Simple Question: Do You Like The Reboots?

Not "movie-going" per se... When I visit the cinema, I tend to switch off, so to speak, and enjoy myself (it's also better for the people I'm going with). Certain small details often get picked up on, however, and I'll tend to use those as a jumping off point to seriously consider the film afterwards.

If a film still holds up after a second viewing then it gets a pass. This film didn't.

 

Or when one goes in fully prepared and intent on loving something right off the bat.

TPM comes to mind...

 

+1

The whole time they were having that conversation I was wondering what Nero and his supership were doing, why isn't the Narada continuing to blow up the Kelvin and why is he letting the shuttles escape. That conversation is taking forever and nothing is happening. I didn't like it.

 

I'm curious-how is Nero's story illogical?

He lost his entire world and seeks revenge on the person who promised to save it. At some point in time, the mind is going to snap under the strain and there can be a break with reality, where no rational explanation is going to satisfy the loss.

Maybe it is illogical, because Nero isn't rational. He is psychotic, in the most clinical of ways, due to his loss. To me, that is the most tragic of backstories and all the more fascinating.

 

I notice this trope for a lot of TV shows and movies, not just Trek. The gunfire stops just long enough for the emotional moment. But there were a couple times in TNG (don't recall in TOS) where there'd be enemy fire and the ship would rock, but there'd still be enough time to explain the lengthy technobabble plan.

But if anyone here watches anime, hooo-boy, Dragon Ball Z takes the cake.

However, as far as the Narada vs. the shuttles, George was providing cover fire by blowing the missiles away. One very nearly hit Winona's shuttle, if it wasn't for George.

 

I accept your point with no argument, but the way it was handled really took me out of it and any nice emotional moment was crushed for me by the goofiness of it.

 

Oh, no argument. I'm just saying it's a pretty common (and yes, pretty silly) trope in fiction overall. Cop movies would have two partners in a gunfight; one partner would get shot just a couple days shy of retirement, and the enemies cease fire long enough for the partner to die in his colleague's arms.

 

These are separate, but related issues.

The idea of witnessing the destruction of your home planet is, certainly, enough to drive an already unstable mind insane. However, his crew should be able to recognise the completely irrational nature of his quest for revenge.

He, incorrectly, blames the Vulcans (and the Federation) for the death of his wife. He should blame the Romulan government which, apparently, didn't take any steps to ensure that Romulus was evacuated before it became inhospitable (either destroyed by its sun or destroyed by a black-hole; the only two possible outcomes).

He, then, incorrectly, comes to the conclusion that the Vulcans from a reality where the Supernova has not yet even taken place, are just as blame-worthy as those who, in his reality, he blames (incorrectly) for the death of his planet.

He (and his crew), then, has over a decade to think about exactly whether or not he's being entirely rational and, incorrectly, chooses to go ahead with his plan anyway.

I could buy that he was just a psychotic thug, but it still wouldn't explain why his crew don't come to the same conclusion.

 

Solidarity is a powerful thing in the wake of such a massive loss. Nero's crew was likely already loyal to him anyway, due to working together like they do. It would not take much for Nero, in his grief, to blame Spock (who promised to help) and to convince his crew of the same reality. Then, they spent that decade plotting, and calculating how to get to Spock and make him pay.

I'm not saying Nero is correct. That isn't the point. We don't have to agree that Nero's grievances are not legitimate. I'm saying that it works for for me because I can understand his point of view to a degree.

Is it logical? Nope

Is it rational? Not at all.

Is is psychotic? Absolutely ("He is an extremely troubled Romulan." Understatement of the year, Spock).

Is it tragic? Yes, and far more successful than many other Trek villains over the years, in my opinion.

 

I could accept that, as I've said before, if it didn't immediately bring up other issues and wasn't a part of a long list of inconsistencies.

For example, Cypher's meeting with Agent Smith in "The Matrix" doesn't make any sense whatsoever but, since the rest of the film is engaging and tends to be self-consistent, I can let it slide.

This example, however, immediately brings up a whole host of other issues.

The Romulan Government is implied to be totally incompetent (which doesn't really make sense). I'd expect Romulans to be extremely suspicious of outside help and want to solve the problem themselves (which would involve evacuating their home-world as soon as the Supernova became predictable). Why didn't they?

Spock, himself, is implied to be totally incompetent. Why didn't he give himself enough time (considering stars can't travel at any speed faster than light) to complete his mission (which, whilst we're on the subject, wouldn't have saved Nero's wife or anyone else on Romulus). Why did he even tell anyone he could save Romulus? The planet was doomed.

Also, where is Delta Vega? Why can Vulcan be seen in the skyline? If it's in orbit of Vulcan, then why is it not destroyed by the black-hole?

 

First of all, the Romulan government (such that it is) is incompetent. It's the same government that allowed Shinzon to wipe out the majority of the Senate, including the Praetor, without so much as a question. This means that the Romulan government is either in the hands of the military (extremely suspicious of outsiders, especially the Federation-that whole Dominion War thing) or the Tal Shiar (paranoia is a way of life for them and definitely don't trust the Federation, especially Spock). So, I don't see the Romulan government attempting to do anything beyond study the phenomenon and tell Spock they have it under control.

Spock admits he is incompetent and that he failed. So, there is that.

Delta Vega is left vague and uncertain on purpose. I don't think it orbits Vulcan or that Spock saw it from the skyline. I think that Nero left him video equipment to watch it, and marooned him to he could die in the cold after watching Vulcan be destroyed. The scene is nebulous on purpose.

Also, this has nothing to do with Nero's psychotic break, beyond the Romulan government's failure. Which, after the events of Nemesis is not a hard stretch for me to believe that the Romulans took forever to attempt to evacuate their world. Kind of like the Kryptonians in Superman.

