How was Nero's anger going to save Romulus?

[ShatnersToupee]

The very fact that we're having this debate illustrates the problem with this movie. If a significant portion of your audience doesn't buy the motives you've laid out for why your villain does the things that he does, then it means you've failed as a writer. Now I'm sure some people will say "no, it just means that some of your viewers are dumb." But that's kind of like me hanging a toilet seat on the wall and calling it art, you showing up and saying "I don't get it", and me responding with "it's beyond your comprehension." In other words, all I'm doing is deflecting blame onto you instead of owning up to my own failures.

There will always be people who defend bad writing. And apparently, if you point out the flaws in their arguments, you'll be accused of making personal attacks, which I find astounding, If someone finds fault in my argument or if they accuse me of inferring too much, I don't take that personally. Instead I take it for what it is, a challenge to do a better job making my case. But moving on...

When I first saw this movie, my immediate impression was that the writers worked backwards. They started off with a villain, decided what they wanted him to do, and then they had to figure out why he does those things. Answer? Let's make him insane. That solves everything. Now, we don't actually have to worry about any of it being plausible or making sense. The moment someone raises that issue, we can pull out the "he's insane" card. How convenient.

 

[Merky]

You're saying it's bad writing but the numbers and positive professional reviews contradict what you're saying. You are Star Trek fan, you will be highly critical over the minute details of the movie because of this. You will compare it to every other Trek and you will apply what you know about the Star Trek universe into this movie and then hack it on terrible writing because it conflicts with what you already know. That does not mean that your opinion validates that the writer's failed in it's deliverance of a good story.

Orci and Kurtzman are not writing for you. They're writing for everyone. Trying to appease the Trek fandom as well as bring in a brand new audience and make Trek marketable beyond the indoctrinated fans is what I would call a successful attempt in writing a movie. You are claiming that people who defend the film are just hacks defending crap writing just because you don't agree with the reason why Nero decided to blow up Vulcan when it's almost identical to the same reason Khan decided to kill (or attempt, i think nearly everyone evacuated) everyone on an entire Starbase and Starship and steal a Starship to lure in Kirk.

Khan is praised for being Star Trek's greatest villains yet he was just a homocidal crazy maniac pissed off and angry cause his waifu died and he ended up on a shitty planet. How is that different from Nero losing his entire planet, his wife, unborn child, being sent back into the past, and forced to spend 25 years of his life in the alien's graveyard?

Bad writing? I just see a pissed off fan screaming canon violation who can't take off his TOS goggles.

Characters are written this way to develop conflict for our heroes. They are complete opposites of everything the hero stands for. So why the hell are they going to write Nero as this completely rational and logical time traveler? Where's the conflict? The strife? The struggle? The blitz and blam and lens flare? This is a summer blockbuster not a literary classic.

 

[BillJ]

Bad writing? I just see a pissed off fan screaming canon violation who can't take off his TOS goggles.

How is wondering why Nero didn't save Romulus first 'screaming canon violation'?

How is wondering why they send a geriatric ambassador to carry out a critical mission 'screaming canon violation'?

How is wondering why you send a vat full of Red Matter when you only need a drop or two 'screaming canon violation'?

How is wondering why Starfleet would promote a cadet to captain of the flagship 'screaming canon violation'?

I can go on and on... this isn't about it matching up with prior Star Trek, it's about a movie that violates common sense at pretty much every turn.

 

[Sky]

When I first saw this movie, my immediate impression was that the writers worked backwards. They started off with a villain, decided what they wanted him to do, and then they had to figure out why he does those things.

That's what I thought too. Well, not when I first saw the movie - then I was so psyched about seeing new Trek that I was ignoring the actual script - but the second time.

I had the impression that they came up with something really awesome for a villain to do - blow up Vulcan! and then had to work backwards from that to figure out the whos and finally the whys.

 

[Merky]

figuratively speaking.

How is wondering why Nero didn't save Romulus first 'screaming canon violation'?

