Was blowing up Romulus a good idea?

[T'Nara]

That ought to be obvious. Real Trek is all the Trek that has happened in the proper, original timeline, i.e not the timeline depicted in the JJ-films.

Wow, sounds a bit condescending don't you think? But each to his own.

I found I still wonder how trekkies can get so passionate about their own head canons to the point that it can get to heated debate.

I myself don't have a big problem with the Kelvin timeline movies. They are quite enjoyable to watch (except for the lens flares!), and they bring in new fans who will make the trekdom live longer. I like to find bits of references to the other star trek series/movies and as a big fan of ENT I enjoyed Beyond very much.

 

[Trekkin]

Be that as it may, but it didn't happen. I don't think a new TV series (or Lit Trek) should be beholden to a stupid gimmick whose only purpose was to launch an alternate movie Trek.

Post-NEM Trek Lit seizing an opportunity to destroy something beloved by fans, mutilate the corpse, salt the ashes? Perish at the thought.

(And I mean literally destroy. Not the 'They raped my childhood!' fan-bastardisation of 'destroyed'.)

And it totally 'happened.' If I have to accept 'Women can't be starship captains' and 'You totally enjoyed your sexual assault, didn't you Rand?', then the rest of you also have to put on your big boy pants.

 

[fireproof78]

Post-NEM Trek Lit seizing an opportunity to destroy something beloved by fans, mutilate the corpse, salt the ashes? Perish the thought.

(And I mean literally destroy. Not the 'They raped my childhood!' fan-bastardisation of 'destroyed'.)

And it totally 'happened.' If I have to accept 'Women can't be starship captains' and 'You totally enjoyed your sexual assault, didn't you Rand?', then the rest of you also have to put on your big boy pants.

Just the tip of the iceberg. Haven't even made it in to the sexism in TNG or VOY.

All of Trek has its skeletons on the Bridge (there's one!) and unfortunate implications. Destroying Romulus was a way of setting up the stakes of the films. In my opinion, if it were an episode set in Prime Trek, then Spock would go back in time and prevent the supernova and Romulus' destruction, ushering in a new era of peace between the three Alpha Quadrant powers.

 

[Mudd]

The conflict between the Federation and the Romulans was a plot thread in TOS and TNG and there were hints of a possible peace between these two factions in TNG, DS9 and Nemesis.

Then Romulus blows up in Star Trek 2009 and we don't really deal with the ramifications in that film, because is it set in an alternate time line (the new show is set in the past, so it won't deal with this either.)

Was this a whole bunch of set up for nothing? Are Spock's Romulan followers and Admiral Jarok's daughter dead?

Was blowing up Romulus a good idea?

Brilliant idea.

And it is, of course, canon that Romulus is destroyed in the oldTrek timeline - interestingly enough, we have no idea whether the same thing happens in the nuTrek timeline. One would guess not.

 

[Arpy]

Just because you didn't like it, doesn't mean it was done in a poor or lazy manner. I happened to enjoy the movie and the destruction of the two worlds showed that Trek can shake things up from time to time. Something that has been sorely needed for about fifty years.

Vulcan and Romulus are fictional planets, they aren't the story, they are there to serve the story in whatever manner the creators deem necessary.

I enjoyed the movie too, but it wasn't the Second Coming. I was a little horrified by the level of destruction, even if we're desensitized to it in sci-fi movies. A rape joke can make you laugh, but how satisfied are you with it after?

They shook things up plenty in shifting over to a new alternate universe. It's a very different Star Trek. And more power to it, but did they need to [try to] annihilate The Original Universe to do it? Trek's no stranger to alternate universes. They could stage each movie or TV episode moving forward in a different universe, and fans would roll with it.

And I'm glad they didn't hit the reset button - something I disdained in Trek previously, when unnecessary. But that's not what they "fixed" here. Kirk was saved by Khan's miracle blood, then the cure-all went away. Vulcan and Romulus will never be used again in AbramsTrek, so their loss isn't really felt. And if they need to show a bustling Vulcan planet, I'm sure New Vulcan will look overpopulated, like it's been there for a thousand years.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Although I don't play it, my understanding is that Star Trek Online has spun a load of stories from the fallout of Romulus' destruction.

The novelverse is sure too as well if/when they're able to. The fallout and resulting shift in Typhon Pact/Khitomer Accords relations is sure to be immense.

And should TV/film Trek ever explore that era, I'm sure they'll make something interesting of it, too.

I don't see anything "ruined", I see an oppertunity for storytelling with real change and huge ramifications, something we have had very little of in the Trekverse.

 

[Isolinear]

You mean Kevin J Anderson's continuation using Brian's name ?

​

The first prequel series was passable generic sci - fi novel. The Butlerian Jihad was the same. The sequels to the series were a kick to the balls and I stopped reading the sidequels when Paul ran off to join the circus.

Exactly! Except the Butlerian Jihad was already pretty bad compared to the Houses trilogy. The first one only seemed ok because it used the setting and characters we knew and loved from the originals. But they all share:
- Moronic, twisted versions of the characters from Frank Herbert's work.
- Extremely short chapters filled with with lots of recaps from previous chapters and books.
- Padded plotlines that ultimately go nowhere or end in unsatisfying ways.
- Ultra violence for comedic relief or killing off characters for no particular reason.
- Frank Herbert canon violations and retcons.

