The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Should Kirk have saved Nero and his crew?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-20-2012, 03:02 PM
Quark's Avatar
Quark Quark is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Monica, California
Posts: 2,657
Default

Well, you can't say Kirk didn't offer help.
__________________
*The word "dabo" means "I will give" in Latin, and "Gold" in Aramaic.

J.J. "Binks" Abrams is taking over sci-fi!
Fans Expendable
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-20-2012, 08:02 PM
JR585's Avatar
JR585 JR585 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Narada
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark View Post
Well, you can't say Kirk didn't offer help.
But why fire everything the Enterprise has at the already doomed Narada?
__________________
"Hi Christopher, I'm Nero"
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-20-2012, 10:35 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208
Default

I don't see that it makes a difference. Nero was already dead, by his own choosing. If Starfleet wanted to slap Kirk for endangering the ship while it waited around firing every last torpedo from its banks, they'd probably have cause to do so. But they didn't.

I don't see stepping inside a person's private headspace to psychoanalyze his motives for doing something if he's committed no crime. If someone told me I couldn't make a sarcastically understated truthful comment just because I was already suspect for things I had done or said in a previous scene, I would probably do just that.

I also don't see holding someone to a different standard because of ones (presumed) knowledge of his race or cultural values. Even though I have a very vague recollection of the Klingons once trying to do that to Worf when they had him tried on DS9 (and it seems to me it was finally agreed they were just trying to stir up trouble).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-24-2012, 04:38 PM
Pauln6's Avatar
Pauln6 Pauln6 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Default

Kirk was right to offer assistance and, in fact, he did not need Nero's permission to provide assistance and what he was effectively trying to do was to take Nero into custody. This is absolutely the Federation way. Apart from that, the ship contains important technology, details about Klingon defences, etc. There may also be prisoners on board. Saving the ship is high on a list of priorities, although not as high as bringing Nero to justice.

However, what Kirk should not do is endanger his own ship while trying to efect an arrest/rescue.

In staying as close as he does in order to actively destroy the ship, he is carrying out a summary execution of everybody on the ship without an individual assessment of their innocence or guilt of any particular crimes. That is definitely not the Federation way and conjures echoes of indiscriminate attacks by drones on legitimate targets that kill civilian bystanders i.e. Kirk has no knowledge of innocent prisoners on the ship and therefore assumes that there are none. He also endangers his own ship and crew. That is also not the Federation way.

There are passable reasons for destroying the ship - if it travels through time again, the technology could cause havoc but dialogue suggests that the singularity will destroy it. The singularity will also prevent the ship from firing weapons. It's not clear how comms still work either but the fact that they do could mean that people could have been beamed off the ship and, given the range of the transporter established earlier in the same film, this could have been attempted from a much safer distance (or while travelling to amuch safer distance).

To summarise, the scene was very sloppily handled. Kirk doesn't explore his most obvious and safest options, and executes helpless prisoners. Not the Federation's finest hour.
__________________
Angels of Acheron: http://www.youtube.com/user/pauln6
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-24-2012, 11:51 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauln6 View Post
Kirk was right to offer assistance and, in fact, he did not need Nero's permission to provide assistance and what he was effectively trying to do was to take Nero into custody. This is absolutely the Federation way. Apart from that, the ship contains important technology, details about Klingon defences, etc. There may also be prisoners on board. Saving the ship is high on a list of priorities, although not as high as bringing Nero to justice.

However, what Kirk should not do is endanger his own ship while trying to efect an arrest/rescue.

In staying as close as he does in order to actively destroy the ship, he is carrying out a summary execution of everybody on the ship without an individual assessment of their innocence or guilt of any particular crimes. That is definitely not the Federation way and conjures echoes of indiscriminate attacks by drones on legitimate targets that kill civilian bystanders i.e. Kirk has no knowledge of innocent prisoners on the ship and therefore assumes that there are none. He also endangers his own ship and crew. That is also not the Federation way.

There are passable reasons for destroying the ship - if it travels through time again, the technology could cause havoc but dialogue suggests that the singularity will destroy it. The singularity will also prevent the ship from firing weapons. It's not clear how comms still work either but the fact that they do could mean that people could have been beamed off the ship and, given the range of the transporter established earlier in the same film, this could have been attempted from a much safer distance (or while travelling to amuch safer distance).

To summarise, the scene was very sloppily handled. Kirk doesn't explore his most obvious and safest options, and executes helpless prisoners. Not the Federation's finest hour.
And that pair of proton torpedoes that went into the exhaust port of a certain moon-sized battlestation in a galaxy far far away...the person pulling the trigger of that weapon, nor the general giving orders to said pilot(s) did not know that there could be innocent workers or prisoners aboard said battlestation, let alone that some Imperial officers there were citizens of Alderaan...potential survivors that could've been hardened against the Rebellion because their actions brought about the destruction of their home world!

I mean.....dammit....






(offered in friendly jest)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-25-2012, 12:42 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Granted that takes the action into more interesting discussion areas because we can argue Kirk did not (and could not obtain all the information in time) before a decision had to be made.

Risk the Narada passing through in some fashion that didn't fully destroy or incapacitate it and just sit by and watch as it happens...............or take the decision to ensure it cannot do so definitively. Given how dangerous and capable Nero already proved to be. You simply can't take the chance. He was offered help and he pointedly refused it. Fine.