Angry revengeful Romulan.

How come Khan didn't just use that Starship to move his crew to a better, hospital planet?

How is wondering why they send a geriatric ambassador to carry out a critical mission 'screaming canon violation'?

He was the only person in the Federation that had been working with the Romulans towards peace. How come a geriatric ambassador named Sarek was still continuing to do his duties until he was damn near senile?

How is wondering why you send a vat full of Red Matter when you only need a drop or two 'screaming canon violation'?

It's probably an unstable material in smaller in a mass. How come the Enterprise was able to fly to the center of the Galaxy in 6.3 hours when they're nearly millions of light years away from their location? And how come there's a planet lying in the center of the galaxy and not a... black hole?

How is wondering why Starfleet would promote a cadet to captain of the flagship 'screaming canon violation'?

Politics and Bureaucracy. How come Kirk, after stealing a Starship, going against order by visiting an off limits planet, then destroying that said Starship, and retreating to Vulcan to come back and only be reduced in rank to CAPTAIN and retain his starship is the only repercussion he gets in his court martial?

Star Trek always violates common sense.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek always violates common sense.

Nice way to avoid the question. You said the only reason people didn't like this film is because they're looking at it through "TOS" goggles.

How are those items I listed 'screaming canon violation'?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They could have simply dropped a line somewhere that Nero had already collapsed the Hobus star after picking up Spock. It wouldn't have hurt the narrative one bit. Just because your villain is insane doesn't mean he also has to be incompetent.

No, but a borderline psychotic terrorist with more rage than brains is HARDLY without historical precedent. You might, for example, ask yourself why Osama bin Laden sent 19 hijackers to attack two office buildings and the Pentagon instead of trying to crash those planes into Congress and the White House. Some people just need an excuse to fuck things up.

How would you know that you would act rationally and not emotionally towards the death of someone dear to you? No one knows. I do not even know why you are trying to keep pushing this rational logic in a chaotic, emotional, situation.

Emotions aren't always irrational or illogical. That said, traveling through time to before anything bad happened would be an extremely emotional event. All of a sudden you'd be given a rare second chance to make things right, which would probably blow anybody's mind. Whatever emotional distress weighted you down would probably be lifted.

Unless, obviously, you're a vengeful psychopath with delusions of persecution and a lingering inferiority complex. To expect an unstable, unbalanced, maladjusted maniac to suddenly behave in sensible matter is just not logical; Nero is many things, but he is NOT James T. Kirk.

The very fact that we're having this debate illustrates the problem with this movie. If a significant portion of your audience doesn't buy the motives you've laid out for why your villain does the things that he does, then it means you've failed as a writer.

Why? The story is about the PROTAGONIST, not the villain. Fleshing out the antagonist is optional for story progression; it makes the story stronger if you can, but the antagonist can just as easily be an impersonal/incomprehensible force that has to be overcome in the end, and in some cases populating this force with motives and ideas actually makes things worse (Exhibit A: the Borg Queen).

It's enough to know what the antagonist--or antagonizing force--is going to do that is in opposition to the hero's desires. You don't need to know why the antagonist does what he does unless the resolution of the conflict involves solving the antagonists' problem. If not, then it's "shoot the bad guy and go home" as in Wrath of Khan or Search for Spock.

If you disagree, just ask yourself one question: Would "Jaws" have been a better movie if the shark had more lines?

When I first saw this movie, my immediate impression was that the writers worked backwards. They started off with a villain, decided what they wanted him to do, and then they had to figure out why he does those things. Answer? Let's make him insane. That solves everything. Now, we don't actually have to worry about any of it being plausible or making sense. The moment someone raises that issue, we can pull out the "he's insane" card. How convenient.

And you question that why? Because he's a Romulan? Slap a beard on him and change his name to "Mohammed" and you'd think you were watching an episode of 24.

