OK. SUPER nitpicky Star Trek question (Spoiler)

[parallaxicality]

Here's the sort of question I never thought I'd ever be nerd enough to ask. Yeah I know. There's a Trekker born every minute. But sometimes, these sorts of things need answering.

OK.

Brushes off Chee-to dust and pats down smiley face Watchmen t-shirt.

We know from multiple sources (most recently an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise) that the planet Vulcan orbits within the star system 40 Eridani, which is 16 light years from Earth. We also know that the Romulans are descended from the Vulcans, and that they left to found their own colony thousands of years ago. Whether they left via FTL or at relativistic speeds is still not known, but in any case, it's unlikely that they could have travelled very far.

So. In Star Trek we learn that Romulus was destroyed by a nearby supernova explosion. The farthest away you can be from a supernova explosion and suffer any damage is about 30 light years, though I'm sure that's negotiable.

So. Is it physically possible, given a plausible distance from Romulus to Vulcan, for Romulus to have been affected by a supernova-capable star? Which are the nearest to Earth and how likely are any of them to blow in the next few centuries?

[nauthiz]

I tracked down a map (http://maniacallaughter.com/pages/star_trek_universe_map.php) (which I'm going to assume is at least reasonably accurate) that charts Federation and Romulan space.

Earth's at the origin, Vulcan is a bit 'south'. Assuming that distance is 16 light-years and the map is to scale, then Romulus (in the 'northwest' of the empire) would be about 60 light-years from Earth, and even further from Vulcan. I also note that it's out beyond Gamma Tucanae, which is 70 light-years from Earth.

[Gillianren]

So. In Star Trek we learn that Romulus was destroyed by a nearby supernova explosion.

Wait, we do? Oh, I am sooooo not watching that movie.

[parallaxicality]

Oh. Right. Kinda thought everyone would have seen it by now.

[Tog]

But said SN was said to be large enough to destroy the whole galaxy as I recall. That should both drastically increase the lethal radius and limit the number of candidates.

[Chip]

But said SN was said to be large enough to destroy the whole galaxy as I recall. That should both drastically increase the lethal radius and limit the number of candidates.

Yes but Star Trek apologists (like me sometimes,) willing to cut the series some slack (sometimes) - have implied that the phrase "destroy the galaxy" was not so much a scientific term as a galactic-political general statement. A kind of 'domino-theory-of-the-stars' implying that if one important world is destroyed, it would effect other worlds in terms of trade, politics and refugees, causing wars, etc., leading to the economic collapse of the Federation and other Empires.

Then again - Star Trek is full of oddball insights - and while acknowledging that it is a great show overall, I generally don't cut them as much slack in the various TV series for curing many problems with beams of energy.

[Gillianren]

Oh. Right. Kinda thought everyone would have seen it by now.

I'm sure everyone who wanted to has.

[Nick Theodorakis]

I want to see it but haven't yet.

Nick

[Tinaa]

Me either. Just can't find the time.

[nauthiz]

Ditto.

[hhEb09'1]

OK, I'm changing the title now :)

[Jeff Root]

When was Romulus said to have been destroyed? Was the planet
destroyed, or just the Romulan culture, with the planet essentially
untouched? In real life, a supernova could be really, really bad news
for anyone in Space throughout an awfully large volume, but have
no significant effect on a nearby planet's surface, because of the
protection given by miles of atmosphere.

Are you sure it was a supernova, not just a plain nova?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Nowhere Man]

Give it up, parallax. Star Drek was nothing but bad science from end to end.

Jeff, it was called a supernova, and there was a sequence showing Romulus being eroded away by the blast.

Fred

[slang]

Jeff, it was called a supernova, and there was a sequence showing Romulus being eroded away by the blast.

Then how could the camera survive, huh? HUH? [/childish]

(I really wish people would think of adding spoiler tags when posting, considering that people all over the world read here)

[Van Rijn]

Then how could the camera survive, huh? HUH? [/childish]

(I really wish people would think of adding spoiler tags when posting, considering that people all over the world read here)

Hopefully, anyone looking at it now will see "spoiler" in the thread title.

[Van Rijn]

Give it up, parallax. Star Drek was nothing but bad science from end to end.

Jeff, it was called a supernova, and there was a sequence showing Romulus being eroded away by the blast.

Fred

Yep, if it was close enough for that, Romulus must have been a recently terraformed planet. It's amazing it was habitable at all, being so near a massive, rapidly evolving star. Collapsing the star into a black hole wouldn't help - that in itself would be a very energetic event.

I went into the movie knowing the science would be stupid (that's not new for Star Trek), but there was just so much bad science.

[slang]

Hopefully, anyone looking at it now will see "spoiler" in the thread title.

Yes! No intention to diss hhEb09'1 at all, and thanks for his action. I meant for people to be more careful about such things on first posting.