 

What's that got to do with evacuation? Whether or not they'd request outside help is irrelevant.

I tend to believe that he is incredibly intelligent and highly competent. His plan for saving the planet, seemed, however, to require severe lapses in logic quite unusual for a Vulcan (of half-Vulcan, as the case may be): wait until the last second to create a black-hole right next to a planet that has not only probably been roasted alive but which you're trying to keep from being destroyed.

That wouldn't really fit the format and style of the rest of the film, but I could accept it.

Since we're on the subject, however, why does Spock (Quinto) maroon Kirk there rather than send him to the brig? Aren't there regulations against sending someone to their very possible death on a dangerous sub-zero and unpopulated planet? If he was just angry and breaking regulations, why did the crew agree to follow his orders?

Well, I don't think bringing up "Nemesis" in defence of this film is the best strategy. Otherwise, I could bring up the events of "Threshold" to argue against any and every inconsistency in Star Trek on the basis that, clearly, the ordinary laws of nature don't apply.

Even so, I don't see why I should like a film that wants me to believe that the Romulans are so extraordinarily dough-brained.

 

Because Spock is going through issues of his own. Kirk even complains during a log entry on Delta Vega that Spock was violating regulations about the treatment of prisoners.

Author and board member Christopher (Christopher L. Bennett) has had discussions about why Delta Vega doesn't get sucked into Vulcan's black hole. He has a degree in physics, I believe.

 

Then, why do the crew still carry out his orders? Do they not know Starfleet regulations?

It'd be interesting to read, if you could link me to the discussion in particular.

One of the reasons (despite my near-hatred of these films) that I haven't created threads about my problems (I've simply posted my opinion here) is that I'm sure before I joined (and during my long hiatus) there were innumerable discussion covering basically all of them.

What I'd say, and what you'd say in response, has probably been said a few hundred times already.

 

Cadets knowing regulations and unseating the commanding officer are two distinct things. Besides, I'm sure (like many other regulations in Star Trek), there is some leeway for how a commanding officer can handle a disruptive influence on his/her ship.

It has been a long while. You could either PM him or swing by the TrekLit sub-forum where he hangs out.

 

I like them enough, but I much prefer the older Trek.

 

To prove that I'm not just a hater. I will say that I actually liked the Spock/Uhura romance. I thought it might have had something to do with a behind-the-scenes story from "Plato's Stepchildren", which Nichols retells here, but I'm not too convinced.

 

Not dough-brained, and that isn't my argument. More a matter of willful ignorance as to the nature of the threat. I can't think of a good real life example, but there are several times throughout history were governments had plenty of warning and did not act until the last possible moment, resulting in loss of life.

Nor am I arguing that Nemesis provides a foundation for arguing that Trek 09 is good film by comparison. I am simply citing that the resulting political turmoil within the Romulan Empire would result in changes that mean they are either inefficient or unwilling to accept the possibility of such a catastrophe.

I'm not arguing that Spock is incompetent in terms of his general character. Just that his plan, as you noted, is full of deficiencies. The reasons why it took so long for him to deploy the Red Matter are left unclear, so I can only speculate as to the reasons.

As to your other point, which are not really regarding Romulans or Nero, but ok-Spock was removing someone who was a disruption to good order and discipline on a starship. Would the brig have been more appropriate? Possibly, but Spock sent Kirk off ship to avoid further discipline problems.

Also, Kirk wasn't technically marooned, as there was a Starfleet outpost on Delta Vega that would have been informed of his landing. Yes, it can be argued that Spock violated regulations, but he was trying to preserve order aboard the Enterprise and mutiny, which Kirk was threatening to do, by the regulation standards.

To be blunt, they were both in the wrong (cue "Crimson Tide" scene ).

And, to my larger point, none of this has to do with Nero or his motivation.

 

Why wouldn't they?

He's wearing regulation pants, boots and a shirt with the arrowhead on it.

And what about the stuff that you were wrong about?

• Not looking like Romulan.
  
• The insignia
  
• The single nacelle
  
• The design of the Narada
  

Or the absurd stuff

• No pregnant women on starships
• One off Aliens
• Why do people follow psychos

They still on the list? Will you stubbornly cling to them?

Not sure I understand why. Family killed and planet destroyed. Seems to me like good reasons to want to make the man you hold responsible suffer

I didn't think you were. All I did was explain why your reasons don't hold up. The things I pointed out don't stand up to scrutiny.

• Nero does look like a Romulan
  
• The insignia was used by non Enterprise personnel and was supposed to fleet wide.
  
• There have been single nacelled ships
  
• We've never seen a Romulan mining ship.
  

Which isn't to say there aren't thing in the films that don't make sense.

• Cadet to Captain? Silly
  
• Delta Vega? Nice easter egg, but make no sense for it to be in the Vulcan system.
  
• Marooning Kirk. Pure plot convenience

Then there is the subjective stuff.

• Lens flare
  
• The pacing
  
• The design changes

If those thing bother a viewer that's legit. People have different tastes.

The real world is full of psychotics with tens, hundreds, thousands and even millions of followers. Followers who haven't lost their homeworld and are stranded centuries in the past.

According to this discussion on Reddit A planet can orbit a black hole.

I'm no scientist ( not even close) but I think the black hole formerly known as Vulcan would have the same mass as Vulcan so any pull it had on Delta Vega would be the same in planet form and black hole form.

Or I could be totally wrong.

 

You can also see hints of it in "Mantrap" and "Charlie X."

Ultimately, the original show didn't go there, but they sure seemed to be flirting with the idea at first. I think it's neat how the new movies picked up on that and ran with it . . . down the proverbial road not taken before.