Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[bronnt]

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.

Kirk lied to avoid consequences. I don't know what the consequences might be, but it's not like they were going to execute him, not like they would have a Nazi at a concentration camp who tried to smuggle out the Jews.

So what did they do for him both making that decision, lying about it, and proving a poor leader? Stripped his captainship that he never earned, and sent him back to the Academy that he never actually graduated from. If he hadn't lied...perhaps they'd have reduced him in rank, but he might still be in Starfleet because he owned up to making a tough decision.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the PD is to protect actions from having unknown consequences. If Kirk had made a measured, thoughtful decision to risk the consequences of saving these people because it's worth saving an entire civilization even if their culture is contaminated in the process, that's respectable. But he utterly refused to accept any consequences to himself while he's making decisions with potentially massive ramifications.

Yes, he's a tool.

[Yukaphile]

Shatner Kirk regularly flaunted the Prime Directive, and got away with it. And with the exception of Norah Satie, so did Picard.

[clearspira]

Shatner Kirk regularly flaunted the Prime Directive, and got away with it. And with the exception of Norah Satie, so did Picard.

But did they ever lie about it? As I said earlier, Shatner Kirk would have owned that decision. And we have canonical evidence to prove it because we have The Search For Spock. He stole the Enterprise to save Spock and then his first action upon reaching Vulcan was to vote to return home and face the consequences instead of running away. And remember, before that whale probe appeared, the consequences were going to be a lot more severe than being knocked down one step in rank and given a new ship. That was his reward for saving the Earth. Its not a PD example yes, but it still shows you the difference in the two portrayals of this character.

[Yukaphile]

That was my point.

[BunBun299]

I think Into Darkness is one of these areas. I never hated it. And even if you want to say it's the weakest of this trilogy (at this point, we're unlikely to ever get another Kelvin Timeline movie), I still don't think it's Christmas episode bad. In fact, I think 2009 was the weakest of the three.

But, that's me.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

2009 worked very well as an origin story for me. Origin can stories get real formulaic for me, and this movie included enough for me to get past that.

[sayla0079]

I think one of the main problems with into darkness was it was supposed to be like wrath of kahn but the thing is wrath of kahn had a tv episode to set it up into darkness didn't.It's like any story you have to have a set up that makes sense.

[Jonathan101]

I think one of the main problems with into darkness was it was supposed to be like wrath of kahn but the thing is wrath of kahn had a tv episode to set it up into darkness didn't.It's like any story you have to have a set up that makes sense.

I disagree. I saw Wrath of Khan long before I saw Space Seed, and generally understood and didn't hae much problem with it.

I think most people probably saw WoK without knowing about the prior episode and honestly, even many who had seen said episode might have forgotten it by the time they saw the film. There was 15 years between them and even the writer of the movie hadn't seen the episode before he was hired to write the script, and he just binge watched Trek and chose Khan at random to be the villain in question.

Granted, it changes the dynamic a bit if Kirk and Khan don't have this prior history, but it could easily have been done justice. Ironically ID is as much an adaptation of that episode as it is the movie.

[Jonathan101]

I found it a little funny that he contrasted "About a Girl" (Orville) with "Measure of a Man" (TNG) as an example of a bad sci-fi trial with a good sci-fi trial because the former had bad arguments.

The truth is, "MoaM" might have seemed intelligent in it's own day, but in the present time if you know the difference between Hard A.I. and Soft A.I., not a single thing in that episode really shows that Data a is self-aware or qualifies as a sentient being.

In fact in the history of TNG probably the only thing that looks like strong evidence that he is sentient is the episode where he dreams Trop is a cake, and even that is something that he and he alone could have experienced. Almost everything else he says or does in Trek could be explained by him simply being a really advanced imitation of sentience, and honestly by our own near-future standards he might even become pretty primitive.

I'll extend that criticism to the Voyager episode where the Holodeck village runs too long and causes problems; Chuck acts like this is totally different from Data or the Doctor because they are self-aware and the Holodeck programs are not...except, the evidence that the Doctor or Data are self-aware is pretty scant.

Seems like a lot of sci-fi fans aren't always aware that artificial intelligence can look, sound and act 100% self-aware...yet not be self-aware, probably because the creators of those works like to say or at least strongly imply that they are. The reality is that, in real life, the capacity of A.I. to "fake it" really is just THAT good, and you need a higher standard of evidence than presented.

[clearspira]

I found it a little funny that he contrasted "About a Girl" (Orville) with "Measure of a Man" (TNG) as an example of a bad sci-fi trial with a good sci-fi trial because the former had bad arguments.

The truth is, "MoaM" might have seemed intelligent in it's own day, but in the present time if you know the difference between Hard A.I. and Soft A.I., not a single thing in that episode really shows that Data a is self-aware or qualifies as a sentient being.

In fact in the history of TNG probably the only thing that looks like strong evidence that he is sentient is the episode where he dreams Trop is a cake, and even that is something that he and he alone could have experienced. Almost everything else he says or does in Trek could be explained by him simply being a really advanced imitation of sentience, and honestly by our own near-future standards he might even become pretty primitive.

I'll extend that criticism to the Voyager episode where the Holodeck village runs too long and causes problems; Chuck acts like this is totally different from Data or the Doctor because they are self-aware and the Holodeck programs are not...except, the evidence that the Doctor or Data are self-aware is pretty scant.

Seems like a lot of sci-fi fans aren't always aware that artificial intelligence can look, sound and act 100% self-aware...yet not be self-aware, probably because the creators of those works like to say or at least strongly imply that they are. The reality is that, in real life, the capacity of A.I. to "fake it" really is just THAT good, and you need a higher standard of evidence than presented.

I would argue that the moment you can prove that AI is approaching the level where it can feel pain or suffering (either physically or mentally) then we have a duty to it because inflicting pain or suffering on anything is amoral. And this is true of Data and the Doctor. Whether they are truly alive or not is irrelevant to me.