[Van Rijn]

Yes! No intention to diss hhEb09'1 at all, and thanks for his action. I meant for people to be more careful about such things on first posting.

Agreed. Always try to remember to be careful if you're posting a spoiler (though, I have to admit, I've forgotten once or twice myself over the years, and was justifiably criticized for it).

[Chip]

One bit of physics they got right: 200 year old Corvettes might still run, but they can't fly. ;)

[Rift]

I went into the movie knowing the science would be stupid (that's not new for Star Trek), but there was just so much bad science.

Actually there wasn't as much bad science as I thought there would be. And watching Trek for good science is kinda like watching Doctor Who for good science... Maybe it's because of the era I grew up there WAS no science in sci fi tv shows and I learned massive suspension of disbelief... Even Phil's review was rather praiseworthy of what they did get right...

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax"

I'm not saying there shouldn't be good science in TV and movies, i'm just not holding my breath.

[Jeff Root]

And this Romulus-getting-eroded-away... does it occur during the lifetime
of J. T. Kirk, or earlier, or later?

Van Rijn,

Why do you infer that Romulus must have been recently terraformed?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Tog]

And this Romulus-getting-eroded-away... does it occur during the lifetime
of J. T. Kirk, or earlier, or later?
Romulus is destroyed around what would be the time after the Nemesis Film. Spock is still alive, but old.

From there, the Romulan ship is pulled through the wormhole to encounter Kirk's father's ship, literally at the time of Kirk's Birth. and changes the timeline

About 25 years later, Old Spock appears through the wormhole as New Spock, and New Kirk are at the Academy.

[Jeff Root]

Oh, so the film provides an explanation for the differences between it and
the canonical Star Trek? Time travel again! Sheesh! I like time-travel
stories, but they never belonged in Star Trek. ... On the other hand, I
won some Star Trek novels in a raffle once, and one of them was a pretty
interesting time-travel puzzle.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Van Rijn]

And this Romulus-getting-eroded-away... does it occur during the lifetime
of J. T. Kirk, or earlier, or later?

Van Rijn,

Why do you infer that Romulus must have been recently terraformed?


If it was close enough to a massive star to be vaporized in a supernova, as indicated in the movie, it wouldn't have had billions of years to develop a native ecology. It probably couldn't be terraformed at all, if such a star were that close.

[Van Rijn]

Actually there wasn't as much bad science as I thought there would be. And watching Trek for good science is kinda like watching Doctor Who for good science... Maybe it's because of the era I grew up there WAS no science in sci fi tv shows and I learned massive suspension of disbelief... Even Phil's review was rather praiseworthy of what they did get right...


As I said, I knew the science would be stupid. I expected it. The problem for me was that there was just too much stupid science, stupid plot, and stupid stuff (like a brewery in a starship).



I'm not saying there shouldn't be good science in TV and movies, i'm just not holding my breath.

I'm not either.

[Jeff Root]

I haven't carefully looked at the ages of stars when they go supernova.
Couldn't this planetary system have been, say, a billion years old, giving
Romulus enough time to develop photosynthesizing plant life which filled
the atmosphere with free oxygen?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Van Rijn]

There are essentially two ways to get a supernova - a massive star at the end of it's life on the main sequence, or accretion/merging with a white dwarf (Type 1a supernova). Visually, this wasn't accretion or merging with a white dwarf, but a large star exploding. A massive star has a lifespan of a few million years.

[Van Rijn]

Just saw this over at Memory Alpha:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Supernova


In Star Trek: Countdown, the official comic book prequel to Star Trek, the star which went supernova and destroyed Romulus was called the Hobus star. It is explained that the Hobus supernova was unlike any previously seen: as the supernova grew, it converted mass into energy, which increased its power and allowed it to expand. As a result, its threat reached beyond the Hobus system and potentially the entire galaxy.

Uh-huh. Of course, all supernova convert mass to energy, but this was supposed to be something more, obviously. They should have called it a hypernova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypernova). It still would be hard to affect the entire galaxy. And there aren't many hypernova candidates.

[Van Rijn]

So. In Star Trek we learn that Romulus was destroyed by a nearby supernova explosion. The farthest away you can be from a supernova explosion and suffer any damage is about 30 light years, though I'm sure that's negotiable.


It was also indicated that Romulus had little or no warning when the supernova occurred, and given their FTL capability, that also puts a severe limit on how far away the supernova could have been from Romulus.

[mike alexander]

Um... you all do realize this is just a fun late spring romp at the theater?

I know some others here are old enough to remember watching the original series on NBC. Hope so, anyway. What amazes me is how ANGRY people seem to get discussing a television program. Not even NOVA. Or Meet the Press. Man, lighten up.

