World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

[superstring01]

there are fewer than 10,000 Vulcans left according to Spock.

Which, if true, is just intellectually lazy on the part of Abrams. First off: we know that Vulcan has had warp technology for about a millennium (thus giving their diaspora considerable reach), second off, we know that they have a number of colonies (which predate the UFP), third off, are they only saying that on all the UFP worlds an in all of Star Fleet there were only 10k Vulcans? Really? The UFP MUST surely be significantly larger than the United State's military (numbering--what?--several million), would that imply that one of the founding members of the UFP sat back and just didn't bother sending its people into the main marital force that protected the Federation?

Just as importantly, it can be easily extrapolated that the Vulcans, being pretty darned smart, would have considered the possibility that a stellar catastrophy could happen and destroy their homeworld (thus, why even bother having colonies?) and would have encoraged their people to settle on many worlds.

What if when the movie ended there were fewer than 10,000 humans left in the galaxy?

In the same vein as my above paragraph, this would have been supremely intellcutally lazy. We know that--pre warp drive--"genetic" humans exist on many worlds outside of Earth. We also know that by the mid 2200's Earth-humanity has spread to numerous colonies (Alpha Centuari, comes to mind, as well as all those "lost" diasporae that were discovered in numerous TNG episodes).

~String

 

[Hartzilla2007]

What if the events of the voyage home created a new universe where the whales saved the day and the old universe earth and its people were destroyed.

They didn't.

A timeline where Earth was destroyed never got a chance to form. It wasn't like Kirk and crew came from such a timeline, travelled back and prevented it. They came from their own present, *before* such a timeline had the chance to exist.

Actually, if you look closely, a new timeline did form. After the window breaks for the first time, there is a pause and you see Sarek looking out the window. The second time the window breaks in the movie, Sarek points out the Klingon Bird-of-Prey. So a new timeline did form.

Yeah and it kind of makes you wonder what Sarek saw just then, it probably wasn't anything good.

Not only how does Spock handle it, but how do Kirk and Pike get over it? The mistake Kirk thought he made in "Obsession" stayed with him for years. Don't you think this should play over and over a few times in his head. What could have been done differently?

Simple really, don't give the explosives needed to take to destroy the drill to the frickin redshirt.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I wonder how the destruction of Vulcan will affect Kirk and Spock's friendship.

Since Kirk failed to save Vulcan, how will Spock act towards him (or, indeed, the rest of the crew) now?

 

[THE CHEBB]

Wibbily-Wobbily Timey-Wimey talk gives me a headache...

 

[superstring01]

I'm betting that the next movie will, somehow, involve a temporal adventure saving the planet Vulcan. Star Trek fandom was equally irked by Spock's death. Look how that turned out.

Never count a Vulcan dead until you see his body, and even then you can make mistakes.

~String

 

[Aike]

Why do you talk about the unimportant stuff like Vulcan being destroyed when there is a new cast member who is short, sexy and funny. Scotty´s pal and sidekick. He is a mix of Jar Jar and Barclay

 

[The Super Brando]

. . . I have to admit that while I will go to this movie opening day, it is not without a great deal of disappointment and fear that much will be sacrificed just for the shock value. .

Death is sacrifice. You lose something special that you can never get back. For a death or a destruction to have an emotional impact in a film then you have to lose something important. So something on this scale (and because it's so near and dear to Trek) is a tragedy, an emotionally hard-hitting tragedy.

I love that they are willing to have a real death and real tragedy. Of course there's a line of what I would be willing to accept them sacrificing. If they killed one of the main characters in the first film I wouldn't really like that, or if they destroyed Earth (because that's a little too important to us moviegoers).

Also you have past Trek movies that sacrificed things that fans thought were too sacred to be sacrificed. They killed Spock, destroyed the Enterprise, killed Kirk, and then destroyed another Enterprise. Sure most of those things came back (except Kirk and Enterprise D), but the remaining Vulcans could repopulate another world and call it their new home.

Are we willing to give it a try though? We did with the other things they sacrificed, and we've gotten decades of awesome Trek. Will we shun this new potentially awesome Trek just because we want to maintain all of the status quo in the Trek universe and are unwilling to see change?

