The Destruction of Romulus!?

[Greg Cox]

I thought lt was a bad idea to destroy Romulus/Remus in the Prime universe and worse to destroy Vulcan, even if it is not merely to put his stamp on these movies.

It wasn't just an ego trip. More likely, they wanted to make it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the old "canon" had been blown to smithereens and wasn't coming back. Which was necessary if you want to reboot TOS without having the future of the characters and the Federation already etched in stone. (Frankly, ENTERPRISE could save themselves a lot of trouble if they'd just booted the "canon" out the airlock in Episode One.)

We can quibble about whether revisiting Khan was a good idea, but the fact remains that, with Vulcan gone, the future of the timeline has irrevocably changed so that we don't know whether Kirk is going to be killed by Soran, or whether Sulu becomes captain of the Excelsior, or even if ANY of the events of the latter-day series or movies will happen in this new timeline. If they want to have Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto fight the Borg, it's doable because TNG takes place in an alternate timeline now, so we don't have to worry about how things played before.

And as for preserving Romulus for the sake of the Prime Universe . . . let's be realistic here. Nobody reboots a franchise with the expectation that they might go back to the old version someday, so whether Romulus exists in the old universe is purely academic at this point, as least as far as movies and TV are concerned.

 

[Nebusj]

But while I can understand doing it, I think the way they did it was a bit bizarre. The supernova that threatens the entire Galaxy, possibly moves at warp, but is "sucked back" after propagating for light years in all directions by red matter? From lights away it's sucked all the way back? Hmmmm.

They could have at least conserved the wanking and say a trilithium warhead destroyed the Romulan star and some evidence was planted to make it appear that Section 31 had done it and thus a reason to blame the Federation.

That's my version of the movie anyway, for what it's worth. Lol.

How do you know the galaxy-threatening supernova wasn't a Section 31 operation, or framed up to look like one?

Trek 2009 is not a movie about averting or ameliorating the disaster. Therefore they are best off explaining it as briefly and as vaguely as possible. No dramatic role is served in explaining exactly how a supernova might threaten the galaxy but only destroy Romulus owing to delays in constructing a red-matter starship that Ambassador Spock had to pilot. And Ambassador Spock will not achieve anything he wants by explaining the technical details or full history to Young Kirk.

More details would slow the movie (granted that the movie was hardly slow-paced) while providing technobabble that fans will quickly see is nonsense incapable of explaining what happened.

 

[Greg Cox]

Trek 2009 is not a movie about averting or ameliorating the disaster. Therefore they are best off explaining it as briefly and as vaguely as possible. No dramatic role is served in explaining exactly how a supernova might threaten the galaxy but only destroy Romulus owing to delays in constructing a red-matter starship that Ambassador Spock had to pilot. And Ambassador Spock will not achieve anything he wants by explaining the technical details or full history to Young Kirk.

Good point.

It's just like the way WRATH OF KHAN did not bother to explain exactly why Ceti Alpha VI blew up, because, again, that's not what the movie was really about, and movies don't come with appendixes and footnotes; it was more important to establish that Khan blamed Kirk for his misfortunes than to offer some technobabble explanation for why everything went to hell on Ceti Alpha V.

Same with the 2009 movie.

 

[xortex]

Everything going to hell is a good way of putting it. The Romulans and the Vulcans were at the heart of Trek. Exploring their relationship and eventual schism would have been interesting. It would also been interesting if the Klingons (Kor, not Worf) were the brothers of Humanity. I didn't like the Bajorans and the Cardassians or the Voyager races. Star wars already brought aliens to a ridiculous head. There are so many stories you can tell without bumpy forehead aliens. 2001 did it. The Chase was ridiculous.

 

[BillJ]

The Romulans and the Vulcans were at the heart of Trek. Exploring their relationship and eventual schism would have been interesting.

And nothing stops those stories from being told, as both races still exist even though their homeworlds were destroyed.

 

[Kemaiku]

When were Vulcans and Romulans "at the heart of Trek"?

No, seriously. Humans and Klingons have always been the biggest two, most fans couldn't care all that much about Vulcans and we saw the Romulans rarely.

Pointless statement to begin with and it's not like either race is extinct so I don't see how it matters anyway.

 

[Greg Cox]

The Romulans and the Vulcans were at the heart of Trek. Exploring their relationship and eventual schism would have been interesting.

And nothing stops those stories from being told, as both races still exist even though their homeworlds were destroyed.

And let it be noted that Romulus still exists in the nuTrek universe. It was only destroyed in the Prime Universe.

And as for the Vulcans and Romulans being "at the heart of Star Trek," that is indeed a bit of a stretch. The Romulans appeared in exactly two episodes of TOS and we visited Vulcan in only one episode of TOS. (Hell, Harry Mudd got as much screen time as the Romulans.)

And as for the later shows, there were no Vulcan regulars on either TNG or DS9 . . ..