Nero is a STOCK VILLAIN, like Kruge or Duras. He isn't supposed to developed into a fully articulated character, because the story isn't about him; the only reason he exists at all is so he can be killed by one of the protagonists at dramatically convenient moment.

 

[Merky]

Nice way to avoid the question. You said the only reason people didn't like this film is because they're looking at it through "TOS" goggles.

How are those items I listed 'screaming canon violation'?

You totally missed what I bolded out, " figuratively speaking ".

Maybe this would work:

And you're also choosing to avoid my counter points to your question of stupid, crazy, makes no sense scenarios that have happened in every Star Trek movie/series. If people want to use that logic and bash this script for being terrible then I am going to say that every Star Trek movie ever written is a shoddy script filled with bad writing.

 

[BillJ]

How come Khan didn't just use that Starship to move his crew to a better, hospital planet?

Because that wasn't his endgame... his endgame was to hunt down Kirk. Nothing more... nothing less, he says as much in the film.

He was the only person in the Federation that had been working with the Romulans towards peace. How come a geriatric ambassador named Sarek was still continuing to do his duties until he was damn near senile?

So after Nixon went to China, if they had suffered a disaster Nixon would've been the only one who could've flown the plane and delivered the aid?

How come the Enterprise was able to fly to the center of the Galaxy in 6.3 hours when they're nearly millions of light years away from their location? And how come there's a planet lying in the center of the galaxy and not a... black hole?

We've forgiven 'speed of plot' in Trek for decades now. It's inconsistent within itself but I wouldn't consider it a common sense violation. I also can't fault a film for not knowing what was at the center of the galaxy in 1988.

How come Kirk, after stealing a Starship, going against order by visiting an off limits planet, then destroying that said Starship, and retreating to Vulcan to come back and only be reduced in rank to CAPTAIN and retain his starship is the only repercussion he gets in his court martial?

Because he had already BEEN a PROVEN starship captain.

James T. Kirk. ...It is the judgment of this Council that you be reduced in rank to Captain, ...and that as a consequence of your new rank, you be given the duties for which you have repeatedly demonstrated unswerving ability. The command of a starship.

They didn't turn around and make him President of the Federation because of his actions.

 

[Merky]

How come Khan didn't just use that Starship to move his crew to a better, hospital planet?

Because that wasn't his endgame... his endgame was to hunt down Kirk. Nothing more... nothing less, he says as much in the film.

Weak. Nero says that his purpose of destroying Vulcan was to make Spock suffer and witness the destruction of his home world like he had done himself. Throughout the movie he's after Spock, waiting for Spock, making Spock suffer, and going on about how Spock must suffer.

He achieved his goal. How is that different again? It's still a goal. How does that reasoning then negate Nero? You're going on and on about how Nero should have logically rationalized the situation and saved Romulus first.

Well, then, why didn't Khan logically move his people to a new planet so they could survive? Why did he sacrifice them all to get Kirk? Where's the logic in that?

So after Nixon went to China, if they had suffered a disaster Nixon would've been the only one who could've flown the plane and delivered the aid?

Spock is a 140 something old Vulcan. He's still, theoretically, in his prime age. Just because Nimoy looks old doesn't mean the character of Spock is old.

We've forgiven 'speed of plot' in Trek for decades now. It's inconsistent within itself but I wouldn't consider it a common sense violation. I also can't fault a film for not knowing what was at the center of the galaxy in 1988.

lol, no. People knew in 1988. Maybe not in 1968, but in 1988.. People knew. You're digging to save face for your beloved Trek.

The 1983 VLA image was the first to show it clearly separated from other structures in the Galactic Center. Today, Sgr A* is believed to be the site of a black hole about 2.6 million times more massive than the Sun.

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2000/vla20/background/galcenter/

Because he had already BEEN a PROVEN starship captain.

Doesn't make a difference! He violated Starfleet regulation! He should have been decomissioned on the principle alone. So, nu!Kirk saves the entire galaxy and he doesn't deserve the rank of Captain yet Kirk blows up a freakin Starship and disobeys direct orders from Starfleet command and he deserves to be Captain?

