[Futureguy]

I know that this thread has gone over to the ethics of whether Spock was wanting to see Nero not only dead, but really, really, really dead. But the point is that Nero's ship is THIS TIME already breaking up in the singularity: Probably because it IS the focal point of the singularity...and this time not merely moving through it. Yes Kirk does offer Nero rescue, but then when said rescue is refused, Kirk does not hesitate to immediately go for the "kill" by hammering the Narada with everything the Enterprise can shoot at it. Maybe he was ready to take his own revenge on Nero as well as throw some destruction created closure in the mix for the sake of Vulcan (and Spock). The Narada was already breaking up, no real need to take any further action to help it along, so any firing upon the ship was purely (pardon the pun) "Theatrical" and probably quite satisfying. NO tears shed for Nero and boy did that seem to feel good to "kick a dying horse". The taking the time for additional "busting up" of the Narada almost cost the Enterprise and crew's loss itself.
Kirk was CAPTAIN and had a more complete knowledge, by way of his mind-meld with old Spock, what was at stake. A little offering of compassion before his intention of watching the desired destruction of Nero, was necessary, but not truly sincere by way of his immediate, but unnecessary firing on the Narada.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Nero's death would always have been the net effect of not helping the ship. But that doesn't mean he's under the same level of crazed bloodlust that Picard was. Quinto plays it much more in a 'Eh? really?' fashion than the Rambo-esque 'Lemme shoot some Borg right NOW!!' fashion Picard did.

I'm pointing out that to me your suggested line alteration would actually make me suspect it even more because it would be significantly greater and more evasive BS than him just plainly saying that he personally doesn't agree with the rescue of the ship.

Which I don't think you intended it to mean.

Fire and Ice again. I don't care whether a nazi was a hot-headed SA brunt or a cool-minded SS officer. Well, actually the SS folks have been responsible for the really ugly sh*t so there you have my opinion about Spock going Romulan.

Old Spock has only killed (which includes killing himself) or advocated killing when it was to the benefit of all.
If you react cynically to such an ethical position you reveal more about yourself than about Spock.

I am a simple-minded guy, I want Old Spock back because he is an example. Emo Spock is not above revenge, he is just an everyman, a random shmuck. And before you mention Picard going berserk again, I already wrote extensively about Picard and Kirk learning from their errors in TUC and FC.

Originally Posted by Futureguy

I know that this thread has gone over to the ethics of whether Spock was wanting to see Nero not only dead, but really, really, really dead. But the point is that Nero's ship is THIS TIME already breaking up in the singularity: Probably because it IS the focal point of the singularity...and this time not merely moving through it. Yes Kirk does offer Nero rescue, but then when said rescue is refused, Kirk does not hesitate to immediately go for the "kill" by hammering the Narada with everything the Enterprise can shoot at it. Maybe he was ready to take his own revenge on Nero as well as throw some destruction created closure in the mix for the sake of Vulcan (and Spock). The Narada was already breaking up, no real need to take any further action to help it along, so any firing upon the ship was purely (pardon the pun) "Theatrical" and probably quite satisfying. NO tears shed for Nero and boy did that seem to feel good to "kick a dying horse". The taking the time for additional "busting up" of the Narada almost cost the Enterprise and crew's loss itself.
Kirk was CAPTAIN and had a more complete knowledge, by way of his mind-meld with old Spock, what was at stake. A little offering of compassion before his intention of watching the desired destruction of Nero, was necessary, but not truly sincere by way of his immediate, but unnecessary firing on the Narada.

Great points.
I totally agree with you about Kirk's post-pubescent testosterone-explosion that would have nearly destroyed the Enterprise and his lack of sincerity. One or two lines about having to ensure that the Narada does not survive the singularity would have totally changed the vibe of the scene from "shoot the dead man" to "do what has to be done".

[kevin]

There's little point hesitating once your opponent is refusing you and you haven't got the ability to do anything else - it's not like you would risk anyone by beaming over and trying to root around and find her crew and force them off.

Plus, he doesn't warrant tears (that said, I have no objection to a film which is involved and detailed enough with a villain/protagonist whose fate you can feel sorry for, but in Star Trek films we're dealing with relative simplicity of writing so we don't get that sort of dimensionality) to be shed.

However, in that scenario the line about ensuring the ship can't travel through intact and cause damage/problems somewhere else might make it clearer why they needed to fire on her.

[martok2112]

I have to agree with Kevin.

If I were pressed into a situation where I had an opportunity to save someone who attempted to take my life, and the lives of those around me, and I saw in his eyes that he would still try to kill me and mine if he were saved, I would not hesitate to let the frakker go to his fate...and would probably help him on his way.

Cynical? Doubt it. Practical? Perhaps not. Pragmatic? Well, that's putting it pretty kindly. Logical? In this case, yep.

Making damned sure he threatens no one, ever again...for the rest of his life? Priceless.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Fire and Ice again. I don't care whether a nazi was a hot-headed SA brunt or a cool-minded SS officer. Well, actually the SS folks have been responsible for the really ugly sh*t so there you have my opinion about Spock going Romulan.