 

[Terok Nor]

I thought lt was a bad idea to destroy Romulus/Remus in the Prime universe and worse to destroy Vulcan, even if it is not merely to put his stamp on these movies.

It wasn't just an ego trip. More likely, they wanted to make it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the old "canon" had been blown to smithereens and wasn't coming back.

TNG managed to "reboot" the franchise without destroying Mr. Spock's homeworld. And with a brand new cast of characters too. That took balls. Going over old ground with Kirk and Khan is playing it safe. Even preserving the Prime universe is playing it safe to an extent. It's Star Trek. Anything can happen. In 10 years we could be back in the Prime universe with the Abrams movies being discarded because the people who grew up watching TNG want to see that universe again as it's "their" Star Trek. 20 years after that maybe the Abrams universe will become a nostalgic memory and the current generation of Trek fans will want a return to that. Both universes are robbed of an important planet either way.

(Frankly, ENTERPRISE could save themselves a lot of trouble if they'd just booted the "canon" out the airlock in Episode One.)

Agreed. And Abrams should have just rebooted the whole thing too. Or better yet created a brand new crew in a different century like TNG did. That was originality and daring from Roddenberry that may have not payed off but it did in the end.

We can quibble about whether revisiting Khan was a good idea, but the fact remains that, with Vulcan gone, the future of the timeline has irrevocably changed so that we don't know whether Kirk is going to be killed by Soran, or whether Sulu becomes captain of the Excelsior, or even if ANY of the events of the latter-day series or movies will happen in this new timeline.

And yet all these people still ended up on the Starship Enterprise together. This is not a brave reboot of the franchise. It's hedging its bets my keeping one foot in the past with the illusion that one foot is in the future. TNG was fresh, DS9 was fresh (space station), even the idea of Voyager was fresh, for Star Trek at least, even if it was squandered by the end of the pilot. Abrams movies and the show Enterprise are guilty of dressing up a well worn franchise in shiney new clothes and passing it off as something fresh in my opinion.

If they want to have Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto fight the Borg, it's doable because TNG takes place in an alternate timeline now, so we don't have to worry about how things played before.

You could look at that 2 ways. They don't have to worry about the continuity but they can still benefit from popular villains like Khan and the Borg instead of creating their own. TOS gave us Vulcans, Klingons and Romulans, TNG gave us the Borg and the Cardassian, DS9 gave us the Dominion, Voyager (for all its flaws) gave us Species 8472, the Hirogen, the Vidiians, and (may the Prophets forgive them) the Kazon. Even Enterprise, as misguided as this was, came up with the Xindi and the Suliban. What has JJ Abrams given us that's new? Scotty's little pal?

And as for preserving Romulus for the sake of the Prime Universe . . . let's be realistic here. Nobody reboots a franchise with the expectation that they might go back to the old version someday, so whether Romulus exists in the old universe is purely academic at this point, as least as far as movies and TV are concerned.

Nobody reboots a franchise by stating explicitly that the old continuity is still in tact either. It seems they want to have their cake and eat it. Look at the rumours of Shatner coming back in Part 3. It's either look to the future and do your own thing or keep drawing from the past which is what Abrams has done so far. I agree he should have just rebooted the whole thing. There can't be that many people out there in the grand scheme of things who care whether the other incarnations still exist or not. I know that's ironic coming after this novel I've written but just because somthing is rebooted it doesn't mean what came before isn't still out there to be enjoyed or can't be revisited ever again. The destruction of Romulus was not a great idea in my opinion. If the old franchise is "blown to pieces" then leave it as you found it and concentrate on the reboot.

 

[Squiggy]

Or better yet created a brand new crew in a different century like TNG did.

Not if they wanted a successful movie.

 

[Terok Nor]

Or better yet created a brand new crew in a different century like TNG did.

Not if they wanted a successful movie.

Exactly. Let's not pretend there's anything new being brought to the Star Trek table with these movies. It certainly is not a case of out with the old, in with the new. More like out with the new, in with the old.

 

[Squiggy]

Or better yet created a brand new crew in a different century like TNG did.

Not if they wanted a successful movie.

Exactly. Let's not pretend there's anything new being brought to the Star Trek table with these movies. It certainly is not a case of out with the old, in with the new. More like out with the new, in with the old.

No. It's a new coat of paint on a house that had 50 years of paint put on by painters with differing skills.

If you want it to look good again you have to sandblast all the way down to the wood and start over.

 

[Tarek71]

But while I can understand doing it, I think the way they did it was a bit bizarre. The supernova that threatens the entire Galaxy, possibly moves at warp, but is "sucked back" after propagating for light years in all directions by red matter? From lights away it's sucked all the way back? Hmmmm.

They could have at least conserved the wanking and say a trilithium warhead destroyed the Romulan star and some evidence was planted to make it appear that Section 31 had done it and thus a reason to blame the Federation.

