torturedbythecia

I agree. What's funny is that the movie actually starts with Kirk making the moral decision at the expense of the prime directive. I was actually temporarily fooled by the opening sequence into thinking the movie was going to be okay. All of the character assassination aside, maybe I could have enjoyed it for what it was if it had any story to tell, but it didn't. The characters didn't evolve and the movie couldn't even follow it's own logic.

@zuriel That's true - though Kirk is known for doing that.  I honestly believe the "extinction" scenario for the Prime Directive is ridiculous.  As if letting an entire species die rather than render aid and risk cultural contamination is somehow morally justified.  In reality, I don't care about half a dozen suborders of the Prime Directive, it's my least favorite thing in Star Trek when it comes to what I consider otherwise extreme moral imperatives that would demand interference in a society.  If I wrote a Star Trek series, I'd place it in the 25th century and have the Federation split into two factions over the moral imperatives of interference when failure to do so may result in extinction.  I feel like they took the Prime Directive too far for my moral tastes when I'm perfectly understanding of not just showing up at everyone's pre-warp culture and handing over technology, or interfering with internal wars, or otherwise - but when things like natural disasters threaten a species, I see the Prime Directive as insanely bureaucratic bullshit.  However, I would also argue that it is so extreme, even as an affront to moral decency, so as to provide an antagonist in the institution of the Federation itself.  If that were not the intent, they certainly wouldn't have the main characters violating it so frequently in the different series.