View Single Post
  #17  
Old 12-10-2012, 08:25 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
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 [are willing to] provide.
SPOCK: (to Kirk) Captain, what are you doing?
KIRK: [Showing] 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.
"Fire everything we've got" does sound a little strong. Certainly two or three or six torpedoes alone would suffice. That they almost got pulled in because they waited around firing torpedoes also kind of speaks for itself. On a similar note (and per Martok's comments above) I wouldn't be too keen on serving aboard a ship that was considered expendable for political reasons. It wouldn't be what I signed up for; I'd sooner disgrace myself publicly and deliberately as Lt Bailey did. "Watch and regulations, what do they mean?"

Quote:
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 commonsensical) matter to Spock it has to be personal.
Okay there are a couple flaws here. Your assertion that Spock has abandoned logic or 'common sense' because he disagrees with the 'logic' or Kirk's argument is a reach carefully constructed for your own convenience. Kirk and McCoy are always invoking 'logic' against Spock; that doesn't mean their pathways of reason are necessarily more correct than his. If Kirk's argument is political, that doesn't automatically exclude Spock's counter-motivation from being so as well. It also doesn't follow that 'practical issues' don't matter to Spock because he disagrees with Kirk's logic; that too is a reach. And I don't see how you get from Spock's actual spoken words, which you've quoted, to him 'clearly saying' that he does not 'give a damn' about logic. He gives the humorously sarcastic/understated answer that he gives because he was just asked. It doesn't need to be whatever he (might have been) about to say before Kirk replied "I thought you'd like that."

I just got through making my "deny them their voice and shoot them like dogs" comment. Because it felt good in a gratuitous and rhetorical sort of way. Does that mean that's what I really believe? Can anyone say that's what I believe? When I don't even know myself? Am I required to be consistent? I expect when I die I still won't know what I really think about such issues as the capture and treatment of war criminals. Maybe I just don't even have an opinion on such things.

Quote:
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.
It doesn't become 'crystal clear' to me. Making a wry comment that is completely called for doesn't equate acting out one's desire for revenge. Nor does not suppressing your desire for revenge automatically equate acting out on it. And I have nothing but respect for a father or superior who has the wisdom (and trust) to recognize when the 'obvious' thing does not need to be said. Spock relieved himself of duty and confessed his feelings openly. That was enough to signal that "Okay, my son does not need his nose rubbed in it this time."

Quote:
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.
This probably wouldn't surprise you, but Freudian slips are overrated in my opinion. Maybe Freud himself would know what's in my head better than I do (from the things I might say that come out wrong), however most people wouldn't. And I'm not seeing what your reading of these scenes is supposed to tell me about the Orci/Kurtzman team.

Quote:
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.
From where I stand revenge wasn't the focus of the story. It wasn't what it was about, and anything you wrote in place of Nero would have been similarly underdeveloped because it was back burner next to Kirk and his crew coming together. It also seems to me that you're just as much wanting to rationalize away the things you didn't like (Which is totally your prerogative, and really none of my business, however it's still making a choice. I mean it's not like your preferences would change if you didn't rationalize them). I don't have an issue with you're finding the picture soulless, even if for my own experience I disagree. In your defense, generalizing about these things is inevitable for the purpose of discussion.
__________________

Reply With Quote