A certain destruction: necessary or gratuitous?

[BrownShatner]

I would say that Vulcan itself was never that important to Trek, dramatically, except as a foil to the Spock character.* It was always a rather two-dimensional place.

As for "Vulcan 2", that would be a total reset button cop-out. Others have already hit on the analogy of the Jewish Diaspora, where Israel was destroyed by "Nero", only to be reformed millenniums in the future. The dramatic possibility here is to show the plight of the "wandering vulcan", the aesthetic race with no home.

(*Well, T'Pol in Enterprise for all us 2 nielsons who watched it. Otherwise Vulcan itself was rarely referenced on-screen.)

 

[Peter the Younger]

Re: The destruction of Vulcan: necessary or gratuitous?

I seem to be alone in this opinion, but I think it wasn't just to shake up the continuity, it served a purpose: to align the world of Star Trek with the zeitgeist of the 21st century. A savage attack by a small rogue group led by an angry zealot, loved ones lost... I dunno, sounds a lot like a certain recent historical event to me.

And usually I'm not a fan of these sorts of heavy handed allegories, but 1960's Cold War/Civil Rights Era Trek wasn't known for its subtlety, either. And I thought it was handled with the appropriate amount of gravity, considering this is after all a space adventure. In the next film, if we see elements of continuing grief or survivor's guilt in Spock, this generation will know where he's coming from.

Some people seem to think the destruction of Vulcan is a betrayal of Trek's vision of a hopeful future. I think this is where we separate the notion of hopeful future from utopia. Hope isn't about living in a world where horrible things don't happen, it's about making it through horrible events and not giving up.

I point to my historical observations in the "Federation is screwed" thread. People overestimate micro and macro constitutions, actual observation and research would indicate things are far more fragile than we like to think. The destruction of Vulcan and most of the Vulcans is a long term death blow. The federation will survive, obviously, but surviving is -not- flourishing. Of course they will write things as they please, but it sure will seem contrived

Well it's impossible to tell, really, unless we know the total population and economic output of the Federation, and what percentage of that Vulcan contributed. The scientific loss would seem to be large, of course (but did you ever notice how few Vulcan scientists showed up in the various series, vs. human ones?)

 

[Feofilakt]

Re: The destruction of Vulcan: necessary or gratuitous?

I seem to be alone in this opinion, but I think it wasn't just to shake up the continuity, it served a purpose: to align the world of Star Trek with the zeitgeist of the 21st century. A savage attack by a small rogue group led by an angry zealot, loved ones lost... I dunno, sounds a lot like a certain recent historical event to me.

And usually I'm not a fan of these sorts of heavy handed allegories, but 1960's Cold War/Civil Rights Era Trek wasn't known for its subtlety, either. And I thought it was handled with the appropriate amount of gravity, considering this is after all a space adventure. In the next film, if we see elements of continuing grief or survivor's guilt in Spock, this generation will know where he's coming from.

Some people seem to think the destruction of Vulcan is a betrayal of Trek's vision of a hopeful future. I think this is where we separate the notion of hopeful future from utopia. Hope isn't about living in a world where horrible things don't happen, it's about making it through horrible events and not giving up.

I point to my historical observations in the "Federation is screwed" thread. People overestimate micro and macro constitutions, actual observation and research would indicate things are far more fragile than we like to think. The destruction of Vulcan and most of the Vulcans is a long term death blow. The federation will survive, obviously, but surviving is -not- flourishing. Of course they will write things as they please, but it sure will seem contrived

Well it's impossible to tell, really, unless we know the total population and economic output of the Federation, and what percentage of that Vulcan contributed. The scientific loss would seem to be large, of course (but did you ever notice how few Vulcan scientists showed up in the various series, vs. human ones?)

Well, the show was always a bit human centric, which is one of my long time gripes :/

In my estimation Vulcan was much more important than some people would like to think. The deontology we see the Federation exhibit very likely stems from Vulcan philosophy, and I would not be surprised in the slightest if Vulcan provided a good portion of the scientific know-how.

 

[T'Bonz]

Another reason Vulcan's destruction doesn't carry the weight is because for all intents and purposes it is a parallel Vulcan. Think if it was destroyed in a mirror universe episode of one of the series.

