I'm still pissed at a former friend ripping me off of £130 2 years ago. Pretty sure if my planet blew up and my pregnant wife died and there was a political entity or specific person I blamed for it, it'd last a good long while. Shinzon was severely damaged. Logical thought and blame wasn't entirely within his grasp. He wanted everyone who lived a privileged life while he suffered in the mines dead. I've known people with mental health issues who similarly blamed the wrong people no matter how much we tried explaining to them.
That makes no damn sense at all considering it was the realization that Shinzon planned to destroy Earth rather than conquer it that made the Romulans turn against him.
I get your point, but would your anger against your friend be enough to make you want to rob the largest bank in England after 25 years? Not only is Nero's desire to retaliate disproportionate to what's happened to him, he placing blame where it does not actually lie - Spock and the Federation who tried to help him - 25 years later. This is as crazy as Shinzon, in my view.
I mean, yeah, obviously he's not thinking rationally, but the fact that he would fixate on Earth is still dramatically arbitrary. The Romulans have been beating him his entire life, and he had unlimited power to destroy all life on their planet; it would have made more emotional sense for him to exterminate Romulus and then target Earth. It's true there are severely mentally ill people who target totally innocent people and ignore the folks who have actually hurt them, but that doesn't mean it makes for good storytelling to have Shinzon be that. His motivations become so incoherent as to be unrelatable to the audience. He ceases to register as a character and starts just registering as a plot device. Oh, I find Nero's behavior much more comprehensible, especially post-PIC S1. To his mind, the Federation promised to help and then stabbed Romulus in the back. As far as he's concerned, Spock was probably using Red Matter to make the supernova happen sooner. He is being irrational, yes, but it's an emotionally comprehensible irrationality -- his anger and rage are comprehensible and his reasons for targeting the Federation make sense as a combination of "they stabbed us in the back" and general bigotry. I can totally see him wanting to wipe out the entire Federation in revenge, even if it's the wrong century. "They're all the same" etc.
As @Sci said, Picard season 1 makes it clear the Federation did stand by and do nothing, abandoning rescue efforts following the Synth attack on Mars. And Spock, longtime agent of the Federation wasn't quick enough to save them. In a world where people are destroying 5G phone towers because they believe they cause coronavirus, Nero blaming Spock and the Federation and seeing a conspiracy there makes a lot more sense. I don't expect fiction to make any more sense than real life. To me, that reaction was relatable because I've seen similar.
It might be understandable that Nero would take his anger out on the Federation but still, waiting 25 years after he arrived in the past before he acted? Especially considering according to behind the scenes sources it was in response of his attack on the Kelvin that Starfleet developed larger ships and more advanced weapons than they did in the Prime Universe. "Fuck the Federation! Let them burn! But we'll wait a quarter of a century and let them develop ships and weapons capable of defeating us before we attack again." The movie as released makes it seem as though Nero really was just waiting for those 25 years doing nothing. The deleted scenes showing him imprisoned at Rura Penthe doesn't help matters at all. When the 25 years are up, he easily makes his escape with no effort at all, suggesting he could have done so all along. And then there's the fact the Klingons had an unstoppable ship from the future in their possession for 25 years but made no effort to study it or reverse engineer it, but just left it parked at the same prison its crew were held at so they could make their escape all the easier.
The Nero comics explain all that. On screen, his ear is evidence he was on Rura Penthe, and it just wasn't shown. Uhura's emergency transmission came from "a Klingon prison planet", that was him escaping and taking back the Narada.
All very fair points! Personally, I can buy the idea that Nero would still want to destroy them after 25 years, but yeah, I agree that the film as released should have done something more to establish why it took him 25 years to hit Vulcan and Earth. "Damage from the Kelvin ramming the Narada" feels dramatically unsatisfying, even if it's not totally implausible. Personally, if I had been Abrams, I would have filmed a scene showing the Narada getting swallowed into another black hole as a result of the Kelvin ramming it, and then being spat back out in 2258. So for Nero, only a day or two would have passed since his attack on the Kelvin.
I completely agree. I think that Nero is one of the more relatable villains in Trek. I do wish there had been more clarification too. The whole attack on the Klingons makes little sense without the Rura Penthe scenes added in.
Exactly. All because you don't like it. Makes sense. No way....any Star Trek fan watching with a massive preexisting bias, a fine-tooth comb, and serious case of Monday Morning Quarterback-itus could have developed a better story. Don't you read fan message boards on the internet? Duh.
Ahh that tedious old argument. You don't need to be able to write television to see when something is sub-standard and convoluted. I'm sure you never complain about food in a restaurant, after all, you're presumably not a chef, so how can you criticise, right? Wrong again. I like the opening credits, I just find the amount of layers to it that people are fabricating to be amusing, that's all.
I believe that is a confirmation bias right there but could be wrong. Afterall, I'm the crazy idiot who likes new Star Trek for reasons that others cannot fathom-the characters engage me O_O
Art is a form of communication. Part of the right way to consume art is to accept that the artist is expressing things you may not have thought of -- that you are not the artist's superior and that there can be meaning present you had never considered. I don't really "get" paints or sculptures. I'm just not wired to communicate that way. I have trouble finding the meanings communicated through them. But I would never try to tell someone who can interpret a painting or a sculpture that they're "fabricating layers to it" that aren't present, because I know meanings are there even if I can't perceive them.
Or, you know, they're just not there. Thank you for the lesson in how to consume art. It's also possible that you've thought of things the art was never meant to represent. It'd be like me saying the font of the opening titles was obviously made yellow to express Picard's new found energy and optimism. When in actual fact it was because the designers thought it looked nice.
Listen, if you want to tell art historians and art critics that there's nothing there because you don't see it when you look at, say, Saturn Devouring His Son, be my guest. You're welcome! Between this and your ridiculous assertion that Michael Chabon was being selfish for not catering to a fragment of the audience's particular preoccupation with starship porn, it's pretty obvious to me that you actually don't know how to consume art thoughtfully. Do you know that? Have you found an interview with the designers where they explained their artistic choices?
Even if so there is a whole psychological study of colors and the impact upon human attitudes and choices. The art of logo design is quite interesting.
Excuse me? No, I want to tell some guy on a message board that there's nothing there when he says that Chabon and co included the Romulans in Star Trek Picard because one of the opening scenes of First Contact had an admiral tell Picard to patrol the Neutral Zone. I suggested he was selfish because starship porn didn't interest him personally. At some point you have to look at the franchise as a whole, not your own personal view of it. And given the starship design in Picard thread is one of if the not the busiest thread in that subforum, I'd say it's more than just a "fragment" of the fanbase. That's rich coming from the man that said this... Have you found an interview with Chabon that said he had Picard wake up on his vinyard to be a "perfect mirror" to Picard waking up in one film out of the four?
Except that's not what the OP said. What he did talk about was the parallel of waking up from a dream, not the parallel of what was being woken up to. Edited to add: Going back to the first page, I mis-remembered the O.P.'s point. What the O.P. actually talks about is the idea of "waking up into a new era" being a thing that happens both in Star Trek: First Contact and in episode one of Star Trek: Picard. He's not talking about Romulans being referenced in either; he's talking about a new setting and life circumstances for Picard (the Enterprise-E in FC, the Chateau in PIC) being introduced after a dream. This is a perfectly valid comparison to make. End edit. No. An artist's only obligation is to tell the story her muse compels her to tell. Period. Half those posts are just you and me bitchin at each other. So, no, you don't have any evidence for your assertion. Got it.