How was Nero's anger going to save Romulus?

[BillJ]

Except that Nero's crew is said to belong to a splinter group of fanatical Romulans with a larger-than-normal emphasis on Romulan Martial Philosophy.

Nowhere in the film is this even alluded to.

Because it's part of their background properties and is not at all relevant to the PLOT. It does, however, manifest in their behavior and appearance, which is different from every other depiction of the Romulans we have ever seen in the history of Star Trek.

But your using those elements to try and explain what we see on screen. Then those elements don't even match what was presented by Orci/Kurtzman in their prequel story Star Trek: Countdown. Of course, Countdown creates new issues when trying to explain shortcomings of the film.

The tattoo's were put on after the death of their relatives to honor them.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Nowhere in the film is this even alluded to.

Because it's part of their background properties and is not at all relevant to the PLOT. It does, however, manifest in their behavior and appearance, which is different from every other depiction of the Romulans we have ever seen in the history of Star Trek.

But your using those elements to try and explain what we see on screen.

Those elements DO explain what we see on screen, because what we see on screen was originally developed in the context of those elements. That's what "background material" is, it's something the writers and/or production staff know about their story that helps them understand the behavior of the fictional person/place/thing they're trying to describe. 90% of those elements never make it on screen, but what IS on screen wouldn't be there if not for the background elements.

Then those elements don't even match what was presented by Orci/Kurtzman in their prequel story Star Trek: Countdown.

Which contradicts a fairly large amount of what Orci and Kruzman THEMSELVES have said about Nero's characterization before and after the movie. As for why Countdown takes a different view, you'd probably have to ask them.

 

[Merky]

When they finally reached Jonestown, I believe that's the real name, they had believed they reached some pinnacle of a paradise. When they felt the paradise be threatened by the government, Jim Jones told everyone to kill themselves. There was more building up to this of course...

Minor detail here: in the end, they didn't actually kill themselves as much they were mass poisoned and/or machinegunned by Jones' loyalists.

The citizens of Jonestown willfully, by choice, took the magic koolaid. They fed it to the children, then women, and then the males. It was a frenzied action with Jones preaching on how this was the right thing to do. Anyone who stood up against it was shot down by the loyalists.

Those who survived were hiding. No one was shot down in the compound. The only people who were brutally murdered was the politician, the few defectors and his crew as they were loading onto the plane. Only the people who defected suffered the wrath of Jim Jones.

 

[BillJ]

As for why Countdown takes a different view, you'd probably have to ask them.

Probably they finally came to the conclusion that Nero made no sense.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

When they finally reached Jonestown, I believe that's the real name, they had believed they reached some pinnacle of a paradise. When they felt the paradise be threatened by the government, Jim Jones told everyone to kill themselves. There was more building up to this of course...

Minor detail here: in the end, they didn't actually kill themselves as much they were mass poisoned and/or machinegunned by Jones' loyalists.

The citizens of Jonestown willfully, by choice, took the magic koolaid. They fed it to the children, then women, and then the males. It was a frenzied action with Jones preaching on how this was the right thing to do. Anyone who stood up against it was shot down by the loyalists.

The thing that most people forget is that nobody realized the koolaid was poisoned until a bunch of them started dying. THEN came the refusals, followed promptly by the shootings.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Except that Nero's crew is said to belong to a splinter group of fanatical Romulans with a larger-than-normal emphasis on Romulan Martial Philosophy. This is part of the background of their character design; it is the reason for their facial tattoos and widespread use of long-handle edged weapons, neither of which are "normal" Romulan traits.

None of that shows in the movie.

Star Trek has been doing that for decades. It is, in fact, FAMOUS for it.

Somehow I knew redshirts would come up. The difference is, you don't cast Eric Bana to be a redshirt. You don't bill a villain, the main driving force for the plot, as just some expendable nobody.

Absolutely. All of which were films that had plenty of time to develop a small number of protagonists against a small number of antagonists in relation to one another, to the extent that the confrontation between the two characters helps to define them both and guide their development. A story that is basically "Jack vs. Jill" allows you to fully explore both sides of the issue and fully articulate the protagonists viewpoint and the antagonists motivation.

But Star Trek isn't about a Vulcan named Spock and a Romulan named Nero. Star Trek is about Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Bones, a ship named Enterprise and its many adventures. Nero doesn't NEED to be developed in this context, because the story isn't about him.

I can think of movies where there are small numbers of characters, little time devoted to the 2d villain, and still that villain has more impact than Nero.

Conversely, I can think of movies where there are a larger number of characters, yet a 2d villain still gets a decent amount of time or exposition.