 

[Franklin]

Not only how does Spock handle it, but how do Kirk and Pike get over it? The mistake Kirk thought he made in "Obsession" stayed with him for years. Don't you think this should play over and over a few times in his head. What could have been done differently?

Simple really, don't give the explosives needed to take to destroy the drill to the frickin redshirt.

 

[Dac]

I'm betting that the next movie will, somehow, involve a temporal adventure saving the planet Vulcan. Star Trek fandom was equally irked by Spock's death. Look how that turned out.

Never count a Vulcan dead until you see his body, and even then you can make mistakes.

~String

If that happens, then it ruins everything good in this movie.

Losing Vulcan is the catalyst that tells the (trekkie) audience "Look. This is an ALTERNATE TIMELINE. Anything can happen."

Live with it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually, if you look closely, a new timeline did form. After the window breaks for the first time, there is a pause and you see Sarek looking out the window. The second time the window breaks in the movie, Sarek points out the Klingon Bird-of-Prey. So a new timeline did form.

No, the action cuts away as Sarek peers out of the window. At the end of the film, we come back to that scene and when it reaches the moment of Sarek peering out the action continues as he sees the Bounty. There's no difference between the two scenes.

 

[the quickening]

I'm betting that the next movie will, somehow, involve a temporal adventure saving the planet Vulcan. Star Trek fandom was equally irked by Spock's death. Look how that turned out.
~String

The reason that doesn't work for me either is if any of the next two movies deals once again with time travel/alternate reality... then that's just creative bankruptcy. They might as well just call the movies and the franchise TIME TREK.

The franchise needs to move forward and truly start exploring strange new worlds. Enough with the time and temporal stories... please!

 

[Franklin]

I'm betting that the next movie will, somehow, involve a temporal adventure saving the planet Vulcan. Star Trek fandom was equally irked by Spock's death. Look how that turned out.

Never count a Vulcan dead until you see his body, and even then you can make mistakes.

~String

If that happens, then it ruins everything good in this movie.

Losing Vulcan is the catalyst that tells the (trekkie) audience "Look. This is an ALTERNATE TIMELINE. Anything can happen."

Live with it.

It happens, and we'll live with it. I don't want to see a story around trying to bring it back. But I think they made the point very clear it was an alternate timeline before destroying Vulcan. And, killing Amanda alone would've alerted fans that no one, or no thing was safe.

You've seen the movie, so you can guess better than us just how much this event may reverberate beyond this movie. If it does, fine. The die is cast. Let's see how it unfolds.
If this was a one-off gimmick just to stir up the pot and stun the fans (what non-fan could feel the same way?), then it wasn't worth giving up Vulcan in this timeline for all the similar uniforms, familiar sound effects, insider references, dead red shirts, Orion girls, and tribbles that do exist in it.

 

[Nowhere Man]

What if when the movie ended there were fewer than 10,000 humans left in the galaxy?

Battlestar Galatica and while I love BSG I want to I plan on spending $8.00 on Star Trek,not BSG.

 

[FarDreaming]

. . . I have to admit that while I will go to this movie opening day, it is not without a great deal of disappointment and fear that much will be sacrificed just for the shock value. .

Death is sacrifice. You lose something special that you can never get back. For a death or a destruction to have an emotional impact in a film then you have to lose something important. So something on this scale (and because it's so near and dear to Trek) is a tragedy, an emotionally hard-hitting tragedy.

I love that they are willing to have a real death and real tragedy. Of course there's a line of what I would be willing to accept them sacrificing. If they killed one of the main characters in the first film I wouldn't really like that, or if they destroyed Earth (because that's a little too important to us moviegoers).

Also you have past Trek movies that sacrificed things that fans thought were too sacred to be sacrificed. They killed Spock, destroyed the Enterprise, killed Kirk, and then destroyed another Enterprise. Sure most of those things came back (except Kirk and Enterprise D), but the remaining Vulcans could repopulate another world and call it their new home.

