And PROD is pretty great. See how wonderful TAS is?
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
And PROD is pretty great. See how wonderful TAS is?
This just feels like the most boring option, plus it takes away from Nero's more humble origins. He isn't supposed to be a soldier, but a simple man, driven to madness by what he witnessed with the destruction of Romulus and his Wife. Plus, the Narada was far more interesting and mysterious than just another Warbird.
Would WOK been better if the Reliant, rather than just being a commandeered Starfleet ship, had a similarly complex background as the Narada? Would anything be gained by swapping out one for the other?
Possibly. Depends on the story told.
Narada and Nero are one of my favorite aspects of the story in 09. The text makes it plain, and makes it more tragic in the end that these are just miners fighting to preserve their home and ultimately lost.
Why does a mining ship need Borg tech?
I'm going with firepower. Wouldn't take that much destructive energy to break up an asteroid as opposed penetrating a starship's shields. Plus being capable of destroying multiple ships in a single battle plus being able to survive being attacked by those multiple ships.
Mining ship is what they want you to think it twas
I love how mining ships are so underrated and undervalued as if asteroids are the only thing worth mining.
But the whole point of the movie is that the Narada created an alternate timeline. If you take that out literally everything in the film changes (well, except for Spock getting bullied at school).
Also they already did the 'super strong Romulan warship that can take on an entire fleet of warships for some reason' thing in the previous movie.
If we go by the film, the Narada background is pretty straightforward.
How does changing the nature of the ship undermine ST09 being an alternative timeline?
IIRC, Nero got a hold of Borg tech to amp up and weaponize its mining equipment into planet-killing (Vulcan) lethality, which was his primary goal. Anything that got in the way would have been quickly dealt with. The movie dialogue had Nero say that “in my time the Narada was a simple mining ship”. The way it was written, it got boosted by virtue of simply jumping forward in time without any additional exposition. I suppose it kind of works with leveraging the whole “space magic” angle, and not very integral to the plot, but it was definitely a narrative weak point, IMO, that probably could have been fleshed out a little more. I don’t think it would have hurt anything to mention the Borg tech. Pretty much everyone who went to see that movie are likely going to know who and what the Borg are.
The most extreme example of a mining vessel in Star Trek would be the DMA.
Maybe not an ironclad, but a big container ship will certainly smash right through the wooden ships of the line from a hundred years before that.
And high kinetic energy. Boom!
I suppose it could've just been an alternative timeline already. But tying the creation of the Kelvin timeline to the arrival of a ship from the future gives them a reason to acknowledge that their destinies have been changed and gives the ship more significance.
Making the ship a civilian vessel instead of a military ship helps explain why they behave so erratically (they could've just returned to Romulus), and why they're so easily defeated once two trained officers get inside.
I do have some controversial opinions on Star Wars, but I have never seen that show. So I am unsure if my opinions on that franchise are actually controversial or not.
Perhaps JJ Abrams would be able to decide, as he has worked within the frameworks of both franchises so has a dual point of reference.
The bigger question is why would people care about a director's opinion? Why not watch and decide for yourself?I do have some controversial opinions on Star Wars, but I have never seen that show. So I am unsure if my opinions on that franchise are actually controversial or not.
Perhaps JJ Abrams would be able to decide, as he has worked within the frameworks of both franchises so has a dual point of reference.
Star Wars is a whole different beast from Star Trek and any comparisons are surface level at best.
He directed my least favorite theatrical releases in both franchises, so please no.Perhaps JJ Abrams would be able to decide, as he has worked within the frameworks of both franchises so has a dual point of reference.
Whilst on watch and gate guarding duty, JJ also oversaw the destruction of the planets Romulus, Remus and Vulcan. Or perhaps we should blame Emperor Kurtzman, who seems to let anything pass both under and over his radar from his throne upon the Death Star, like he doesn’t actually care about the franchise anymore or no longer has a say in how things are run? I’m not sure if Kurtzman has ever seen Star Wars or not, but I *do* know that he has seen Transformers.
Tawny Newsome should make for a good new show runner, though?
Similar threads
- Locked