However, there is no proof any innocent prisoners (although it has been a few months since I watched it) were on that ship so the suggestion he killed innocents is not proven. It can't be proven or disproven based on the film either but even if there were for talking sake then clearly trying to save them would have been (assuming you had the time and ability to find and separate out innocent prisoners from the crew of the Narada) something that jeopardised the Enterprise very quickly thanks to the Black Hole itself. As Martok points out more humourously......'maybe' there were innocents aboard the Death Star. Doesn't mean there was time to save them before the thing had to be destroyed first for the safety of others.

But it does raise the question of what we would do or try to do in Kirk's position.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-25-2012, 12:42 AM
Pauln6's Avatar
Pauln6 Pauln6 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
And that pair of proton torpedoes that went into the exhaust port of a certain moon-sized battlestation in a galaxy far far away...the person pulling the trigger of that weapon, nor the general giving orders to said pilot(s) did not know that there could be innocent workers or prisoners aboard said battlestation, let alone that some Imperial officers there were citizens of Alderaan...potential survivors that could've been hardened against the Rebellion because their actions brought about the destruction of their home world!

I mean.....dammit....






(offered in friendly jest)
Lol - yes, the trash compactor monster was a complete innocent not to mention the droids - does nobody think of the droids? And Leia would have been destroyed along with them if C3PO hadn't checked the data banks.

The difference with SW is that the Death Star was still a long term threat and there were limited options available. Still, Han shooting first is the least of that franchisee's ethical concerns. They should start with the sexist employment practices!
__________________
Angels of Acheron: http://www.youtube.com/user/pauln6
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-25-2012, 08:24 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208
Default

Considering what happened to the Death Star, I don't think it would make a lot of sense to complain about the Imperial military's sexist practices. I feel the same way about our own military really. Gender and sexual equality is great and all, but why would you even choose to serve your country in an 'expendable' capacity? If they won't let you in because of your gender or sexual orientation, take the free pass and happily dodge your way out of sacrificing for King and country. And better yet, be smug about it. "Hell no, I didn't go." That outta piss the ol' boys off.

Ideally the treatment of POWs is about protecting your own soldiers who are likely to be taken prisoners themselves. Having higher-minded ideals about protecting human dignity and all that stuff is great, however the need to pay 'lip service' (if you will) to those things in order to protect your soldiers is usually going to be an easier sell. Especially when you fight against mobs instead of nations, and more conservative factions in your own government are already quick to point out that your efforts won't be reciprocated. And I do therefore believe that the treatment of war criminals is a much stickier issue than POWs, whereby trying to appear just by allowing them their right to trial will most likely result in the very same retaliation and instability that you were trying to avoid in the previous scenario. I don't think you protect anybody by trying to serve the spirit of the law in such a case.

I'll probably never know what really happened to bin Laden, but I also feel no need to stir up trouble by fabricating an issue out of something that nobody will ever prove. It's entirely possible that he wouldn't have allowed himself to be captured alive. But I also suspect there was no (tremendous) effort on the part of our military to avoid shooting him if he gave them enough reason to. And to me that feels somehow appropriate. He didn't deserve to be come a martyr or a victim, and the world was probably better off not having to figure out what to do with him. And yes, plenty of other people did die in the crossfire. It is the very nature of things like this that they are not going to reflect anybody's finest hour. But what do you do.
__________________


Last edited by samwiseb : 12-25-2012 at 08:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-25-2012, 12:37 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauln6 View Post
Lol - yes, the trash compactor monster was a complete innocent not to mention the droids - does nobody think of the droids? And Leia would have been destroyed along with them if C3PO hadn't checked the data banks.

The difference with SW is that the Death Star was still a long term threat and there were limited options available. Still, Han shooting first is the least of that franchisee's ethical concerns. They should start with the sexist employment practices!
Touche!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-25-2012, 03:42 PM
Pauln6's Avatar
Pauln6 Pauln6 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
Ideally the treatment of POWs is about protecting your own soldiers who are likely to be taken prisoners themselves. Having higher-minded ideals about protecting human dignity and all that stuff is great, however the need to pay 'lip service' (if you will) to those things in order to protect your soldiers is usually going to be an easier sell. Especially when you fight against mobs instead of nations, and more conservative factions in your own government are already quick to point out that your efforts won't be reciprocated. And I do therefore believe that the treatment of war criminals is a much stickier issue than POWs, whereby trying to appear just by allowing them their right to trial will most likely result in the very same retaliation and instability that you were trying to avoid in the previous scenario. I don't think you protect anybody by trying to serve the spirit of the law in such a case.
I'd like to think that Geneva Convention type arrangements are as much about how we want our society to behave as they are about tit for tat treatment of prisoners. How do we feel when our enemies torture and kill prisoners? That should be at the forefront of our minds when treating our own enemy prisoners. Once you give up the moral high ground you end up in intractable tit for tat situations like Northern Ireland and Israel.

For example, Kirk pays lip service to offering help to Nero. Would any Romulan viewing those recordings feel that the offer was genuine based on what comes only moments later? Mind you, TOS Romulans would prefer death to dishonour so they'd probably still be rooting for Nero either way.

For the scene to have any moral authority, Nero should have destroyed himself when his own weapons fire was sucked back to his ship or detonated by the gravity well. That would have sent the right Star Trek message IMO. 'Hate is self-destructive', not 'execute those who have wronged you.'
__________________
Angels of Acheron: http://www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Last edited by Pauln6 : 12-25-2012 at 03:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:18 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
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.