Just saw Star Trek, and I have a HUGE problem with the way it ended (SPOILERS)

So, as expected, they have the big space battle and the bad guy is beaten, his ship is crippled, and he's sinking into the time/space anomaly du jour. So far, so good.

Then Kirk, being a good guy and all, offers to rescue the bad guy and his crew. The bad guy, being a bad guy, says he'd rather die. Again, vintage Trek.

But then, something happens that, AFAIK, has never happened in any incarnation of Star Trek: Kirk and Spock decide to summarily execute the guy. Instead of forcibly beaming him into a holding cell or (as usually happens) letting him blow up his own ship, they open fire and basically murder the dude.

Now, I realize that no American movie can end with the bad guy still drawing breath, but I found this a bit jarring -- especially given the traditional ideals that are usually preached in the Trek Universe. Did it not occur to anyone associated with the movie that this might be a good time to stand up for, oh I don't know, the Rule of Law?

What I really want to know is this: when did Dick Cheney take over the Federation?

an ENTIRE PLANET and kill Spocks mom, with every intention of destroying the federation and earth. Kirk asked him if he wanted help - ie the brig - Nero said no. No means no - he said he'd rather die. I'm fine with the ending - can't risk Nero escaping - and it was just a movie - a damn good one at that IMO.

And then I remembered when people said '24' was "just a TV show".

The cliché about life imitating art exists for a reason. Abrams, et al had a chance to make a strong statement on due process and the rule of law, and they went for the cheap thrill instead.

really the place for making statements about law? Sometimes entertainment is just that. While I'd agree that 24 did hype up the right with hyper-patriotism and does indeed depict torture, it also makes good points about how much power private military contractors have and has always had a decent liberal counter-weight to the hyper-patriotism. Bauer also went before congress to answer for his role in torture this season (which is way more than we have done to hold anyone really accountable) - or started to at the beginning of this 24 hr period. I still watch the show for it's action/entertainment value.

JJ Abrams is a film maker/tv writer/director. That's what he does - not make political statements. You are right - he could have - but he didn't. I don't hold that against him. I see no solution to your disapointment possible I'm afraid. JJ will continue to do things his way, and there really isn't anything we can do about it. I accept it for what it is - a good, but not very deep, fun summer action film. Kind of like his previous movie Mission Impossible III. Abrams has always in his shows and movies depicted torture, murder, kidnapping, law breaking, contempt for authority, etc.

To be honest, I was kind of surprised that they fired on Nero's ship as well. And I'll agree it could have definatly been handled differently - I would even prefer it was handled differently. However due to my reasons above, I still enjoyed it for what it was - a fun action summer sci-fi flick. :shrug:

This genre used to be a lot more than an excuse to blow things up. It's why a lot of us fell in love with it as kids.

It was Nero's choice to refuse their help, which they did offer.

Plus, he had already shown his ability and willingness to destroy entire worlds. No one on the Enterprise knew exactly what would happen to him if they just let him go - perhaps he would've materialized in some other year to blow up even more planets.

"This genre used to be a lot more than an excuse to blow things up. It's why a lot of us fell in love with it as kids."

I fail to see the profound insights in the episode "Spock's Brain", or how the movie "First Contact" was anything more than a rehash of "The Wrath Of Khan" and "The Voyage Home" with an extra killfest.

I had the same reaction you did to that scene in Star Trek... And, I was surprised that Kirk's decision drew cheers from the audience.

I've noticed that the protagonists on LOST, 24, Prison Break, Battlestar Galactica (my fave), and other modern shows kill people right and left... And, revenge killing seems to be quite popular these days. Very different from 8 or so years ago...

For example, remember when George Lucas tinkered with the scene in Star Wars where Han Solo kills Greedo? That was 10 years ago, and he felt that having Han Solo shoot first was a mistake and not consistent with the character. I didn't like that change, personally... But, generally I prefer that my heroes have low kill counts.

Maybe you are right about the influence of the Cheney's doctrine on entertainment.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post!

Sure, it's always fun to kill somebody :eyes:, but there's an infinite number of ways to defeat a villain without killing them -- many of them more satisfying than seeing them killed.

For example, which would be more emotionally satisfying: seeing Dick Cheney hanged for treason, or seeing him spend the rest of his life in a supermax prison? I know which one I'm rooting for.

He agreed to an exchange with the Klingon bad guy -- he and the rest beam over to the Klingon ship, Klings take over the E. He sets the auto destruct and hauls down the planet. The K's who board the E are reduced to atoms. Fortunes of war and all that, but ...

I found his rant in ST: VI "They killed my son!" self righteous. Ah Captain, you've offed a lot of Klingon sons.