That's my version of the movie anyway, for what it's worth. Lol.

How do you know the galaxy-threatening supernova wasn't a Section 31 operation, or framed up to look like one?

Spock or Nero would have said so, as it would immediately establish motive. That's what I am proposing, just drop the supernova. I think the trilithium warhead idea works well. At least it conserves the wanking.

I didn't say to spend more screen time explaining the supernova. I'm saying, don't say it was a galaxy threatenting supernova. Period. Let alone that it gets "sucked back" from light years away. Ugh. Lol.

No additional screen time needed. Just replace the scene talking about the supernova with something different. Nothing about the story requires it to be a supernova. It actually works better to say that this was not a supernova, as it establishes a better basis for blaming the Federation.

 

[RoJoHen]

When were Vulcans and Romulans "at the heart of Trek"?

No, seriously. Humans and Klingons have always been the biggest two, most fans couldn't care all that much about Vulcans and we saw the Romulans rarely.

Pointless statement to begin with and it's not like either race is extinct so I don't see how it matters anyway.

I'd say Vulcans were a lot more important in the TOS era, at least through our connections with Spock, Sarek, and Saavik. We got to know more Vulcan characters and learned more about Vulcan culture in those years than at any other point (until ENT came along, at least).

For the biggest issue is that we don't really see much fallout from the destruction of Vulcan. Apparently the survivors found a new home, and it would seem they are doing fine. I really would have liked more followup in the second film to how Vulcan's destruction was affecting the state of the Federation; after all, they were one of the founding members.

As for the Romulans, I agree they were never that important. Hell, their whole species is characterized as xenophobic and sneaky. They like to stay hidden. Frankly, Nero could have been a member of any species, and his homeworld could have been any old planet. Since Romulus was destroyed in the prime universe, in a future we will likely never see on screen, it doesn't make one bit of difference to the story.

 

[Kemaiku]

We saw how the Federation handled it.

They gave carte blanche to Admiral Marcus, the head of both Starfleet and Section 31 to have all resources at his disposal to comb every inch of space they could for any means to protect themselves.

Khan explained tall this at length in Into Darkness. Starfleet shat itself and allowed the most sinister man in charge to rule them with an iron fist, creating the Vengeance program, using Khan himself as a tool and making super torpedoes by the magazine load under London in a super weapons factory.

They were about to start a new era of a fascist fleet armed and agressive beyond any semblance of what it used to be.

And starting a pre-emptive war with the Klingon Empire in order to have the justification to wipe it out and take it's resources was just the beginning.

Seriously did you sleep through all this?

 

[RandyS]

I hope his meeting at CBS went well. When do you think we'll see it on air?

September 2525.

If ma--

If Mankind is still alive.

Damn you!

 

[RoJoHen]

We saw how the Federation handled it.

They gave carte blanche to Admiral Marcus, the head of both Starfleet and Section 31 to have all resources at his disposal to comb every inch of space they could for any means to protect themselves.

Khan explained tall this at length in Into Darkness. Starfleet shat itself and allowed the most sinister man in charge to rule them with an iron fist, creating the Vengeance program, using Khan himself as a tool and making super torpedoes by the magazine load under London in a super weapons factory.

They were about to start a new era of a fascist fleet armed and agressive beyond any semblance of what it used to be.

And starting a pre-emptive war with the Klingon Empire in order to have the justification to wipe it out and take it's resources was just the beginning.

Seriously did you sleep through all this?

I meant from the Vulcan side of things. I was mostly hoping to see Sarek and the Vulcan refugees. The Vulcans were featured pretty heavily in the first film, and I was just hoping for a more direct followup.

 

[Trekkin]

Or better yet created a brand new crew in a different century like TNG did.

Not if they wanted a successful movie.

Exactly. Let's not pretend there's anything new being brought to the Star Trek table with these movies. It certainly is not a case of out with the old, in with the new. More like out with the new, in with the old.

Yet your suggestion was 'They should have repeated what Not-so-Modern Trek had always done with each new incarnation (to diminishing returns, no less).'

That is not 'new' or 'brave' approach.

 

[Kemaiku]

I meant from the Vulcan side of things.

Sadly, I think with them finding a new planet and spending all their time just building shelters and doing what they can to survive the day, it's just not going to be worth showing in the movies.

New Vulcan is a tiny threadbare colony, unless there was a threat to it, they won't show it. It might end up being similar to the isolationist movement from the Romulan War novels where they sever ties to the outside galaxy for the most part.

 

[BillJ]

No. It's a new coat of paint on a house that had 50 years of paint put on by painters with differing skills.

If you want it to look good again you have to sandblast all the way down to the wood and start over.

This.

 

[martok2112]

No. It's a new coat of paint on a house that had 50 years of paint put on by painters with differing skills.

If you want it to look good again you have to sandblast all the way down to the wood and start over.

This.

I do not know the Minionese word for "this" but...

+1