At any rate, if the problem is that there are too many characters, then they're doing it wrong. Personally, I don't think it was necessary for them to include as many as they did and to try and give them each something meaningful to do. It would be like if X-Men introduced every mutant right away. Or how Spiderman 3 tried to have too many villains and characters. It just feels like too much of a cluster.

The CIRCUMSTANCES only worked out the way they did in order to place Nero--with his 24th century technology--a century and a half into his own past so he could manifest a credible threat to the protagonists. No attempt was actually made to justify his point of view, because when it's all said and done he doesn't REALLY have one. He's just an omnicidal maniac who needs to be stopped at all costs; the movie could have removed Nero altogether and turned the Narada into a robot space craft (like the whale probe) and it would have basically the same plot.

Perhaps they should have done that. It's kind of odd that the last several movies had a villain with a fairly prominent focus, some with a decent name behind the actor, and this one arguably even outdoes them by casting Bana. Yet he gets very little treatment.

You're then implying that anyone who joins a cult is insane from the get go. These people that joined these cults were brainwashed into believing whatever their cult leader said.

Mostly I was referring to Nero. But as far as the others, signing up to be a miner is not at all the same as joining a cult. I would argue that the people who do join such cults in the first place are mentally imbalanced. I'm guessing that neither of us would join into such a thing unless we were already desperate to begin with.

The theme of Space Seed was about arrogance through power. It wasn't a lesson on genetic engineering, or they would have focused on everyone in Khan's party.

Power which was achieved by the genetic engineering. Without the genetic engineering, there was no story.

Khan was not "insane" in the slightest bit, he was portrayed as an arrogant, yet brilliant, military tactician.

So hijacking a ship without provocation and torturing its crew is perfectly sane?

I do not understand why people are coming up with all these excuses to defend Khan from the Nero allusion. They're both the same character archetype.

An archetype isn't all that defines a character though. Their circumstances can be different. In the case of Nero, he was just shoehorned into the role because they needed someone to move the plot along. Whereas Khan's role flowed a little bit more organically, probably because it was based on an already existing character.

Forget that Space Seed even existed, Khan is still the shallow revengeful character that you have no sympathy for other than to force Kirk to face death.

You can't just eliminate "Space Seed" any more than you could eliminate all of TOS before any movie. The characters have some establishment, and the movies work off of that.

Yes, Khan was being irrational, but his irrationality is far more within the lines of believability than Nero. If all you're looking at is the surface of what actions they make, it's no better than those people who make TWOK or Star Wars video comparisons.

 

[Merky]

None of that shows in the movie.

Sometimes common sense needs to play in order to enjoy the movie. I don't need every minute of film being exposition to explain the why behind reason someone is doing something, especially if they're only a villain with total screen time of roughly 30 minutes.

Why did Khan want to kill Kirk? His waifu died, planet turned into a wasteland
Why did Kruge want the genesis device? Because he wanted a weapon
Why did he kill David? Because he could.
Why did the probe attack earth? Because it wanted to talk to some whales
Why did Sybok take over some bullshit planet, kidnap some good for nothing Ambassadors, take over an entire ship, and turn the entire crew against their captain? So he can meet God.
Why did Chang recite Shakespeare? Because he wanted to piss everyone off.
Why did Nero want to kill Spock? His waifu died, planet was destroyed

There is never no time taken out to figure out the WHY behind the REASON. You just know that they did A because of B. What makes Nero such a poor villain? Because he's from nuTrek and people who hate nuTrek hate Nero.

Mostly I was referring to Nero. But as far as the others, signing up to be a miner is not at all the same as joining a cult. I would argue that the people who do join such cults in the first place are mentally imbalanced. I'm guessing that neither of us would join into such a thing unless we were already desperate to begin with.

They were no longer miners when Romulus was destroyed, first off.

Secondly, I wasn't calling it a cult. You missed what I was saying - A man can have complete control over someone who has a weak, like, mind. Read what I said again.

Power which was achieved by the genetic engineering. Without the genetic engineering, there was no story.

That still wasn't the core story of Space Seed. It was a precursor explanation to their origin to set up a backstory. It is not the defining factor of the episode.

So hijacking a ship without provocation and torturing its crew is perfectly sane?

Everyone says Khan was sane and totally in control and that Nero was the insane one and had no control. Now he's insane?

Khan needed a ship. He was arrogant, a criminal, and a narcissist. He had a goal and he aimed to obtain it. That did not make him insane because he knew what he was doing. He forfeit to the Captain at the end, accepted his defeat, and agreed to be shipped off to Ceti Alpha V. It was a fight between minds and always was.