[Rift]

Oh, so the film provides an explanation for the differences between it and
the canonical Star Trek? Time travel again! Sheesh! I like time-travel
stories, but they never belonged in Star Trek. ... On the other hand, I
won some Star Trek novels in a raffle once, and one of them was a pretty
interesting time-travel puzzle.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

No, very little time travel in it, more of an alternate history, which is NOT the same thing.

I thought it was a brilliant way to have TOS and this new interpretation co-exist. (although I can get a bit nit picky about a few things, but overall I was delighted with it)

[Rift]

Um... you all do realize this is just a fun late spring romp at the theater?

I know some others here are old enough to remember watching the original series on NBC. Hope so, anyway. What amazes me is how ANGRY people seem to get discussing a television program. Not even NOVA. Or Meet the Press. Man, lighten up.

I agree people, seesh. I'm old enough and I dunno what the problem is. A lot are going to take me to task for this but sometimes science shouldn't get in the way of storytelling. Watch the movie don't take notes on what's wrong with it. If you don't like it fine. I happened to have loved it.

[Van Rijn]

Um... you all do realize this is just a fun late spring romp at the theater?


I knew it was supposed to be, and I went into the movie willing to give it a lot of rope, especially on the science. Of course, that doesn't stop me from talking about science holes. Why should it?

Watching the movie, I had a much bigger problem with the plot holes than the science.



I know some others here are old enough to remember watching the original series on NBC. Hope so, anyway.


I remember watching it when it originally aired.

[Van Rijn]

No, very little time travel in it, more of an alternate history, which is NOT the same thing.

I thought it was a brilliant way to have TOS and this new interpretation co-exist. (although I can get a bit nit picky about a few things, but overall I was delighted with it)

Just a reminder, spoilers ahead . . .






Time travel created the alternate timeline. I knew before I saw the movie that time travel was involved, and I didn't mind that they used it to reset the Star Trek universe. I expected that.

However, it also removed the villain's motivation. He had the means to stop the supernova, and he had plenty of time to do it. That's the problem with time travel stories: It's so hard to do them right.

[Rift]

Time travel created the alternate timeline.

In the Alternate History sub-genre, that's the most common way of creating an alternate timeline...

I still say this wasn't a time travel story, but an alternate history story. Both TOS and this timeline still technically exist.

[Van Rijn]

In the Alternate History sub-genre, that's the most common way of creating an alternate timeline...

I still say this wasn't a time travel story, but an alternate history story.


I would say it was both. :)



Both TOS and this timeline still technically exist.

Did they say that they both exist in the movie? Honestly, I don't remember if they did or didn't.

[Rift]

Did they say that they both exist in the movie? Honestly, I don't remember if they did or didn't.


Old Spock remembered events that happened in TOS, that can't happen in the movie timeline now because of Nemo, or Nero, or whatever the heck his name is, actions.

It's the old Grandfather Paradox. Nero figuratively killed his own grandfather by accident and changed history. He could save Romulas, but in his demented mind, it's not his Romulas. And since he did change history 100 or so years in the past, his wife might never be born just by chance. I don't see a problem.

Certainly better then 'Back to the Future' nonsense where your picture disappears :P

[Jeff Root]

The main thing time travel does is create alternate history. Whether it is
an alternate to real history or fictional history, and whether the alternate
is the history we know or some other.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Nowhere Man]

Um... you all do realize this is just a fun late spring romp at the theater?

I know some others here are old enough to remember watching the original series on NBC. Hope so, anyway. What amazes me is how ANGRY people seem to get discussing a television program. Not even NOVA. Or Meet the Press. Man, lighten up.
I think it's a question of degree. Star Drek took all of the bad science of a full season of the original series and crammed it into two hours of movie, leaving little room for the (comparatively) deep plotting, character development, and philosophy of a single episode.

In other words, "The dose makes the poison."

Fred

[Gillianren]

I have to tell you, it's the whole "alternate history" thing that makes me not want to see it. It's a cheat. It's intended, from what I can tell, to get all of the characters the fans know and love into the same movie, not because it's a better story but because they'll make more money that way. Well, of course, the point of a movie is to make money. I've no illusions there. But a point of a movie is to tell a story worth hearing, surely.

[Rift]

Alternate History is not a 'cheat' but a very popular genre of Science Fiction (and kinda sorta of Historical Fiction)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history


Time travel as the cause of a point of divergence (creating two histories where before there was one, or simply replacing the future that existed before the time traveling event) has continued to be a popular theme: in Bring the Jubilee, by Ward Moore, the protagonist, who lives in an alternate history in which the South won the Civil War, travels through time and brings about a Union victory in the Battle of Gettysburg.

[mike alexander]

I enjoyed "Bring the Jubilee" very much.

[Gillianren]

Alternate History is not a 'cheat' but a very popular genre of Science Fiction (and kinda sorta of Historical Fiction).

