What it "ties into" does not include ST2009 (apparently), so yes, it has to follow the lead of the canon it ties into, but ST2009, while Star Trek canon, is not part of the "canon it ties into". Therefore it would seem you wouldn't have to be beholden to it.
But you seem to be saying that the "canon it ties into" is Star Trek as a whole, even though part of that is not covered in the license. OK, I guess I can see where you're coming from, even though as an outsider, it still seems weird to me.
Yes, exactly. It's all one whole, even if we don't get to
use every part of that whole. Malibu only had the right to publish DS9, but that didn't give it the freedom to contradict TOS and TNG. Big Finish, until recently, only had the right to use the classic Doctors from
Doctor Who, but that didn't mean it could ignore the new Doctors. For one thing, that would be foolish, because the new bits are very popular and successful.
But Star Trek isn't history, of course. It just seems odd to me that you'd have to be beholden to an entertainment property (ST2009) that is not part of the Star Trek novels tie in license, any more than (to carry it to ridiculous extremes) a Star Trek novel would need to be beholden to the idea of the beginning of life on Earth as presented in "Daybreak", because BSG is also not part of the Star Trek novels tie in license.
But those are very different situations. Even if something isn't part of the ST license, it's still part of the ST franchise. And tie-ins exist to support the franchise.
Think of, say, a civilian consultant aboard the
Enterprise who isn't allowed to go into certain high-security areas of the ship because they don't have clearance. That doesn't mean those high-security areas are part of a separate ship. They're still part of the whole that everyone in the crew, including the consultant, is there to serve and support.
That is, the fact that a licensee can't use a certain series within the franchise is a function of the licensee's status in relation to the franchise, not a reflection of the series's status in relation to it.
It's really damaging his character if he begins destroying planets and killing billions of innocent people if he only thought his home was destroyed as opposed to knowing for certainty that it definitely was. I mean, come on.
But then again, I'm not sure this makes sense to me either. Are you saying his killing billions of people is somehow justified, as long as he's *sure* it was destroyed?
I'm sure that's not what
The Wormhole means. The point is that treating Nero as mistaken is misunderstanding the factual basis of the story and the meaning of the character's motivations and actions. It's like believing that, say, Marla just walked out on Khan and faked her death. Or that Bruce Wayne was just a runaway who created an elaborate fantasy of his parents' murder. It's twisting the intent of the story in a way that robs it of its emotional core and also misreads some of its clear facts.
Nero's strength as a character, and what makes him distinct from Khan or Shinzon or the others, is that he's not some grand leader with a scheme, not an elegant villain, not someone prone to be a posturing threat, but just Some Guy who sort of has to destroy everything now to address the pain, sorry. I think "Nero on the warpath after losing everything" is a little distinct from - and more interesting than - "Nero lashing out after thinking but not confirming that he's lost everything". I can see why others might not think the distinction meaningful, but I think that Nero does indeed need to know, without a doubt, that Romulus is gone, otherwise it detracts something from the character.
Absolutely. The film's clear intent is to paint Nero as a tragic figure -- a man who was broken by one terrible day that cost him everything and is driven by his pain and loss. One of my favorite things about the film is the way his death scene is handled. The destruction of the
Narada isn't portrayed as some macho fist-pumping triumph for the heroes, but as a moment of solemnity and tragedy. The direction, cinematography, and music in Nero's final moments deliberately echo George Kirk's final moments at the beginning of the film. This creates a parallel between the two, both family men who are driven by love for their wives and unborn children, but manifesting that love in two opposing ways, one protective and heroic, the other vengeful and destructive. It's an incredibly inept misreading of the artistry of the film, never mind its
explicit dialogue from Spock Prime, to come away with the belief that Nero was just some evil lunatic motivated by nothing but delusions.
