View Single Post
Old 06-29-2014, 07:34 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208

Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Nope. The Nexus is paradise with an exit option. Sounds like two things to me. Now of course the intermingling of paradise and reality, that you can wish to exit the Nexus at any moment and place, seems dubious but as Martok has already pointed out, there is a good way to read it, Kirk and Picard have tricked the Nexus. There is your intellectual Picard and you willpower Kirk moment.
So yeah, it does two things. If I said "black holes are not wormholes at the same time" about ST09 I would whine about sci-fi tricksery and say absolutely nothing, rien, nichts about the movie. It is like saying that the first fifteen pages of "The Time Machine" do not realistically depict time travel, you totally miss what the story is about. It is not even a technical complaint as it is precisely the point of sci-fi gadgets to do what the writers want them to do.
The Nexus collects any living thing it comes in contact with. It shreds everything else. It starts everybody off from the same point regardless of when it collected them because "time has no meaning here," despite the fact that everybody inside perceives time progressing forward from that point (So it's like the opposite of the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, which seems really kind of ridiculous). It lets you escape mortality because "time has no meaning here." It fills you with joy as if joy were something tangible like a blanket. It lets you create any fantasy you choose AND lets you fast-forward or rewind through said fantasy at your whim because "time has no meaning here" (I'm counting those two features as one just to be fair). AND it lets you exit anywhere you like because (wait for it) "time has no meaning here." It does all seven of these things because the scriptwriters need it to. And each is its own characteristic property apart from every other.

I have no idea what you do not understand. It is pretty simple and straightforward, Kirk gave up eternal bliss to fight once more for the common good.
Already covered in my last post (as well as Kevin's follow-up post, making my reply here somewhat redundant). Picard is ready to leave the Nexus before he even realizes he can undo what Soran did. Kirk jumps a ravine twice and decides the Nexus isn't real enough for him. He comes to this conclusion on his own. Their sacrifice was minimal because they didn't want to be there anymore. I never said I didn't understand.

Nope, you missed the point of the scene. It is not a sentimental scene, it is not artistically heightened and not by accident but design. It is fairly mundane, Kirk dies on a planet in the middle of nowhere and nobody sheds a tear for him as all of his close friends are dead (respectively old Vulcans or stuck in a transporter buffer). So what, when heroes die in real life they rarely get a big round of applause either.
If you do it for the applause in the first place you are not much of a hero. The best example from fiction/religion/mythology is Judas Iscariot, he did his job (of leading Jesus down the path he wanted to) and accepted that his name will be synonymous with traitor for eternity (i.e. he also died a symbolic death as opposed to folks who die but know that their names will be praised).

So yeah, just because Kirk does not die like folks usually do in Hollywood movies does not mean that the scene is bad. It rather means that the audience has wrong expectations because all the crappy flicks out there confused them about what heroism is. George Kirk is not a hero because we the audience cry because of his stupid son and wife, he is a hero because he does his duty to the end. We don't cry when Robau dies although he did the same like Kirk, his duty until the bitter end. So whether a scene cracks you up or not is no indication of whether it is good. Every halfwitted soap opera maker can emotionally manipulate his audience.

Heroism it is not about the way you die, it is about the CHOICE you made before you die. Kirk forsake eternal happiness in order to save 230 millions.
I can recommend Kurosawas's Seven Samurai for everybody who still thinks that heroism and glory have to go hand in hand.
I didn't miss anything at all. I said right up front that I understood the writers were being unconventional, and I said right up front that I wasn't claiming Kirk should have died on the bridge of his ship. It has nothing to do with calling anyone's heroism into question, and comparing the deaths of minor characters with whom the audience has no prior investment is not applicable. Also the ability to actually, genuinely move your audience is not to be dismissed, scoffed at or pooh-pooed. I very strongly doubt that many half-witted soap operas manage to achieve this. And I'm not interested in the opinions of bitter skeptics who might feel inclined to intentionally mislabel a quality drama or genre program as being 'soap opera'. If you did not move your audience, it's usually not because you simply chose not to. That answer is greyed out, and only after proving yourself are you allowed to mouseclick on it. It's usually because you weren't able to.

Last edited by samwiseb : 06-29-2014 at 07:41 PM.
Reply With Quote