You're right. It is a moral dilemma. However, war is a crime and nuanced ethical behavior in the midst of bloody chaos isn't going to happen very often. It's surprising that it happens at all.

The parallel between Cheney and Kirk breaks down. That was Kirk's decision alone and he wouldn't have dodged and ducked responsibility. Re ST: IV. "On behalf of my crew, we're guilty as charged." That puts him morally light years beyond the Dickster.

When he buried Gary Mitchell under several tons of boulders.

I had no problem with the ending of this movie whatsoever. Kirk offered Nero a way out; it was refused. Nero was a psychotic menace who had killed billions. He was simply too dangerous to chance letting him escape (as he had already done once, I guess, in a deleted scene of the movie).

The first was the 'sode about the Salt Creature. (Many called her Salt Monster. She wasn't a monster; she survived as her nature dictated.) And Kirk at al committed genocide right out of the gate. "The last of her kind."

Nero elected suicide by cop. Perhaps it would have been far worse punishment for him to spend the rest of his life under Federation control. He would have never choosen that. Possible Kirk did him a mercy. Re the death of the Imperial Guard at Waterloo.

But I agree with everything you said.

Make no mistake about it, people. Sometimes the bad guys just needed killin', and Gene Roddenberry's Kirk was not shy about delivering it.

it makes the characters more real.

Besides, Nero killed 6 billion Vulcans.

Would you have a problem with summarily executing Hitler?

And yes, I would have a problem summarily executing Hitler. Aside from being exactly what he wanted (note the end that he chose), it would destroy any chance the he would ever truly answer for his crimes.

How can anyone ever answer for millions (or billions) of deaths? Life in prison? Torture? I'm not a fan of the death penalty for many situations but there some cases when the world ( or in Star Trek's instance, the universe) is a better place when a certain person is no longer in it.

Plus you didn't address that Kirk offered to save him but was rejected. Was Kirk supposed to put his crew at risk for a person who may continue in his attempt to kill them while being rescued?

I'd hope it's a little more advanced than ours.

And so what if he rejected Kirk's offer? If I'm being arrested by the police, can I request that they just shoot me instead? (And he *did* put the crew at risk to execute Nero, if you remember the escape sequence that immediately followed).

How do you punish a person for genocide?

Also, there were a lot of other factors. Nero was in the possession of advanced tech, he had knowledge of the future he could have shared with the Romulan Empire. He was not a citizen of the Federation (So Fed laws don't apply) This was simply a case of too dangerous to live.

There's no way to get "vengeance" for genocide. Killing someone is as inadequate as any other punishment. So, the first step is not to add to the list of war crimes by engaging in extra-judicial executions.

What happened was a battle, not a execution (like Vulcan) It was the elimination of a threat. Nero posed a significant threat to the Federation. (Do you agree?)

The Federation didn't invade Romulus because of what Nero did, they didn't kill civilians because of what Nero did. They destroyed ship and killed the people responsible for the destruction of Vulcan. What happen was, Kirk and his crew were victorious in battle. They then offered terms to their defeated foes. These terms were rejected. They then assumed that Nero would be a continued threat to the Federation and acted accordingly.

Did personal emotions play a factor? Yes. Even several hundred years from now, I imagine people still get enraged over dead parents and genocide.

What we're talking about is applying hindsight to the fictional situation. Kirk and Spock acted accordingly with the information they had at the time. Yes, they were also angry about their parents and Vulcan. But they offered terms and if Nero had accepted these terms, I doubt Spock would have gone against Kirk's orders.

Ensuring Nero's demise was the right thing to do in that situation.

Bottom line: Abrams missed a huge opportunity to bring traditional Trek ideals to a new audience.

You think they should have sacrificed their lives in some kind of noble gesture to beam all the Romulans off their ship?

Again, this is not reality. The script could have been written in a way that clearly addressed the moral issues at hand. Instead, they grabbed a cheap applause moment at the expense of Roddenberry's original ideals.

None of the Enterprise crew knew what the black hole would do to the Romulan ship, and I don't blame them for killing Nero rather than allowing for the possibility that he would run loose and kill again.

They already addressed the "moral issues" by offering to help Nero and his crew, a magnanimous gesture considering how many people Nero murdered. If they had killed him without the offer, you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.

Again, Star Trek has had stories like this ever since the beginning. In "The Man Trap", they kill a salt monster, the last of its race. Kirk later let Edith Keeler die without thinking of an alternative in "The City On The Edge Of Forever", widely regarded as one of the best Star Trek episodes ever. In Star Trek III, Kirk kicks Kruge off a cliff after first offering to help him (similar to this movie). In Star Trek VI, they completely vaporize Chang's ship.