An archetype isn't all that defines a character though. Their circumstances can be different. In the case of Nero, he was just shoehorned into the role because they needed someone to move the plot along. Whereas Khan's role flowed a little bit more organically, probably because it was based on an already existing character.

You're also basing this opinion because you are already indoctrinated to TOS and know Khan. The movie, in itself, DOES NOT explain who the hell Khan is and his history with Kirk in depth like all of you claim it does. Khan says he wants Kirk dead for putting him on a planet that - repeating myself for the nth time: Turned into a wasteland by a natural occuring event. His wife died along with several of his people.

It was not Kirk's fault yet this guy runs around say it was. We do not go deeper, we do not get a back story on Khan, all we have is what he said and 2 and a half hours of him chasing Kirk. That's deep villain development in a movie? What?

You can't just eliminate "Space Seed" any more than you could eliminate all of TOS before any movie. The characters have some establishment, and the movies work off of that.

Yes you can because these movies are not made for the fans. They're made for the general audience who may never watched a single episode of Star Trek in their lives. It is up to the movie to establish itself on its own, NOT rely it's entire premise and story on episode that aired 13 - 15 years prior to the movie. The movie doesn't open up with, " Okay, we need you to watch Space Seed in order to really understand why Khan is batshit insane ", it opens up with " Hey, I'm Kirk and I'm getting old and I hate it - I've never experienced death. My life is balls. "

Villains serve as a challenge for the main character to overcome and gain development and growth from the challenge. The villain is not there to be a pity case for us to understand why s/he does what they do. We are supposed to think along the lines of the hero and cheer for the hero to overcome the adversary. Our focus is on the hero, his friends and family, and his development as a person.

Yes, Khan was being irrational, but his irrationality is far more within the lines of believability than Nero. If all you're looking at is the surface of what actions they make, it's no better than those people who make TWOK or Star Wars video comparisons.

I disagree.

 

[BillJ]

There is never no time taken out to figure out the WHY behind the REASON. You just know that they did A because of B. What makes Nero such a poor villain? Because he's from nuTrek and people who hate nuTrek hate Nero.

You do know that it's okay to like something and still see faults in it? It's not 'all or nothing'...

Time and again I've said that I like Nero and I like the performance that Eric Bana gave. But I thought the character was underdeveloped (which hurts the movie)... and that falls at the feet of the writers. His motivations make about as much sense as Shinzon from Star Trek: Nemesis.

 

[Merky]

Do you hate nuTrek? Then you wouldn't fall under that category of "people who hate nuTrek also hate Nero"

 

[BillJ]

Do you hate nuTrek? Then you wouldn't fall under that category of "people who hate nuTrek also hate Nero"

You seem to treat everyone who has an issue with the film in the "people who hate nuTrek" category.

I'm "lukewarm" to the Abramsverse. It did alot of things right and it did alot of things wrong.

 

[Merky]

Well, it doesn't hurt to say that majority of people who have expressed their dislike for Nero as a character also have a laundry list of other things they hated about the movie.

 

[Satyrquaze]

This thread is like asking if Khan taking revenge upon Kirk would bring his dead wife back. I mean, how stupid is Khan?

 

[DonIago]

So...I'm confused...are we saying revenge isn't logical?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Sometimes common sense needs to play in order to enjoy the movie. I don't need every minute of film being exposition to explain the why behind reason someone is doing something, especially if they're only a villain with total screen time of roughly 30 minutes.

[...]

There is never no time taken out to figure out the WHY behind the REASON. You just know that they did A because of B. What makes Nero such a poor villain? Because he's from nuTrek and people who hate nuTrek hate Nero.

I actually like nuTrek. It is possible to like the movie, yet not like every single detail. I guess you wouldn't think that by taking a look around here, though...

And no, I don't need intense exposition, but just enough to go on that I can figure out for myself why they do something. I've had a harder time with some of these later Trek movies.

I wasn't calling it a cult. You missed what I was saying - A man can have complete control over someone who has a weak, like, mind.

Why use analogies of cults then? And constantly use the word? Maybe you need to use examples broader than cults to get your point across.

That still wasn't the core story of Space Seed. It was a precursor explanation to their origin to set up a backstory. It is not the defining factor of the episode.

I didn't say it was the core, but rather that it was integral. It definitely played a key part.

Everyone says Khan was sane and totally in control and that Nero was the insane one and had no control. Now he's insane?

I never said any such thing, and I don't know if anyone else did. They're booth a bit loony, but the difference between them is the circumstances. One is more believable than the other.

Khan needed a ship. He was arrogant, a criminal, and a narcissist. He had a goal and he aimed to obtain it. That did not make him insane because he knew what he was doing.