Old Spock has only killed (which includes killing himself) or advocated killing when it was to the benefit of all. If you react cynically to such an ethical position you reveal more about yourself than about Spock.

Yes, but the crucial (and apparently constantly overlooked aspect) is the distinctly different scenario he's in. He can advocate the killing of Mitchell and Keeler because he's remote from them and isn't invested in them personally.

He's close to the issue here. It's not untypical to have different reactions when it's something that affects one more directly.

That is a difference that I can comprehend just fine without the ethics coming into play. I can understand Rambo Picard as well, of course, and it's nice that the scriptwriters made sure after he had his ephiphany that he was still allowed to get to 'kill' the Borg Queen.

I am a simple-minded guy, I want Old Spock back because he is an example. Emo Spock is just an everyman, a random shmuck.

I tend to avoid placing too much faith in fictional characters as examples. Real life ones are tricky enough without Hollywood writers getting their claws in. It has drawbacks.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

And before you mention Picard going berserk again, I already wrote extensively about Picard and Kirk learning from their errors in TUC and FC.

Too late! I already did.

Editing is a *****.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

There's little point hesitating once your opponent is refusing you and you haven't got the ability to do anything else - it's not like you would risk anyone by beaming over and trying to root around and find her crew and force them off.

Plus, he doesn't warrant tears (that said, I have no objection to a film which is involved and detailed enough with a villain/protagonist whose fate you can feel sorry for, but in Star Trek films we're dealing with relative simplicity of writing so we don't get that sort of dimensionality) to be shed.

However, in that scenario the line about ensuring the ship can't travel through intact and cause damage/problems somewhere else might make it clearer why they needed to fire on her.

What I don't like about Kirk's "shoot all you got" is this permissive "let go" moment. Like Riker's "shove it down their throat" scene from INS it feels as if the officers now, in an extreme situation, do what they really like to do but normally cannot do because of regulations and so on. In Riker's case it is even more clear because of the sexual connotations, i.e. he is breaking a second taboo.

Let's compare it with a sublime moment in Trek, Kirk stopping Bones from rescuing Keeler. It's so sublime because of the violence Kirk has to exert upon himself in order to do what has to be done ... and I addition to that I like it because it runs counter to Kirk's strange image of an easy-going guy or a shoot-first cowboy. (I wonder when the first hate mail about me being a discipline-crazy, fascistoid monster arrives. )

[martok2112]

Picard is human. Spock is half-human. Vulcans are capable of emotion, they just repress it as a general rule.

Picard sought revenge. Spock sought revenge. Vulcans CAN seek revenge if they allow themselves.

Bottom line: Nobody's perfect.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

What I don't like about Kirk's "shoot all you got" is this permissive "let go" moment. Like Riker's "shove it down their throat" scene from INS it feels as if the officers now, in an extreme situation, do what they really like to do but normally cannot do because of regulations and so on. In Riker's case it is even more clear because of the sexual connotations, i.e. he is breaking a second taboo.

This is what happens when societies put it's more arbitrary rules and taboos in place. People secretly want to break them.

I had actually forgotten that line of Riker's (playing with his joystick however has stuck with me forever, along with the 'I want you NOW' look the ****ty con officer gives when he pulls it out) in the film, but it speaks to a similar idea.

Star Trek characters have been shown to 'give in' in the past and sometimes I wonder if it should be dressed up any fancier as it sometimes is. Like Vulcan Logic one can use the line 'I was doing what had to be done' as a twisted ruse to cover what one wants to actually do anyway. The veneer of legitimacy masks it, but not completely.

This is why I don't think the line correction offered would make it 'better'. Because there are three neon words hanging over the suggestion if it had come from Spock anyway - conflict of interest.

Let's compare it with a sublime moment in Trek, Kirk stopping Bones from rescuing Keeler. It's so sublime because of the violence Kirk has to exert upon himself in order to do what has to be done ... and I addition to that I like it because it runs counter to Kirk's strange image of an easy-going guy or a shoot-first cowboy. (I wonder when the first hate mail about me being a discipline-crazy, fascistoid monster arrives. )

Depends who has your email.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

I tend to avoid placing too much faith in fictional characters as examples. Real life ones are tricky enough without Hollywood writers getting their claws in. It has drawbacks.

I think it is a postmodern sin. You can't have simple good characters anymore, that's too simple, too black-and-white. You have to see how they tick, understand their faults and so on.

Old-school heroes have not been perfect but have nonetheless been an example in some way. I love Nolan's treatment of Batman but I have to ask the obvious question: does showing Batman's weaknesses make him more real and less of a comic-book figure? Absolutely not. Does showing the origins of James Bond's scars make him more real? On the contrary, at least for me and I hope that I am not an idiot in this case the old James Bond was more real precisely because he was so clearly unrealistic and fictional.

Back to Batman, if you compare him with let's say Spiderman it becomes clear that he lacks this larger than life aspect. So yeah, I'd say that modern Hollywood is becoming more and more afraid of this. In the old days they shot the bible, reworked Greek classics or had epic Westerns ... and now they are afraid to shoot a simple good guy vs. bad guy movie.