This movie didn't do anything unprecedented. The Enterprise crew was pretty casual about killing dangerous villains in Roddenberry's Star Trek.

In the Trek universe, the captains make the hard choices. Given the threat the Borg pose, the Federation continues to try and wipe them out.
DS9: Captain Sisko tricked the Romulans into joining the Dominion war. Picard always made decisions that put people at risk to uphold the ideal of the Prime Directive.

Yeah, it would protect every one from an implacable enemy, but he was also hell bent on personal revenge. Not exactly in the best traditions of ...

There's nothing wrong with having base instincts. But it's sometimes wrong to give in to them.

As Lily Sloane said, "You didn't even try!" when Picard claimed he couldn't save them (even though he himself was saved).

And he got dozens more of his own crew killed in his initial refusal to self-destruct the Enterprise-E, again completely out of revenge.

At least in the new movie, Kirk offered to help Nero. Picard didn't even speak a line of dialogue trying to help un-assimilate his own crew members. He was too busy gunning them down in holodeck nightclubs.

Kirk and Spock fought fair and directly. In an age where our nation is constantly engaged in "ambiguous" warfare, Kirk and Spock's actions are refreshingly direct. The future utopia is still rough around the edges but I don't Star Trek was ever about pacifism. All eras of Trek were willing to fight and kill to defend their ideals.
Plus Kirk and Spock still carried the message of, "We can be better." They each overcame their childhood issues and trauma to excel. I think one of the messages of ST is "There is a better path, a better way to build our world. An embrace of peace, science and exploration. But you have to be willing to defend it." There is the key word. Starfleet never attacks first but they will defend the Federation and it's ideals with their lives.


(P.S. I read your sig line, it made me chuckle. :-))

:wtf:

...making it much bigger and snaking into Iowa. Then with all the pollutants in the water, it dissolved a new Iowa canyon before the water was finally cleaned buy the EPA which in the future is all-powerful.

Well, it's at least as plausible as any other ST story.

One guy can probably cut and lift a ten meter slab from a very deep hole in the ground with an ordinary hand tool.

In the age of Star Trek it's not just granite kitchen countertops: everyone lives in stone houses, and there are zoning laws against building pyramids or underground fortresses because any fool can build one.

Nero murdered both Spock's mother and Kirk's father. He stole Kirk's entire future from him and sent him on a different path. This was less about the rule of law than about revenge. I think this film was more a classic Western than the Horatio Hornblower in space we've become accustomed to thinking of the Star Trek universe as.

I WILL agree, Bermantrek used too much technobabble and petty soap opera.

The return to action WAS appreciated.

SOME of the character introductions work - Spock was the best of the lot.

But how NuKirk was treated, amongst other elements, the writers and producer simply have no clue about Trek. Like I've said a dozen times, Abrams is on record not understanding it (google "Abrams i never got trek" or "Abrams i never liked trek" for all the proof you need.

Under alternate circumstances and making a new franchise, I'd give it some actual respect.

Pinning it as "Trek" cuts no ice and, indeed, really does an injustice.

This is a Spock who just witnesses a holocaust that affected him personally and emotionally compromised him. Instead of a model student from a loving home, Kirk was an angry, drunken troublemaker with a disfunctional home life. So given the fact that they were not the same characters as from the previous films and TV show, I can see them doing that.

"Would you like to beam up and be taken into custody?"

"No, I'd rather die! Tombstone me RIGHT NOW!"

"OK."

They had to destroy the ship. It was the Romulan guy's choice whether it should be destroyed with him on it or not.

Also, he had killed the entire planet Vulcan.

There was a very funny line when Kirk explains to Spok why it's logical to reason to the conclusion to bring the bad guy aboard, and Spok says, something like, "This time, I'm inclined not to."

Kirk: This is Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise. Your ship is compromised. It's too close to the singularity to surivive without assistance which we are willing to provide.

Spock (to Kirk): Captain, what are you doing?

Kirk: Showing a little compassion might be the only way to make peace with the Romulans. It's logical, Spock. I thought you'd like that.

Spock: No. Not really. Not this time.

Perhaps this alternate time-line is the beginning of the Mirror Universe and the Terran Empire. :) (I know it can't be because the TE predated the Moon landing.) But when they get around to filming the sequel, someone should keep an eye on Zachary Quinto and make sure he's not sporting a goatee. :)

after seeing it for the third time (yes I'm a total fangirl geek.)

Stopping monsters without becoming one yourself is a fine line to tread.

