Abrams wanted to blow up more than Romulus - Page 3

thumbtack · March 8 2013, 07:22 PM

T'Girl wrote:

For the movie's villain, we're going to get yet another mentally unbalanced individual, who blames 21st Century Earth for something that happen to him, and feels justified in seeking some form of revenge.

FTFY

King Daniel · March 8 2013, 08:47 PM

Jeyl wrote:

King Daniel wrote:

Wheras I say it's more than plausible that, after 200+ years of Romulan/Federation hostility, Nero would conclude that Spock deliberately waited until after Romulus was destroyed to stop the supernova.

What does that have to do with Earth?

Because Earth is the captial of the Federation. And believing the Federation deliberately allowed Romulus to be destroyed, of course he'd want to strike against it.

And weren't the Romulans depicted as a society that lives off of conflict? After all, the whole entire point of Balance of Terror was to spark another war between the Federation and the Romulans.

Commander: No need to tell you what happens when we reach home with proof of the Earthmen's weakness. And we will have proof. The Earth commander will follow. He must. When he attacks, we will destroy him. Our gift to the homeland, another war.

So Nero's idea of Romulus being free of the Federation is actually counter productive.

IIRC, the Romulan Commander did not want war, he was just following the orders of the Praetor. Nero was out for personal vengeance after his wife, unborn child and entire world was obliterated. Different people, different circumstances.

publiusr · March 8 2013, 10:50 PM

If you really want a firestorm, say the Iconians also influenced section 31 for a long time.

After all, isn't it odd how Praxis went up, and later the supernova that wiped out Romulus? A one-two punch that dealt with the Federation's worst neighbors

Rather convienant.

M'Sharak · March 8 2013, 11:27 PM

Jeyl wrote:

And weren't the Romulans depicted as a society that lives off of conflict? After all, the whole entire point of Balance of Terror was to spark another war between the Federation and the Romulans.

Commander: No need to tell you what happens when we reach home with proof of the Earthmen's weakness. And we will have proof. The Earth commander will follow. He must. When he attacks, we will destroy him. Our gift to the homeland, another war.

So Nero's idea of Romulus being free of the Federation is actually counter productive.

From dialogue:

PIKE: You've declared war against the Federation. Withdraw. I'll agree to arrange a conference with Romulan leadership at a neutral location.
NERO: (on viewscreen) I do not speak for the Empire. We stand apart...

Nero makes a point of disassociating himself from the Romulan leadership. He is not known to have been part of the Romulan military or official structure at any time previously and—even if it wasn't always so—he now considers himself and his crew to be outside of (and separate from) that society.

Set Harth · March 9 2013, 02:12 AM

T'Girl wrote:

Something like Starfleet was trying to stabilize a star inside the Empire

That would make sense?

nightwind1 · March 9 2013, 07:46 PM

DalekJim wrote:

Yeah, it gave us Eric Bana's seminal portrayal of Nero.

"FIRE EVERYTHING!"

Worst villain in Star Trek history.

Really?

Worse that Gorgan, the Friendly Angel?

Worse than "God" from TFF?

Worse than Armus, the living oil slick

that killed Tasha Yar?

Worse than the Wadi from "Move Along Home"?

Worse than Ronin from "Sub Rosa"?

Worse than the Pakleds?

Worse than Shinzon?

Uummmm..... no. Just... no.

Set Harth · March 9 2013, 07:47 PM

"God" was in TFF, not TVH.

nightwind1 · March 9 2013, 07:58 PM

Set Harth wrote:

"God" was in TFF, not TVH.

Duuhhh... oops.

Fixed.

BillJ · March 9 2013, 08:05 PM

nightwind1 wrote:

Worse than Armus, the living oil slick

that killed Tasha Yar?

I loved Armus!

The Wormhole · March 10 2013, 02:15 AM

nightwind1 wrote:

DalekJim wrote:

Yeah, it gave us Eric Bana's seminal portrayal of Nero.

"FIRE EVERYTHING!"

Worst villain in Star Trek history.

Really?

Worse that Gorgan, the Friendly Angel?

Worse than "God" from TFF?

Worse than Armus, the living oil slick

that killed Tasha Yar?

Worse than the Wadi from "Move Along Home"?

Worse than Ronin from "Sub Rosa"?

Worse than the Pakleds?

Worse than Shinzon?

Uummmm..... no. Just... no.

Actually yes. To all of them. Nero is that bad.