How does that even apply? In the TOS episode Court Martial he was gonna lose it all for apparently "killing" someone. It's movie fodder cause no one wants to see the Hero get beat down for a job well done.

They didn't turn around and make him President of the Federation because of his actions.

They didn't make nu!Kirk president either.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

How come Khan didn't just use that Starship to move his crew to a better, hospital planet?

Because that wasn't his endgame... his endgame was to hunt down Kirk. Nothing more... nothing less, he says as much in the film.

Wrong. Khan's endgame was to get GENESIS and then go out and try to rule the universe. What he ACTUALLY SAID was "I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me... as you left HER. Marooned here for all eternity at the center of a dead planet. Buried alive, buried alive..."

THEN he went to try and destroy Enterprise, and from there, onward to rule the universe having acquired Genesis and the Reliant. It was endgame, Khan had won; by all rights Enterprise and even Kirk should have been the icing on the cake.

Khan did the same thing Nero did: he let his quest for revenge overcome all other considerations. The difference is, Khan is a highly ambitious genius who had once commanded entire armies and nearly conquered the entire human race during the eugenics wars. Nero is a half-mad terrorist lost in time and space. What, really, do you expect?

 

[BillJ]

lol, no. People knew in 1988. Maybe not in 1968, but in 1988.. People knew. You're digging to save face for your beloved Trek.

Since they were still seeking proof as late as 2005, I'll give a pass to a movie made in 1988.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1102_051102_black_hole.html

Astronomers have long suspected that supermassive black holes sit at the heart of most galaxies and may be closely related to galaxy growth. But concrete proof of the existence of these black holes has remained elusive.

Next!

 

[Merky]

 

[BillJ]

Wrong.

JOACHIM: Sir. May I speak? ...We're all with you, sir, but consider this. We are free. We have a ship and the means to go where we will. We have escaped permanent exile on Ceti Alpha Five. You have proved your superior intellect, and defeated the plans of Admiral Kirk. You do not need to defeat him again.
KHAN: He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him. I'll chase him round the moons of Nibia and round the Antares maelstrom and round perdition's flames before I give him up. ...Prepare to alter course.

Khan's endgame was always to get revenge on Kirk.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Wrong.

JOACHIM: Sir. May I speak? ...We're all with you, sir, but consider this. We are free. We have a ship and the means to go where we will. We have escaped permanent exile on Ceti Alpha Five. You have proved your superior intellect, and defeated the plans of Admiral Kirk. You do not need to defeat him again.
KHAN: He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him. I'll chase him round the moons of Nibia and round the Antares maelstrom and round perdition's flames before I give him up. ...Prepare to alter course.

Khan's endgame was always to get revenge on Kirk.

Did you even WATCH that movie, or did you somehow watch the entire film from start to finish and never once understood just what it was Khan wanted with the Genesis device? I'll give you a hint: he was NOT planning to fire it at Kirk.

 

[BillJ]

Wrong.

JOACHIM: Sir. May I speak? ...We're all with you, sir, but consider this. We are free. We have a ship and the means to go where we will. We have escaped permanent exile on Ceti Alpha Five. You have proved your superior intellect, and defeated the plans of Admiral Kirk. You do not need to defeat him again.
KHAN: He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him. I'll chase him round the moons of Nibia and round the Antares maelstrom and round perdition's flames before I give him up. ...Prepare to alter course.

Khan's endgame was always to get revenge on Kirk.

Did you even WATCH that movie, or did you somehow watch the entire film from start to finish and never once understood just what it was Khan wanted with the Genesis device? I'll give you a hint: he was NOT planning to fire it at Kirk.

Khan's priority was to get Kirk. Nothing more... nothing less. Genesis was a nice bonus.

Now tell me ...why you are here? ...And tell me where I may find James Kirk.