And it's damn obvious he got in some ghostwriters and researchers to do all the 4th wall-breaking scenes where Pike gets the beetle, Scotty is told he hasn't invented ____ yet, and the rest of the pandering.

The movie has its own merits. Paramount preferred to make this "Star Trek" instead of letting it be its own franchise.

Hell, even everyone states this is a new, alternate, timeline.

I walked out when NuKirk and NuSpock let the guy die. I stayed and watched the rubbish only so people could NOT say "WTFM". Remind me not to appease people next time; thanks to other reboots and remakes (WHO, Flash Gordon, et al) they all have the same lame-brain motifs and I do NOT need to see it because the "writers" will pervert it right down to the core.

Even the worst drek of Bermantrek is more true to Roddenberry's ideals.

Let the movie be its own franchise. They didn't need to shove "Trek" into it. That did everybody involved a giant insult.

Even the secondary characters (Sulu, Chekov, Scotty, et al) are treated as campy 2D cheap comedy shots. In Trek V, the actors complained about being devolved to this level. Nowadays it's, well, just that.

I would be rather less harsh if Abrams at least bothered to be even tokenistic in retaining Gene Roddenberry's ideals. But the whole thing is one big damn insult.

A TV series to build up NuKirk and his NuGang might be able to fold in Roddenberry's vision. But a series of movies, which state from the outset they are in an alternate reality and remind us so we don't get real Kirk mixed up with pale marketed imitation... Fiddle that Stradivarius. (rename "Fiddle" and "Stradivarius" to something you know I'm thinking...)

Look how apeshit today's USA went after 9/11 when almost 3,000 people were killed. Now we're in two wars, we conduct "enhanced interrogations" and overall, we're living in a far more paranoid, vicious place than we did on 9/10/01.

In the movie, we're not just talking about 3,000 dead. We're talking about 6,000,000,000 dead! If you thought the U.S. went apeshit after 9/11, you ain't seen nothing yet!

Look forward to enhanced interrogation of Romulans and Klingons, wars started in search of WPDs (Weapons of Planetary Destruction), cats and dogs living together, the works!

I predict that soon, Kirk will be installing a Tantalus Field on the Enterprise, and Spock will be sporting a goatee...

Apparently the new value system is "if it feels good, do it".

has more in common with the Mirror, Mirror universe than the original universe.

recognize is while the human condition has improved (we can clean up our act), human nature hasn't. It's hasn't changed all that much in six thousand years, why should it in 300.

Re one scene from DS9: (paraphrasing from memory) Nog has just been accepted to the Academy and he going on about how great to be with all these fine hew mons, blah, blah, blah. Uncle Quark points that, yes, when they're fed, warm and safe, they're the nicest species in the quadrant. When they're cold, hungry, scared or their backs are to the wall, they can make Klingons and Cardassians tuck tail -- meanest, most savage mofos in the valley. So watch your ass, Nephew.

And Star Fleet had a black ops section that tried to commit genocide.

...there would be no reason to fire upon it, as the gravitational tidal forces would rip it's molecules apart.

Of course, that means that Nero and Future Spock would have been made into so much cosmic soup at the beginning of the movie, and wouldn't have lived to travel back in time in the first place.

It was science fiction without the science part.

There has got to be enough consistency with known facts to NOT take me out of the movie before I can even get to characters and their motivations.

If the writers and director don't care enough to respect their audience, why should I care about their actors are doing?

But if you forget the moral and social consequences, you just have a flashy action movie in space.

Something to do with magic red matter and stuff. That's how Nero wound up back in the 23rd century in the first place.

My question is how does a supernova blow apart planets in other systems? Sterilize them, perhaps. But blow them to smithereens? Not so much. And a supernova can't propogate faster than the speed of light anyway, so they would have years, decades, centuries perhaps to evacuate at warp speed.

And how does a supernova "grow" and gain strength? If it's blowing apart in all directions (isotropic radiation) the particle and electromagnetic radiation would tend to follow an inverse square of distance.

And how did that drilling platform work? Was the mothership hovering in one place or was it in a Clarke orbit? It didn't look high enough for a Clarke orbit so I guess it was hovering. Therefore the Enterprise and the shuttle were also hovering. Granted, they have antigravity but we've always seen ships orbit planets.

But we're already suspending disbelief in FTL travel, transporters, etc. so I don't really care. I enjoyed it for the characters. I have incredibly low expectations for movie SF science. The real stuff is to be found in books and even there, most of it's crap. (Sturgeon's Law.)

and that he has misinterpreted the big glow at the center of the galaxy as being a really big star. Anyone that doesn't understand that it glows like that because it's a cluster of many stars (thousands) could easily make that mistake. However, it doesn't take much effort to ask a planetarium director why it glows like that (as an easily accessible and knowledgeable person versus tracking down an astrophysicist.)