ChristopherPike · March 10 2013, 02:54 AM

Oi! Come on. I won't have that... There was absolutely nothing wrong with Armus the oil slick.

The Wormhole · March 10 2013, 03:01 AM

ChristopherPike wrote:

Oi! Come on. I won't have that... There was absolutely nothing wrong with Armus the oil slick.

Kind of surprised Armus never returned, he could have been a great Q-calibre foil for the TNG cast. Or even better, have Armus in the movies. Imagine what late 1990s movie budget could have done for him...

Squiggy · March 10 2013, 03:07 AM

Make him a slightly more produced, immobile oil slick?

ChristopherPike · March 10 2013, 03:35 AM

I always felt a bit sorry for that oil slick. Most of that was probably due to Patrick Stewart's acting. Exactly the type of role he'd probably been dreading, doing some serious talking with a pile of goo. The ending is genius and Tasha Yar's death also very well done. More adventures under her belt and I'd agree a random sudden death wouldn't satisfy. But as it turned out, just enough of an acquintance for it to be shocking, have an impact and be what everybody remembers about her.

Anyway... the story about the new universe creative team having wanted to lay waste to the old one, just doesn't sit right with me. Not because it wouldn't have been dramatic. More because it seems a bit unnecessarily spiteful, in a situation where they've creatively decided not to continue with Star Trek set in that original universe. Pretty cowardly and irresponsible. Do some further damage, safe in the knowledge it's not their problem anymore. Or even of any importance to whatever stories they want to tell. Why do it? Every time there's a new spin-off, a different iteration of Star Trek... it's first act isn't to put the boot into what came before, or indeed is still going on while it is. Quite the opposite is what I expect to see in fact.

DalekJim · March 10 2013, 12:57 PM

Amus was awesome! Far more convincing than Bana's performance too.

March 8 2013, 10:50 PM	#33
publiusr Fleet Captain	Re: Abrams wanted to blow up more than Romulus If you really want a firestorm, say the Iconians also influenced section 31 for a long time. After all, isn't it odd how Praxis went up, and later the supernova that wiped out Romulus? A one-two punch that dealt with the Federation's worst neighbors Rather convienant.

March 9 2013, 07:47 PM	#37
Set Harth Commodore Location: Ekkaia	Re: Abrams wanted to blow up more than Romulus "God" was in TFF, not TVH. __________________ Are you casting aspersions on my asparagus?

March 10 2013, 02:54 AM	#41
ChristopherPike Rear Admiral	Re: Abrams wanted to blow up more than Romulus Oi! Come on. I won't have that... There was absolutely nothing wrong with Armus the oil slick. __________________ STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE Tribute ►http://youtu.be/myS87yTTDes

March 10 2013, 03:07 AM	#43
Squiggy Shit Supreme Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.	Re: Abrams wanted to blow up more than Romulus Make him a slightly more produced, immobile oil slick? __________________ ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!

March 10 2013, 03:35 AM	#44
ChristopherPike Rear Admiral	Re: Abrams wanted to blow up more than Romulus I always felt a bit sorry for that oil slick. Most of that was probably due to Patrick Stewart's acting. Exactly the type of role he'd probably been dreading, doing some serious talking with a pile of goo. The ending is genius and Tasha Yar's death also very well done. More adventures under her belt and I'd agree a random sudden death wouldn't satisfy. But as it turned out, just enough of an acquintance for it to be shocking, have an impact and be what everybody remembers about her. Anyway... the story about the new universe creative team having wanted to lay waste to the old one, just doesn't sit right with me. Not because it wouldn't have been dramatic. More because it seems a bit unnecessarily spiteful, in a situation where they've creatively decided not to continue with Star Trek set in that original universe. Pretty cowardly and irresponsible. Do some further damage, safe in the knowledge it's not their problem anymore. Or even of any importance to whatever stories they want to tell. Why do it? Every time there's a new spin-off, a different iteration of Star Trek... it's first act isn't to put the boot into what came before, or indeed is still going on while it is. Quite the opposite is what I expect to see in fact. Last edited by ChristopherPike; March 10 2013 at 04:20 AM.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

March 10 2013, 12:57 PM	#45
DalekJim Fleet Captain Location: Great Britain	Re: Abrams wanted to blow up more than Romulus Amus was awesome! Far more convincing than Bana's performance too. __________________ The Paradox Machine - My blog "Four things cannot be hidden - love, smoke, a pillar of fire and a man striding across the open bled." - Dune Messiah by Frank Herbert