Says you. This is the timeline in which we will get all new Trek from now on, so it *is* important.

Only if we went back to the original timeline would it not matter.

And to add insult to injury, we lost Romulus in the original timeline.

 

[Dale]

I got the point... nothing is safe and no one's survival is assured... but I disapprove of such a large sacrifice on Abrams' altar.

 

[Peter the Younger]

Re: The destruction of Vulcan: necessary or gratuitous?

In my estimation Vulcan was much more important than some people would like to think. The deontology we see the Federation exhibit very likely stems from Vulcan philosophy, and I would not be surprised in the slightest if Vulcan provided a good portion of the scientific know-how.

Makes me think of the old Rise of the Federation PC game; if you could get the Vulcan Science Academy built, the Federation research abilities went up across the board.

 

[startrekwatcher]

Another reason Vulcan's destruction doesn't carry the weight is because for all intents and purposes it is a parallel Vulcan. Think if it was destroyed in a mirror universe episode of one of the series.

Says you. This is the timeline in which we will get all new Trek from now on, so it *is* important.

And? I had no connection to this Vulcan. It is from a different universe and my affinity for the original doesn't transfer like that. The writers wanted a reboot so they got one. It will be up to them to make me want to invest in any of the characters or worlds they are using. They succeeded in that when it came to the crew in this film but not much else.

I also really doubt based on the track record of the writers of the film that they are going to really focus on the aftermath of Vulcan's destruction in the next film like many wnt to believe. I suspect if anything any mention of it will be reduced to a drop in one or two lines if that. Orci & Kurtzman will want to launch right into their next contained story without dredging that baggage up.

And to add insult to injury, we lost Romulus in the original timeline.

And if you thought Vulcan's destruction couldn't be treated any more cavalierly there came Romulus' destruction. It was handled the worst given the lack of insight or time in that time period to flesh out the situation. If you blinked you missed it. Terribly handled.

 

[Feofilakt]

Re: The destruction of Vulcan: necessary or gratuitous?

In my estimation Vulcan was much more important than some people would like to think. The deontology we see the Federation exhibit very likely stems from Vulcan philosophy, and I would not be surprised in the slightest if Vulcan provided a good portion of the scientific know-how.

Makes me think of the old Rise of the Federation PC game; if you could get the Vulcan Science Academy built, the Federation research abilities went up across the board.

A little off topic, but how is that game? I've been mostly an SFC2/SFC3 and Bridge Commander (Kobayashi Maru mod is incredible) player. From the looks of it it seems a bit like Masters of Orion 2/Galactic Civilizations 2.

 

[Peter the Younger]

Re: The destruction of Vulcan: necessary or gratuitous?

In my estimation Vulcan was much more important than some people would like to think. The deontology we see the Federation exhibit very likely stems from Vulcan philosophy, and I would not be surprised in the slightest if Vulcan provided a good portion of the scientific know-how.

Makes me think of the old Rise of the Federation PC game; if you could get the Vulcan Science Academy built, the Federation research abilities went up across the board.

A little off topic, but how is that game? I've been mostly an SFC2/SFC3 and Bridge Commander (Kobayashi Maru mod is incredible) player. From the looks of it it seems a bit like Masters of Orion 2/Galactic Civilizations 2.

It's a LOT like Masters of Orion 2, and a little dated now, but I still enjoy playing it on occasion. With a little digging, it's possible to mod the ship stats, which is nice.

 

[CaptainJon]

I voted for neither. It was ballsy and I loved it. Was it necessary? No, it wasn't, but it was a great way to say, "Hey, we're going to take risks". How can you believe these characters are in danger if you know how things will turn out in the end? What's to keep someone from dying in the next one? I betcha Pike dies in the next one.

Vulcan's destruction wasn't gratuitous, and it wasn't necessary, but it was incredibly well handled and unexpected until the very last moment. So I liked it!

 

[Praetor]

The one-two punch of "Amanda's dead and so is Vulcan" was certainly the ultimate "this isn't your father's trek" example.

 

[Silent_Bob]

Too early to tell if it was necessary or gratuitous, i'd say it depends on the sequel. If its followed up on, then i could view it as necessary for the advancement of the plot. If its ignored then it was gratuitous.