There's probably a reason why multiple Star Trek films have tried to emulate it since it's premiere.
How was Nero's anger going to save Romulus?
- Thread starter Xerxes1979
- Start date
There's probably a reason why multiple Star Trek films have tried to emulate it since it's premiere.
So know you're saying that people like Rick Berman and JJ Abrams swiped the ideas from an earlier script simply because it made money?
Man that's cold. Not to mention it questions the artistic integrity of those filmmakers.
This was fun... now it's time to go look at Dana Delaney pictures over in TV & Media.
And do you honestly believe Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer wrote an original screenplay that introduced this new character archetype called the obsessive vengeful villain?
Whatever you say, bro. TWOK may have saved the franchise but it wasn't a groundbreaking achievement in screenplay.
I'm not the one questioning the artistic integrity of Rick Berman and JJ Abrams.
Harve Bennett borrowed ideas from Moby Dick because it worked within the story he wanted to tell. You're the one that said that later filmmakers borrowed from TWOK simply because it made money.
You're the one that said that later filmmakers borrowed from TWOK simply because it made money.
I said:
As in the II - III - IV trilogy that was successful before V killed the damn franchise again. I did not say that every ST film/other movie borrowed the same exact plot device from TWOK, you said that.
Don't twist what I write. I only said that XI mirrored II through it's villains and their goals. You must be trolling now.
This is my original statement and your response. How would you have taken it?
Although this brings a bitter taste, the one major example of a guy holding an irrational and insane grudge is Adolf Hitler.
Germany lost WWI due to a large number of issues, but he decided it was the fault of jews and communists, and 27 years later 'til the very end, he still blamed them, and he had thousands who agreed with him.
All Nero could see was that Romulus's ancient enemy allowed them all to die, and, like a lot of people, he didn't let facts get in the way of making someone pay for it.
Germany lost WWI due to a large number of issues, but he decided it was the fault of jews and communists, and 27 years later 'til the very end, he still blamed them, and he had thousands who agreed with him.
All Nero could see was that Romulus's ancient enemy allowed them all to die, and, like a lot of people, he didn't let facts get in the way of making someone pay for it.
Agreed. If it requires so much digging through deleted scenes and soft-canon fiction, to make sense of something, and even then only slightly make sense, then it's a bad movie folks.
They cannot be the same location. Rura Penthe is in Klingon space. Spock's storm was in the Neutral Zone.
Timo said:
Just the fact that he emerges within the Neutral Zone, not at a point on the Federation side of the KNZ.
Timo said:
That doesn't make sense. If the timeline fits Nero breaking free from Rura Penthe "without fuss" and then capturing Spock later, it also fits Nero breaking free from Rura Penthe "with fuss" and then capturing Spock later.
Timo said:
Just because the prison break material was deleted from the film doesn't mean that it would not fit in the film if reinserted. In the script the prison break material appears, and it's the same timeline. One need not accept the prison break as canon due to it not being explicit in the film anymore, but the rest of the film still fits with it just as it did before its deletion.
Last edited:
Deleted scenes don't count.
Plus, I don't buy it anyways. How does someone who can obliterate a huge Klingon fleet get captured? None of that makes sense.
Psychopaths aren't usually so functional, smart, or capable of leadership.
Plus, we're led to believe that Nero wasn't all these things until his wife and home planet were destroyed. Since Spock couldn't have been too late to the party, Nero probably only knew about the destruction of Romulus for what, an hour? Having a brief stress period could be easily remedied by the shock of time travel and the idea that what caused him grief could be undone.
the comparison of Khan to Nero is wrong because Kirk really WAS an opponent of Khan's who was also responsible for his predicament in a way.(Both for leaving him there and not checking up on him and his group)
Spock was of course not an opponent of Nero's in any way, but was also actively trying to HELP the Romulans and was IN NO WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR NERO'S PREDICAMENT.
Bit of a difference there.
Spock was of course not an opponent of Nero's in any way, but was also actively trying to HELP the Romulans and was IN NO WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR NERO'S PREDICAMENT.
Bit of a difference there.
