Romulus in Prime timeline [spoilers]

What happens back in the 24th century,now that the Romulans have no home planet?IIRC they still had some political issues to sort out before the Hobus Nova blew away the Romulan (and Reman,by extension) HQ.

BTW,I'm excluding any events in 'Countdown' from my quiry and am focusing exclusively on what's seen on film,although its safe to assume what destroys Romulus will probably hurt Remus badly given the worlds' proximity to each other.

 

Re: Now that Romulus is history...

The Romulans in the prime timeline are in the same boat as the Vulcans in the alternate timeline, I'd think. Although there's no info on how many survivors there were from Romulus, whereas we were told the survivor count from Vulcan was in the range of 10,000 - substantially less than the survivor count from the new BSG.

 

Well they do have an empire to fall back on, although the loss of life, culture, and production would be crippling. I expect various colonial governors and military officials would try to seize control, and a big ol' civil war would break out. Also, The Klingons would no doubt be tempted to take advantage of the situation, too.

Come to think of it, that might tie nicely into the Star Trek MMO timeline: if the Klingons did try to make a grab for Romulan space, the Federation would no doubt oppose it, and the khitomer Accords would collapse (again.) This would fit the situation that is supposedly going to exist at the outset of the game.

 

Of course, it's always possible that the future Romulus might NOT be destroyed since the *prime* timeline has been altered as a result of Nero's actions.

 

No, it hasn't.

 

Even in the alternate timeline,the Hobus star is *still* gonna bust a Nova.If Romulus doesn't get its act together ..again... Its still gonna get wasted in the alternate 24th century...again.

Unless Nero spent some of those 25 years trying to move the Hobus star with the Narada..

 

who knows romulans may ask for peace after what happened to vulcan.
it may be a shock to the system at just how dangerous their unbridled passions can be.

as for romulan empire prime..
evidently it took a lot of time and war, conflict to keep it together.
they evidently had been dealing with internal wars just before balance of terror.

there already were signs things were coming apart ,, that draconian measures were not working as well.
now the homeworld and possible the entire solar system of the home world is gone.

it depends just how spread out was the romulan military infrastructure.
it could be civil war or a rebellion.

 

I have no objection to the destruction of Romulus. My problem was that it was treated simply as a means to an end. I guess Abrams point of view is that the film isn't about the prime universe but this new rebooted one so very little focus should be given it--so most non-fans would care less.

But as a long time fan I was disappointed that the last we see of the 24th century, of the prime universe and of Romulus is a 30 second at most quick flash of it being destroyed. I didn't like being left hanging like that. In fact, the more I think about it the more I'm interested in the late 24th century, the prime universe and the destruction of Romulus than I am in the 23rd century and Vulcan's destruction.

Frankly, if the Romulan civilization was going to be annihilated I would have much preferred it to have received a better treatment. I've always found the rumored idea by Maurice Hurley of having the Federation discover it was destroyed/assimilated by the Borg to have been a better sendoff than this.

 

Ummmmm.......Vulcan no longer exists?

And who knows how that (or any number of other things) might affect Romulus' existence and/or the ability of the Federation to prevent the catastrophe that befell it?

 

After their great re-introduction in TNG's "The Neutral Zone," helped in large part by Andrew Probert's incredibly cool Warbird ship design, the Romulans quickly devolved into generic, black hat-wearing, bad-for-badness sake villains. Few species of the 1.0 universe's 24th century interested me less than the Romulans did.

 

Has too!

 

Indeed... The Romulans as a story race had an ongoing identity crisis, as the Klingons filled the role of the 'warrior' race. For a while, the Romulans tended to be masters of spycraft, subterfuge, and indirect warfare... then the Cardassians came along and did it FAR better, leaving them with little to no niche left to inhabit, except as the Alpha Quadrant's resident contrarian race... which, frankly, made them predictable and boring...

 

That's in *this* timeline. The timeline of the 2009 film. This does not overwrite (or change in any way) the original, i.e. 'prime' timeline.

 

I actually felt the opposite way. Out of the big three powers (the klingons, romulans, and federation) i found the romulans to be the most interesting, simply because of their sneaky ways

 

I think you find time trave lin TREK pretty much states the future is different when the past is changed. STAR TREK has never once stated it uses the theory that altering time creates a second spereate universe its always done the prime universe is changed.

 

actually one of the theories of the mirror universe was it was a divergent universe at some point past in history.
and we saw the other parallel universes in tng parallel episode/

so no this isnt new.

 

THEORY is the keyword there...

Lets stop using maybe and ifs, It become clear every single plot using time travel from TOS to ENT and the movies inbetween that had dealt with time travel has shown on screen evidence that any alteration in the past affects our prime universe's future.

Now in TV terms we can easily say its a new Universe but using TREK rules and cannon, far as the characters are concerned there prime universe has been changed.

we have DVD's etc so I don't see the problem with fans getting to grips with the timelime changes.

 

Not this time, it hasn't.

Not only have the writers themselves said so, but Spock Prime's presence is proof enough.

 

We should have a forum devoted to timeline discussions. And the OP says "back in the 24th century"? Wouldn't it be "forward to the 24th century"? Just kiddin...