I don't think he's totally insane, but there are definitely hints of madness with him. I just don't buy what you said in that he's not even the slightest bit insane when he's using torture to coerce people into helping him build an empire to conquer the universe. That is a little bit out there.

You're also basing this opinion because you are already indoctrinated to TOS and know Khan. The movie, in itself, DOES NOT explain who the hell Khan is and his history with Kirk in depth like all of you claim it does.

Again, I never made such a claim. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that movies based on a TV show will draw from those characters.

It was not Kirk's fault yet this guy runs around say it was.

When it comes to accountability, there are varying degrees. You can purposely cause harm and unintentionally cause harm through negligence.

Spock didn't really do either of these things. Nero was angry with Spock when Spock didn't even actively do anything to him. The best he could fault Spock with was delaying saving Romulus, but since he's now given a chance to make things right, that point should be moot.

Kirk unintentionally caused harm to Khan through negligence. Sure, he probably didn't owe Khan anything, especially when Khan turned down his welcome. But you'd think that Starfleet might be at least somewhat interested in keeping an eye on marooned criminals, especially if they're surveying the system later on. A lot of that is shoddy plot device too. Anyways, for whatever reason, Khan gets completely forgotten, and that is understandably upsetting, even though he likely had no agreement or expectation that anyone would check on him regularly. Then Khan endures years of suffering. We don't know what happened with Nero. All we can gather is that he was very upset for a short amount of time, traveled to the past, and didn't decide to make amends when given tremendous opportunity, but rather to spiral even further downward.

That's deep villain development in a movie? What?

I don't think I ever said it was really all that deep.

You can't just eliminate "Space Seed" any more than you could eliminate all of TOS before any movie. The characters have some establishment, and the movies work off of that.

Yes you can because these movies are not made for the fans. They're made for the general audience who may never watched a single episode of Star Trek in their lives.

So many people had seen Star Trek and were familiar with it that you could put certain things in there and they would understand. And if you can't rely on the audience to be familiar with the brand, then why even use the brand? I don't think the aim is strictly mass appeal, and certainly not the case with TWOK.

Plus, if they are really interested, they can go back and watch the episode with a fair amount of ease. The same can't be said for Nero.

 

[Trilliam]

Devon wrote:
When you have that large a group of people someone has to lead it. Large corporations hire supervisors, managers, team leads, etc.

Their homeworld, their families, future employment in their Star system were all destroyed - where else were they going to go?

 

[Merky]

Why use analogies of cults then? And constantly use the word? Maybe you need to use examples broader than cults to get your point across.

Broader? I already was:

So the point I was making is that: If you have one man with a strong enough voice and influence, that man can control armies. We have a ship of angry and depressed Romulans. They look up to this man as their salvation and guidance. His insanity is not questioned until he finally looses it and is willing to risk everything to kill Spock:

I didn't say it was the core, but rather that it was integral. It definitely played a key part.

I did not believe it played a key part. Probably to the development of the war and to explain what Khan was but not: Genetic altering = Mentally insane totalitarian will be born

when he's using torture to coerce people into helping him build an empire to conquer the universe. That is a little bit out there.

I will agree here.

Again, I never made such a claim. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that movies based on a TV show will draw from those characters.

From the main cast, not from one episode villains.

When it comes to accountability, there are varying degrees. You can purposely cause harm and unintentionally cause harm through negligence.

Spock didn't really do either of these things. Nero was angry with Spock when Spock didn't even actively do anything to him. The best he could fault Spock with was delaying saving Romulus, but since he's now given a chance to make things right, that point should be moot.

Spock arrived too late to save Romulus. That in itself is failing to go by his word and save the planet. Nero thought he would save his planet and Spock failed to do so. Spock was, then, indirectly responsible for Romulus from Nero's perception.

Kirk unintentionally caused harm to Khan through negligence. Sure, he probably didn't owe Khan anything, especially when Khan turned down his welcome. But you'd think that Starfleet might be at least somewhat interested in keeping an eye on marooned criminals, especially if they're surveying the system later on. A lot of that is shoddy plot device too.

I believe Khan being stranded was kept off of the records, wasn't it?

KIRK: This hearing is now in session. Under the authority vested in me by Starfleet Command, I declare all charges and specifications in this matter have been dropped.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]

So because they were, why would Starfleet be involved? Starfleet did not even know of their existence.

Then Khan endures years of suffering.

