Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[Jonathan101]

Not a disagreement per say, but I do think he's a bit hard on Kirk on his Into Darkness review.

I find it odd that he's basically in the same situation as Archer was in over on Enterprise but does the opposite thing- and surely the more moral thing- of interfering to prevent a species dying rather than sitting back and letting nature take it's course, yet is treated almost as harshly for it by Chuck.

Yes, he covered it up and won't apologise for it, but given the sketchy history before and after of Starfleet and proto-Starfleet of how they handle the Prime Directive, I can at least sympathise with him even in that, since it's possible he would have been reprimanded and demoted and given a scathing speech from Pike even if he told the truth, and I can't help but notice that Pike doesn't seem to say anything like "you were wrong to cover it up but preventing an extinction was the right thing to do" (mind, I'm just going by the review- haven't seen the movie in ages).

Obviously Orci could have avoided this by simply having the Prime Directive be reasonable, and the execution of "cold fusion" and "submarine Enterprise" and "martyr Spock" is clunky to say the least, but I can't say that Orci is basing this on nothing in Trek lore.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Not a disagreement per say, but I do think he's a bit hard on Kirk on his Into Darkness review.

I find it odd that he's basically in the same situation as Archer was in over on Enterprise but does the opposite thing- and surely the more moral thing- of interfering to prevent a species dying rather than sitting back and letting nature take it's course, yet is treated almost as harshly for it by Chuck.

Yes, he covered it up and won't apologise for it, but given the sketchy history before and after of Starfleet and proto-Starfleet of how they handle the Prime Directive, I can at least sympathise with him even in that, since it's possible he would have been reprimanded and demoted and given a scathing speech from Pike even if he told the truth, and I can't help but notice that Pike doesn't seem to say anything like "you were wrong to cover it up but preventing an extinction was the right thing to do" (mind, I'm just going by the review- haven't seen the movie in ages).

Obviously Orci could have avoided this by simply having the Prime Directive be reasonable, and the execution of "cold fusion" and "submarine Enterprise" and "martyr Spock" is clunky to say the least, but I can't say that Orci is basing this on nothing in Trek lore.

I didn't feel it was very out of line. I feel that the crux of the matter lied between letting Spock die or exposing the Enterprise to the inhabitants. Not about him saving the tribe. He lied about exposing the Enterprise, and when he acted passive aggressively to Spock about it then Chuck called him out on it. Wasn't really that harsh or anything.

[Jonathan101]

Not a disagreement per say, but I do think he's a bit hard on Kirk on his Into Darkness review.

I find it odd that he's basically in the same situation as Archer was in over on Enterprise but does the opposite thing- and surely the more moral thing- of interfering to prevent a species dying rather than sitting back and letting nature take it's course, yet is treated almost as harshly for it by Chuck.

Yes, he covered it up and won't apologise for it, but given the sketchy history before and after of Starfleet and proto-Starfleet of how they handle the Prime Directive, I can at least sympathise with him even in that, since it's possible he would have been reprimanded and demoted and given a scathing speech from Pike even if he told the truth, and I can't help but notice that Pike doesn't seem to say anything like "you were wrong to cover it up but preventing an extinction was the right thing to do" (mind, I'm just going by the review- haven't seen the movie in ages).

Obviously Orci could have avoided this by simply having the Prime Directive be reasonable, and the execution of "cold fusion" and "submarine Enterprise" and "martyr Spock" is clunky to say the least, but I can't say that Orci is basing this on nothing in Trek lore.

I didn't feel it was very out of line. I feel that the crux of the matter lied between letting Spock die or exposing the Enterprise to the inhabitants. Not about him saving the tribe. He lied about exposing the Enterprise, and when he acted passive aggressively to Spock about it then Chuck called him out on it. Wasn't really that harsh or anything.

Well, Chuck spent a lot of time calling Kirk a dick for not accepting responsibility for his actions or consequences and for being arrogant (on multiple occasions, but he treats the planet stuff as Exhibit A).

The fact that Kirk felt the need to lie in the first place suggests that he wasn't really supposed to BE there in the first place (or at least, not saving their lives), and the details of the lie- that the planet shows signs of primitive civilisation but nothing else of note- reinforces that suggestion. It really does seem to me that you're meant to think Kirk was running afoul of the Prime Directive by saving that civilisation, since otherwise he wouldn't have omitted it from the report either.

[clearspira]

Not a disagreement per say, but I do think he's a bit hard on Kirk on his Into Darkness review.

I find it odd that he's basically in the same situation as Archer was in over on Enterprise but does the opposite thing- and surely the more moral thing- of interfering to prevent a species dying rather than sitting back and letting nature take it's course, yet is treated almost as harshly for it by Chuck.

Yes, he covered it up and won't apologise for it, but given the sketchy history before and after of Starfleet and proto-Starfleet of how they handle the Prime Directive, I can at least sympathise with him even in that, since it's possible he would have been reprimanded and demoted and given a scathing speech from Pike even if he told the truth, and I can't help but notice that Pike doesn't seem to say anything like "you were wrong to cover it up but preventing an extinction was the right thing to do" (mind, I'm just going by the review- haven't seen the movie in ages).

Obviously Orci could have avoided this by simply having the Prime Directive be reasonable, and the execution of "cold fusion" and "submarine Enterprise" and "martyr Spock" is clunky to say the least, but I can't say that Orci is basing this on nothing in Trek lore.

I didn't feel it was very out of line. I feel that the crux of the matter lied between letting Spock die or exposing the Enterprise to the inhabitants. Not about him saving the tribe. He lied about exposing the Enterprise, and when he acted passive aggressively to Spock about it then Chuck called him out on it. Wasn't really that harsh or anything.