Are we willing to give it a try though? We did with the other things they sacrificed, and we've gotten decades of awesome Trek. Will we shun this new potentially awesome Trek just because we want to maintain all of the status quo in the Trek universe and are unwilling to see change?

Well, in prior versions of TOS, no one stayed dead-- they always made it back somehow, LOL! . (Not being a fan of the subsequent series, I can't speak for what happened there.)

If they truly make this sacrifice mean something and it is reflective in the growth and relationships of the characters, if it isn't just a one-time "look what we can do!" event by the writers, then it can be redeemed as a valid sacrifice. But if it is more or less forgotten at the end of this movie, if everything goes on from that point as if nothing tragic happened, well, it was just a cheap trick wasn't it? And if that happens, the Abramsverse is really nothing more than a mindless thrill ride.

 

[FarDreaming]

...If this was a one-off gimmick just to stir up the pot and stun the fans (what non-fan could feel the same way?), then it wasn't worth giving up Vulcan in this timeline for all the similar uniforms, familiar sound effects, insider references, dead red shirts, Orion girls, and tribbles that do exist in it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I suppose I'll get over it, and it matters not one whit whether I see the movie or not, or whether I enjoy it or not, but I just can't help but think that Abrams could have made just as good of a movie but not have had to take it that far.

You're exactly right. The best thing that can be said about the destruction of Vulcan (and the deaths of Amanda and George Kirk) is that it was completely unnecessary.

 

[gh4chiefs]

Of course there's a line of what I would be willing to accept them sacrificing. If they killed one of the main characters in the first film I wouldn't really like that, or if they destroyed Earth (because that's a little too important to us moviegoers).

See that's just it. The point I'm trying to make is that to some of us, perhaps a very small minority of Trek fans, Vulcan IS a major character.

Are we willing to give it a try though? We did with the other things they sacrificed, and we've gotten decades of awesome Trek. Will we shun this new potentially awesome Trek just because we want to maintain all of the status quo in the Trek universe and are unwilling to see change?we

Well it is what it is, and we don't have a choice. We'll either watch it or we won't. My guess is that the movie is going to be a hit and most people are going to like it. But unfortunately, for some of us at least, they just took it a sacrifice too far. I don't begrudge anybody enjoying this new Trek, but I am a little sad as to how many Trek fans seems to be not just accepting of throwing Vulcan overboard, but they actually seem to celebrate it. That's just unfathomable to me.

I guess it's just another sign of me getting older and the passage of time. Not only is it not my "father's Star Trek", it's not really mine either.

 

[Neopeius]

The reason that doesn't work for me either is if any of the next two movies deals once again with time travel/alternate reality... then that's just creative bankruptcy. They might as well just call the movies and the franchise TIME TREK.

In a universe where time travel is casually easy, one would *expect* all of the stories to be time travel stories.

Is there any reason Vulcan *shouldn't* be restored?

 

[Franklin]

The reason that doesn't work for me either is if any of the next two movies deals once again with time travel/alternate reality... then that's just creative bankruptcy. They might as well just call the movies and the franchise TIME TREK.

In a universe where time travel is casually easy, one would *expect* all of the stories to be time travel stories.

Is there any reason Vulcan *shouldn't* be restored?

You move the reset button to the second movie, and you've conned everyone and lost your credibility. At least TWOK left Spock's death an open issue at the end. You had a feeling at the end of the movie that it wasn't necessarily the end.
They have credibility if they keep Vulcan destroyed. They've made their point. I've just said they used nukes in this case when a strategic strike (just the death of Amanda) may have been enough to make the same point. One poignant and heartbreaking death.

 

[FarDreaming]

You move the reset button to the second movie, and you've conned everyone and lost your credibility. At least TWOK left Spock's death an open issue at the end. You had a feeling at the end of the movie that it wasn't necessarily the end.
They have credibility if they keep Vulcan destroyed. They've made their point. I've just said they used nukes in this case when a strategic strike (just the death of Amanda) may have been enough to make the same point. One poignant and heartbreaking death.

And the question needs to be, why do we need to have two tragedies occur to Spock? It seems to me overkill-- that they are doing it because they can and for no other reason. I might have been able to say okay, with one, but both? Why both?