I could go on and on, but in my opinion it is the ultimate example why prequels are a bad idea, especially when written by another author than the original. The new Star Trek films are Shakespeare compared to Kevin J Anderson's Dune.

 

[somebuddyX]

I think it was the right decision to destroy both Romulus and Vulcan. I think the Romulans would return in the Prime timeline in some form anyway, whether it as a fully fledged empire again, a minor power or a member of the Federation.

 

[somebuddyX]

Brilliant idea.

And it is, of course, canon that Romulus is destroyed in the oldTrek timeline - interestingly enough, we have no idea whether the same thing happens in the nuTrek timeline. One would guess not.

If it does, Nero really dropped the ball on that one.

 

[locutus101]

I think it was the right decision to destroy both Romulus and Vulcan. I think the Romulans would return in the Prime timeline in some form anyway, whether it as a fully fledged empire again, a minor power or a member of the Federation.

The thing is that Romulus is only destroyed in the old universe. In the new one, we don't know yet, but probably not, since they have oodles of time to evacuate to a more propitious planet.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I tend to agree with the person upthread who wrote that it matters what they do with the destruction of Romulus (as well as Vulcan). It have been sensational one way or the other, but it could have been woven into the story in deep ways. However, it seems that the decision to show the destruction of Romulus was taken simply to justify changes in style that had already been made, and none of the films were entirely dependent on an event of that scale. Indeed, even Nero himself could have been driven to revenge by something far less dramatic, but nonetheless emotionally affecting.

I think STB was an excellent movie, though it could have use more depth, but placing it in the same universe as that started by the destruction of two planet for effect cheapens the movie.

 

[locutus101]

I tend to agree with the person upthread who wrote that it matters what they do with the destruction of Romulus (as well as Vulcan). It have been sensational one way or the other, but it could have been woven into the story in deep ways. However, it seems that the decision to show the destruction of Romulus was taken simply to justify changes in style that had already been made, and none of the films were entirely dependent on an event of that scale. Indeed, even Nero himself could have been driven to revenge by something far less dramatic, but nonetheless emotionally affecting.

I think STB was an excellent movie, though it could have use more depth, but placing it in the same universe as that started by the destruction of two planet for effect cheapens the movie.

There were dozens of planets destroyed on TOS. It never bothered anyone.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

There were dozens of planets destroyed on TOS. It never bothered anyone.

No one went mad with guilt when his crew die as a planet was destroyed?

 

[locutus101]

No one went mad with guilt when his crew die as a planet was destroyed?

Looks like he didn't have far to go.


Why would he beam his crew down to a planet to protect them... from a planet eater?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Looks like he didn't have far to go.


Why would he beam his crew down to a planet to protect them... from a planet eater?

Well, that's getting OT.

 

[locutus101]

Well, that's getting OT.

Ok.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Why must planets or locations with large numbers of people always be at stake in Trek movies anyway?

TMP - Earth
TVH - Earth
TUC - Qo'noS
GEN - Veridian III
FC - Earth (and probably the entire Alpha Quadrant as well)
NEM - Earth
NuTrek 1 - Romulus, Vulcan, Earth
STID - Honestly can't remember if there was or not
BEY - Starbase Yorktown

I didn't include Insurrection as that was just 500, which is on par with a starship crew, but all of those films seem to say that you need to have millions/billions of lives at risk to up the stakes and make the Enterprise's mission mean something, rather than going for something more personal and profound to the heroes.

Plus if Earth is at risk, you know they're going to save the day at the last second. If the PTB really wanted to shake up the Trek franchise then have our homeworld destroyed, no one would ever think they would go through with that, not without the trusty reset button on hand.

 

[locutus101]

Why must planets or locations with large numbers of people always be at stake in Trek movies anyway?

TMP - Earth
TVH - Earth
TUC - Qo'noS
GEN - Veridian III
FC - Earth (and probably the entire Alpha Quadrant as well)
NEM - Earth
NuTrek 1 - Romulus, Vulcan, Earth
STID - Honestly can't remember if there was or not
BEY - Starbase Yorktown

I didn't include Insurrection as that was just 500, which is on par with a starship crew, but all of those films seem to say that you need to have millions/billions of lives at risk to up the stakes and make the Enterprise's mission mean something, rather than going for something more personal and profound to the heroes.

Plus if Earth is at risk, you know they're going to save the day at the last second. If the PTB really wanted to shake up the Trek franchise then have our homeworld destroyed, no one would ever think they would go through with that, not without the trusty reset button on hand.

In Insurrection the billions that were sacrificed are all the people who didn't get the treatment for their diseases so that 500 snobs could live young forever...

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

In Insurrection the billions that were sacrificed are all the people who didn't get the treatment for their diseases so that 500 snobs could live young forever...

Very true, they don't have Khan blood to cure death.

 

[locutus101]

Very true, they don't have Khan blood to cure death.

Sorry, but I don't quite follow here.