Well, Chuck spent a lot of time calling Kirk a dick for not accepting responsibility for his actions or consequences and for being arrogant (on multiple occasions, but he treats the planet stuff as Exhibit A).

The fact that Kirk felt the need to lie in the first place suggests that he wasn't really supposed to BE there in the first place (or at least, not saving their lives), and the details of the lie- that the planet shows signs of primitive civilisation but nothing else of note- reinforces that suggestion. It really does seem to me that you're meant to think Kirk was running afoul of the Prime Directive by saving that civilisation, since otherwise he wouldn't have omitted it from the report either.

It all comes down to one very important thing: Shatner Kirk would have owned that decision like a man, Fake Kirk not only lied but then treated Pike as one would a snotty teenager. It is an important distinction that changes both the character and the situation.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

^That

And I don't think you can make that much of an implication about the prime directive and federation, at least as far as Chuck's assertion. I personally don't care about the comparison to Shatner's Kirk, but the segment of the review is just about Kirk's character in his discourse with Spock. The justifications of his actions and the looming implications of Starfleet bureaucracy remain untouched.

Personally I kinda think that Kirk's just pissed at Spock, and I get that. He felt what he did was important for Spock, and that was his justification of his lying. It might undermine the Starfleet protocol, but this is Kirk that didn't grow up with a father.

[Jonathan101]

Well, that seems to be a problem with the review and / or the film. I'm not quite sure WHAT he is in trouble for or WHAT he lied about.

At first I thought he covered up the specific debacle with Spock and exposing the Enterprise to save them (which is in line with Spock only brining up the PD in relation to saving him), but his Log entry and Chucks' review makes it sound like he's actually covering up interfering with the planet in the first place, which implies that Starfleet would not approve of doing so even though a civilisation would die (which, again, is not totally out of character for this franchise either).

So...confused. But I don't particularly want to re-watch this movie to find out. Of course, it could easily be just intentionally vague and inconsistent writing, wanting Kirk to be in trouble without actually dwelling on the "why" too much.

[Yukaphile]

Yeah, Shatner Kirk was willing to be discharged from the service to take Spock to Vulcan against orders, and would have owned up to it. I think Pine Kirk would have found a way to weasel around it.

[Nealithi]

Yeah, Shatner Kirk was willing to be discharged from the service to take Spock to Vulcan against orders, and would have owned up to it. I think Pine Kirk would have found a way to weasel around it.

Minor correction. Shatner Kirk did own up to it. The whole reason they were enroute from Vulcan to Earth was to face their charges for doing what they felt was right.


They could have easily gotten a similar incident by Pine Kirk simply telling the truth. "Went to world and saw a phenomenon that would wipe out all intelligent life there. Attempted to solve the problem without alerting the natives to our presence but the life of one of my crew was in jeopardy and I acted to save his life."

Pike then reads him the riot act for having violated the prime diretive even by attempting to save those people and both Kirk and Spock object on moral grounds. Kirk loses his command pending an investigation and he and Spock are split up for basically compromising each other. Then let Pike be set to take the Enterprise when he is killed in the London bombing, not one in San Francisco.

Why is it so easy to rewrite that movie to be better? Is the bar really that low?

[bronnt]

Minor correction. Shatner Kirk did own up to it. The whole reason they were enroute from Vulcan to Earth was to face their charges for doing what they felt was right.


They could have easily gotten a similar incident by Pine Kirk simply telling the truth. "Went to world and saw a phenomenon that would wipe out all intelligent life there. Attempted to solve the problem without alerting the natives to our presence but the life of one of my crew was in jeopardy and I acted to save his life."

Pike then reads him the riot act for having violated the prime diretive even by attempting to save those people and both Kirk and Spock object on moral grounds. Kirk loses his command pending an investigation and he and Spock are split up for basically compromising each other. Then let Pike be set to take the Enterprise when he is killed in the London bombing, not one in San Francisco.

Why is it so easy to rewrite that movie to be better? Is the bar really that low?

The problem is that the writers of this movie have some small knowledge of minor plot points from the franchise, but they're not very intelligent and definitely aren't fans of Star Trek. They decided to make slight references to create story beats rather than actually exploring ideas in depth.

For instance, I'm sure they were thinking, "We need to create tension between Spock and Kirk," even though they did a lot of that in the previous film; that demonstrates that they're not intelligent and there's not much depth of ideas. And one of the few things these numb-brains remembered about the franchise was a plot-point from Star Trek IV where Spock points out that Vulcans don't lie.

So they said, "Hey, we can have Spock not lie about something and it creates tension to get Kirk into trouble." It was rubberstamped and they moved on, not caring that they had to perform character assassination on Kirk to set it up. Even worse, that argument only proved that, even though these two characters have had years to improve their relationship to set up the famous friendship, they clearly can't be friends because they have no understanding of each other. THAT could have been interesting if they were willing to defy audience expectations by demonstrating that these two are definitely not friends in this timeline, but nobody writing it was interesting in exploring that character dynamic.

[Artabax]

It all comes down to one very important thing: Shatner Kirk would have owned that decision like a man, Fake Kirk not only lied but then treated Pike as one would a snotty teenager. It is an important distinction that changes both the character and the situation.

Chuck damns Kirk for not owning his decision, it's not an oppressive regime, but it is an oppressive regime. Abrams Trek applies the VOY and ENT Prime Directive = kill them all, let the Cosmic Plan sort them out.

Classic Trek:
Spok: But Captain, telling these people will violate the PD.
Kirk: Extinction is worse than breaking PD.
Spok: That's logical, Captain.

Kirk is a snotty teenager and should NOT command the Flagship. He should not even command a rowing boat.

I ain't seen the movie, I am just going by the review.