Then again, his background doesn't suggest much interest in science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_J_Abrams#Career

This guy (J. Michael Straczynski) still would have been the best writer and director they could have asked for :D
In fact, here's his version of a reboot (read the pdf halfway through) : http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/2006/06/spaced_out_star.html

His early Star Trek episodes frequently involved the Enterprise going back in time after hitting a black hole. In one episode, they even went back in time just to do research.

No, none of it involved "hitting a black hole".

That term wasn't even widely used until after the series was cancelled.

known until Hawking blew the doors off with his discoveries, published in 1970.

Didn't they do something with a "collapsed star" back in the old series?

Eventually they changed the concept to "slingshot around the sun".

In the episode "The Naked Time", they achieved time travel just by tinkering with the ship's engines.

What happened in this movie didn't bother me, since Roddenberry and the other Star Trek writers came up with dozens of cheesy ways to go back in time decades ago.

The time travel mcguffin is a "cold start" of the warp engines. (They've been shut down by a deranged crew member.)

Scotty pulls it off (of course) and the Enterprise doesn't burn up in the planet's atmosphere.

Unfortunately, the ship achieves faster than light speed without generating a warp field. This sends them back in time about 72 hours.

"killed Spock's mom" thing. Doesn't that invalidate a few of TOS episodes?

Dunno, I guess I'm a stickler for continuity...well as much continuity as one can get from a long running series.

Q3JR4.

And yes, Star Trek used the concept of an alternate timeline more than once, starting with Season 1 of TOS.

Kirk's dad wasn't supposed to be killed either, hence Leonard Nimoy's Spock saying "he lived to see you become Captain".

This movie doesn't alter the continuity because it's set in an alternate timeline, starting with Nero killing George Kirk and destroying the USS Kelvin.

I'm hearing word that Abrams told the studios, "stuff the Star Trek canon, I'm making a f--king movie!"

Music to my ears. Between Cloverfield and Lost, Abrams may have possibly made the first enjoyable trek film since number two. Heck, I may even see this one on the big screen. :)

which has left canonists twisting themselves into knots trying to bring some of the first season stories into line with each other.

He wasn't exactly completely above it all, either. There was talk of marketing the IDAC, which is why it was featured so prominently when it appeared.


The best stories, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Zorro, etc are large enough to admit different interpretations. It's all good (except for Star trek : Nemesis!)

While it might have the name, while it might have some superficial similarities, this isn't the Star Trek universe we've come to know and love. This is a Star Trek that reflects a much less progressive and humanitarian mindset.

I've heard the original Star Trek universe described as the ultimate in socialist societies, and a place where progressivism and liberalism triumphed. Obviously we can't have that in this day and age, so now we have this new Trek, coarser, more conservative, and less humane.

While the film itself is OK, it isn't Star Trek. The Trek tag was slapped on it to bring in the bucks, and will continue to be exploited in future sequels. However I'm willing to bet that, while it has become a summer blockbuster this time around, people who are Trek fans are quickly wising up and future sequels will be box office duds. I know that I won't be going to see the sequels to this travesty, and I certainly won't be buying the DVD's

Sadly Star Trek has passed on, only to live on in reruns and DVD's. This . . .thing is certainly not Star Trek, and hopefully this abomination will quickly pass as well.

antiheroes upstaging traditional heroes. Dirty Harry, Mad Max and a few others set the stage, and we just ended up cheering the bloodthirsty vengeance in V for Vendetta.

So, yeah, why not some director more interested in himself and CGI than contnuing the morality play that was Trek invent the baddest of the bad in the Universe and just blow him away instead of the hard work of discussing just what is justice for such a massive crime.

Didn't they already waste enough time agonising over Khan, or that guy who killed off half the planet because there was no food? No time for that bullshit any more-- just blow them all to hell.

You mention it in your post in a way.

You're trying to answer this according to the "traditional ideals" of the "Trek Universe."

This is not the Trek Universe. The director made it fairly clear he had no feelings of loyalty to Trek canon and that he intended to completely re-do it. That would have been fine, imo, had he maintained those "traditional ideals," but when he took the Trek out of Star Trek, he went full bore with it.

I won't ever think of this as Trek movie for this reason. They can play fast and lose with space/time and all, and I'm fine with it because it still fits. Turning into nothing but an action-packed CGI wonder is certainly entertaining, but it's not Star Trek.

Good God, man, where are your values?