That he agreed to:

KIRK: Mister Spock, our heading takes us near the Ceti Alpha star system.
SPOCK: Quite correct, Captain. Planet number five there is habitable, although a bit savage, somewhat inhospitable.
KIRK: But no more than Australia's Botany Bay colony was at the beginning. Those men went on to tame a continent, Mister Khan. Can you tame a world?
KHAN: Have you ever read Milton, Captain?
KIRK: Yes. I understand. Lieutenant Marla McGivers. Given a choice of court martial or accompanying them there.
KHAN: (gazing into her eyes) It will be difficult. A struggle at first even to stay alive, to find food.
MARLA: I'll go with him, sir.
KHAN: A superior woman. I will take her. And I've gotten something else I wanted. A world to win, an empire to build.

Khan knew it was going to be hard. It's like you're on a boat with someone and you want to go swimming but they tell you, " Hey, this place has alligators, I wouldn't suggest you go swimming in this lake "

And then you go out and say, " I'm the boss! I got this! "

And then your ass gets chewed up by a bunch of alligators. Was it the fault of your friend who warned you not to go jumping into the lake or yourself? Khan thought he take over a planet and it backfired. That's Kirk's fault? Uh... no.

We don't know what happened with Nero. All we can gather is that he was very upset for a short amount of time, traveled to the past, and didn't decide to make amends when given tremendous opportunity, but rather to spiral even further downward.

He was pissed off for 25 years, that isn't short. Khan was pissed off for 15 or whatever. The two of them could have made amends and make a change once the opportunity arose but they didn't. Khan is no better than Nero.

So many people had seen Star Trek and were familiar with it that you could put certain things in there and they would understand. And if you can't rely on the audience to be familiar with the brand, then why even use the brand? I don't think the aim is strictly mass appeal, and certainly not the case with TWOK.

People are familiar with Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, pissed off McCoy and Scotty. When you ask people what is Star Trek they say " Beam me up, Scotty " and maybe do a shitty Shatner impression.

You can not expect someone to remember a character from one episode of a series that aired 15 years ago. That is ludicrous. If this villain was reoccurring, like a Harry Mudd, maybe it might ring in someone's mind. But some random baddy they stranded on a planet? That's like making a movie featuring the Squire of Gothos guy and then telling everyone " Okay, now hopefully you remember this guy. He said Tally-ho, remember? "

Plus, if they are really interested, they can go back and watch the episode with a fair amount of ease. The same can't be said for Nero.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWn2xsU1Nk[/yt]

You ask too much of average America.

 

[Saquist]

Nero had over a century to worry about the supernova. In the meantime he just wanted to get revenge on the powers that he felt had allowed Romulus to be destroyed.

In short, destroying Vulcan had nothing to do with saving Romulus from the supernova, though it may have had something to do with enabling the Romulans to become a stronger, or perhaps the dominant force in the alpha quadrant.

Even his revenge didn't make sense.

When Khan couldn't get Kirk on Regular he settled for stranding him as him as his wife and him was. We're led to believe that Nero is either particularly enraged or sadistic by his killing of the Kelvin Commander. But he doesn't Kill Kirk or Pike or Spock nor does he destroy the Enterprise the two times he has opportunity to do so. He had 25 years to save Romulus and just waited around waiting for Spock.

He's an idiot. He's a villain made by the writers so our heroes can easily defeat him. He's Dr. Evil or any of the various Bond villains, a cartoon facade in tattoo make up and pointy ears. Making sense out of anything he does or says he wants to do only goes as far as the dictations of the plot.

 

[Trilliam]

But he doesn't Kill Kirk or Pike or Spock nor does he destroy the Enterprise the two times he has opportunity to do so.

He did far worse than kill Kirk, Pike or Spock - he hurt them, and in Spock's case by killing his mother & destroying his homeworld, Spock will continue hurt psychologically, Pike - physically....

Kirk, by inference was "hurt"/haunted his whole life by his father's death.


"Bang the rocks together, Guys."

 

[Igard]

Just came across this quote on another forum. I thought it was very encouraging to hear. I'm very hopeful for ST:XII especially after reading this.

Credit to him for taking this attitude :

" In terms of criticisms, I agree with almost every criticism I read. It is hard not to be hard on the work that you do. So when I hear someone say "Nero was not complicated enough" I say "yeah, that’s right." Or if I hear "there are some moments–that crazy coincidence that Kirk meets Spock in the ice cave and that took me out of it", I can see that. I don’t really hear much that I don’t agree with. "

-JJ Abrams

Full interview : - http://trekmovie.com/2009/11/15/exc...ut-what-worked-and-didnt-with-star-trek-2009/

 

[BillJ]

I believe Khan being stranded was kept off of the records, wasn't it?

No... way... possible. The Enterprise was missing an officer at the end of Space Seed, Kirk had to explain that.