He tortured those people. But none of those people would tell him anything. He went wild. He slit their throats. He wanted to tear the place apart, but he was late. He had to get back to Reliant in time to blow you to bits.

 

[Merky]

Okay, so whatever the reason it was - Khan still was after Kirk and the Genesis Device and sacrificed everyone and himself to make sure that he achieved that goal because, to Khan, it was Kirk's fault for putting him on that planet that just happened to have a natural event happen and turn it into a wasteland. He was irrational and insane and obsessed with the notion. Just like Nero.

But, because people hate nu!Trek because it's simply new and not their Star Trek, they'll say that Nero is a flawed villain for the same reasons that made Khan an "excellent" villain. Even if he did spend the entire movie sitting on a starship repeating lines from Moby Dick. So, while we'll point out what made TWOK fail, those who love the movie will make up a million reasons why Khan did what he did but for shame if someone who appreciates nu!Trek - they just don't see it's bad writing.

That makes no sense. At all. They're both fantastic films with great writing that have standard villains that the hero has to overcome.

 

[BillJ]

Okay, so whatever the reason it was - Khan still was after Kirk and the Genesis Device and sacrificed everyone and himself to make sure that he achieved that goal because, to Khan, it was Kirk's fault for putting him on that planet that just happened to have a natural event happen and turn it into a wasteland. He was irrational and insane and obsessed with the notion. Just like Nero.

But, because people hate nu!Trek because it's simply new and not their Star Trek, they'll say that Nero is a flawed villain for the same reasons that made Khan an "excellent" villain. Even if he did spend the entire movie sitting on a starship repeating lines from Moby Dick. So, while we'll point out what made TWOK fail, those who love the movie will make up a million reasons why Khan did what he did but for shame if someone who appreciates nu!Trek - they just don't see it's bad writing.

That makes no sense. At all.

Khan was stuck on an uninhabitable ball of rock for fifteen years. Nero was sitting on a super advanced starship from the future for twenty five years. Yeah... it's exactly the same.

Kirk left Khan and his followers on a ball of rock for fifteen years and never checked up on them. Spock was a few minutes late delivering the red matter that Nero saw him launch. Once again... it's exactly the same.

I just hope they don't try to remake The Wrath of Khan yet again for Star Trek 2012

 

[Xerxes1979]

Listen Khan had patience and ability think, even when consumed with vengence.

Nero seemed to have poor impulse control. People are excusing his failings by saying he is insane or was an uneducated Romulan redneck.


Khan > Kruge > Nero > Shinzon

 

[Merky]

Okay, so whatever the reason it was - Khan still was after Kirk and the Genesis Device and sacrificed everyone and himself to make sure that he achieved that goal because, to Khan, it was Kirk's fault for putting him on that planet that just happened to have a natural event happen and turn it into a wasteland. He was irrational and insane and obsessed with the notion. Just like Nero.

But, because people hate nu!Trek because it's simply new and not their Star Trek, they'll say that Nero is a flawed villain for the same reasons that made Khan an "excellent" villain. Even if he did spend the entire movie sitting on a starship repeating lines from Moby Dick. So, while we'll point out what made TWOK fail, those who love the movie will make up a million reasons why Khan did what he did but for shame if someone who appreciates nu!Trek - they just don't see it's bad writing.

That makes no sense. At all.

Khan was stuck on an uninhabitable ball of rock for fifteen years. Nero was sitting on a super advanced starship from the future for twenty five years. Yeah... it's exactly the same.

You can just keep on trying to deny the fact that Khan and Nero are the same villain archetype if that makes you feel better since the older Star Trek films are flawless, well written masterpieces filled with logical villains and rationalized situations compared to the sacrilege that is JJ Abram's Trek.

Listen Khan had patience and ability think, even when consumed with vengence.

He sacrificed his entire crew to go after one guy. One dude. He couldn't wait and drop his people off on some nice planet and do it himself. He went after Kirk guns blazing despite his people's objections. That's not having an ability to think clearly.