscreen) I would rather suffer the end of Romulus a thousand times. I would rather die in agony than accept assistance from you.
KIRK: You got it. Arm phasers, fire everything we got.

If you read the scene alone your 'anything can be' obfuscation is already wrong. Kirk does provide a political argument. Yet Spock clearly says that he does not give a damn about logic, a word which usually doesn't mean 'logic' but 'common sense' or 'doing an analysis instead of following your gut instinct'. If neither politics nor practical issues matter nor anything logical (read common sensical) matter to Spock it has to be personal.
Now if you read the scene together with the rest of the movie which is about Nero having killed Spock's mother and Spock having serious issues with it plus in particular the most disgusting scene of the movie, i.e. when Sarek tells his son to not suppress his desire for revenge (a remark that would already be utterly immoral among humans while it is suicidal in the case of Vulcans), it becomes crystal clear that Spock has followed the advice of his father.

One has to add though that the scene is just badly written, its purpose is of course to illustrate that Spock and Kirk have learned from each other and it does not intend at all to make a revenge-hungry monster out of Spock. But intentions don't matter and very often the accidental stuff tells you more about the writer than their well-constructed lines. Freudian slips and so on.

I understand that fans of the movie wanna try to rationalize RevengeSpock away but obviously it doesn't work. I find it quite sad that a movie which tried to copy so many things from TWOK missed the part about the self-destructive nature of revenge. That's not at least why I always emphasize that the new movie is brilliant but soulless. They did everything right but missed the essence of a movie they tried to emulate as well as, here I generalize perhaps unfairly, the franchise in general.

brobertsumc 12-10-2012 10:26 AM

First off, to answer the original question: No, he should not have saved them if they were unwilling to cooperate. Trying to get them off the Narada while in an uncooperative mood would have risked Kirk's own ship and crew. If they're willing to cooperate, it's your duty. If they aren't, and their lack of cooperation endangers your crew, save your crew.

As for firing the torpedoes -- place yourself in Kirk's position. You have stated that the vessel is compromised, but given what you've already seen and lack of familiarity with an obviously advanced ship capable of killing billions, do you KNOW that? Do you take the chance? Logically, you don't. Whether you get that crew off or not, you're going to make DAMNED SURE that ship is destroyed.

As for Spock's argument, I think you can impose whatever meaning you want. Perhaps Spock has momentarily given himself to the Dark Side, or he's the same old Spock who is eminently logical. There is no time to rescue the Narada's crew and jeopardizing the E's crew in the effort is a needless (and therefore illogical) risk.

Captain Tom Coughlin 12-10-2012 10:39 AM

Exactly, they were still in an active state of hostility, the Narada crew had refused surrender. Destroying them is the only option at that point.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.