In the deleted scenes, Nero and crew were captured immediately after Narada is crippled by the Kelvin ramming - about a dozen Klingon ships decloak and demand surrender while chaos reigns on Nero's ship.
Nero is no longer in the later 24th century, he's now in a time when there is rivalry.
It's what he said in the film, he wants Romulus to be free of the same federation that he feels helped destroy it. He's obviously held something against the Federation probably beyond this Supernova. Was probably against Peace Treaties, etc.
It's only a bad movie to an individual, not some sort of fact that is suddenly bestowed upon us. Most individuals don't feel it's bad of course.
Last edited:
Nero thinks Spock (and by extension, the Federation) deliberately waited until after Romulus was destroyed to stop the supernova. That's why be blames them - it's right there in the movie.
Since we saw Spock meeting openly with Romulan leadership and he's referred to as "Ambassador" repeatedly, it's likely he was the Federation Ambassador to Romulus in 2387. Although that may imply a more friendly Romulus, recall that the Romulans had Ambassador Nanclus on Earth in STVI, when the powers were very much enemies.
Since we saw Spock meeting openly with Romulan leadership and he's referred to as "Ambassador" repeatedly, it's likely he was the Federation Ambassador to Romulus in 2387. Although that may imply a more friendly Romulus, recall that the Romulans had Ambassador Nanclus on Earth in STVI, when the powers were very much enemies.
I think there was always a Romulan Ambassador to the Federation, or in some sense, working with the Federation when it came to disputes that fell along the lines of the NZ and I was always under the impression that the Klingons and Romulans worked together or at least shared ideas since they had a common enemy which probably would be why the Romulan Ambassador was there in VI.
Khan agreed to Kirk's proposal. He become insane when the planet he lived on suffered a natural disaster and turned it into a wasteland that killed his wife and half his people. That was not Kirk's fault but Khan adamantly believed it was just by association. So how does that then make Kirk an equal opponent?
Kirk helped Khan by feeding his ego. It backfired because he tried to come up with a half assed stupid solution for another no-win scenario.
Spock didn't have to say that he could save their planet. He didn't have to come up with some device to absorb the supernova but he did. He gave them hope and it backfired. Just like Kirk.
Two individuals misguided with resentment due to, what they feel as, false hope. It's the same approach, there is no difference.
What? Kirk gave Khan pardon and stated that he'd give him a planet in which to reign. He agreed, that chick agreed, and they left on good terms. Spock then says something along the lines of it being interesting to visit the planet 100 years from now to see what came of the seed they planted. Kirk never agreed to check up on them nor was there any plans on visiting them again to make sure " they're doing okay ".
Khan agreed to Kirk's proposal. He become insane when the planet he lived on suffered a natural disaster and turned it into a wasteland that killed his wife and half his people. That was not Kirk's fault but Khan adamantly believed it was just by association. So how does that then make Kirk an equal opponent?
Kirk helped Khan by feeding his ego. It backfired because he tried to come up with a half assed stupid solution for another no-win scenario.
Spock didn't have to say that he could save their planet. He didn't have to come up with some device to absorb the supernova but he did. He gave them hope and it backfired. Just like Kirk.
Two individuals misguided with resentment due to, what they feel as, false hope. It's the same approach, there is no difference.
Last edited:
Hey, remember the Romulans? That lively group who, due to an ability to feast upon latent emotional impulses within the Vulcan species nearly took their original home planet to the brink of destruction and annoyed by a growing experiment in pacifism on that homeworld thought it would be better to trudge across the stars in tin cans so they could nurse that same grudge for a few millennia.
Yeah me too. And having that context makes most of Nero's actions appear rather by the book.
Yeah me too. And having that context makes most of Nero's actions appear rather by the book.
Now I've a sudden desire to watch both this movie and "Balance Of Terror" again.
They should have Ben Cross play a Romulan commander, who gets to meet Kirk "as a friend". Sort of the inverse of what took place in the mainline timeline. Though the inside joke might confuse some none Trekkers.
They should have Ben Cross play a Romulan commander, who gets to meet Kirk "as a friend". Sort of the inverse of what took place in the mainline timeline. Though the inside joke might confuse some none Trekkers.