Yes, and I have several books in it. In Star Trek, it's a cheat, because Star Trek's timeline is defined. The Eugenics Wars didn't happen, so the series is--as we knew it would be--already on an alternate timeline. To use an alternate timeline off Star Trek so you can get in characters who would not be in the same place at the same time is not the same as the book I have that speculates, for example, on what might have happened had Victoria Woodhull, in the face of all probability, succeeded in her Presidential bid.

[Van Rijn]

Old Spock remembered events that happened in TOS, that can't happen in the movie timeline now because of Nemo, or Nero, or whatever the heck his name is, actions.


Yes, but that doesn't mean that the original timeline still exists. There's no real physics behind this, just whatever rules they grant time travel (if any) in the story.



It's the old Grandfather Paradox. Nero figuratively killed his own grandfather by accident and changed history. He could save Romulas, but in his demented mind, it's not his Romulas. And since he did change history 100 or so years in the past, his wife might never be born just by chance. I don't see a problem.


I don't recall at any point in the movie where Nero indicated he didn't believe this was his "real" Romulus. On the other hand, he seemed to think Vulcan was real enough, and obviously thought future Spock would believe it was real. And, while he did change history, it wasn't clear he had made any changes that would significantly affect Romulus, at least up to the point where he went after Vulcan. I also have to wonder why the crew went along with all this. They had decades to think it over, after all.

[parallaxicality]

The previous timeline HAS to exist, otherwise there'd be nowhere (nowhen?) for Nero to have emerged from in the first place.

[Van Rijn]

The previous timeline HAS to exist, otherwise there'd be nowhere (nowhen?) for Nero to have emerged from in the first place.

Had to. In some stories, changes due to time travel rewrite the one existing timeline. In other stories, changes create multiple timelines. Unless it is specified that the previous timeline still exists in the story, it can't be assumed.

One argument for the "one timeline" idea here is that Spock emerged much later than Nero, but was in the same timeline as Nero.

[mfumbesi]

I watched this movie yesterday. The whole experience was fun, especially for my son, he loved the green girl. I on the other hand had a few quibs about the movie.
1. The red matter was busy destroying Nero's ship (and turning it into a black-hole), was it then really necessary for Cpt Kirk to fire at it?
2. Nero's ship was about to form a black-hole (thanks to the red matter), then why did Cpt Kirk decide to hang around (and endanger his crew, be pulled in etc.) for the whole shebang?
The above made Cpt Kirk look like a reckless and trigger happy captain.
(man I'm asking for it......flame suit on)

[Jeff Root]

I doubt you'll get any argument about Kirk being reckless and trigger-happy,
even if several episodes of TOS had exactly the opposite idea as their main
story "point".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[kzb]

Another thing, the flight time Earth to Vulcan is THREE MINUTES?

[parallaxicality]

Had to. In some stories, changes due to time travel rewrite the one existing timeline. In other stories, changes create multiple timelines. Unless it is specified that the previous timeline still exists in the story, it can't be assumed.

One argument for the "one timeline" idea here is that Spock emerged much later than Nero, but was in the same timeline as Nero.

Well, there's narrative convention and then there's logic. If Nero's reality ceased to exist, then it ceased ever to have existed, which means Nero, at least the Nero of the original timeline, would cease ever to have existed as well.

[Van Rijn]

Well, there's narrative convention and then there's logic. If Nero's reality ceased to exist, then it ceased ever to have existed, which means Nero, at least the Nero of the original timeline, would cease ever to have existed as well.

And this is based on what theory of time travel? You're making assumptions about how time travel is supposed to work. Unless it is spelled out in the story, there is no requirement that it works the way you want.

[Jason Thompson]

Just a reminder, spoilers ahead . . .






Time travel created the alternate timeline. I knew before I saw the movie that time travel was involved, and I didn't mind that they used it to reset the Star Trek universe. I expected that.

However, it also removed the villain's motivation. He had the means to stop the supernova, and he had plenty of time to do it. That's the problem with time travel stories: It's so hard to do them right.

I disagree that it removed his motivation. Yes, he had plenty of time to save Romulus, but in the meantime his primary desire was to punish Spock and the Federation for failing to save his planet. It is never stated in the film that he doesn't intend to go on and save Romulus after he's finished with Vulcan and Earth, since presumably whatever he does with Vulcan and the Federation the supernova will still occur (physics not generally giving a damn about politics and all) and he has plenty of red matter to hand. (That's another question: if so little red matter is required to create the black hole that Spock made in the first place, why is there so much of it on the ship in the first place?) He also now has the added bonus that he can cripple his people's main adversaries and not only save Romulus in this timeline but create a situation that allows the empire to become the dominant political force in the galaxy.

So I don't see a problem with his motivation at all.

[Jeff Root]

Does the movie treat the two timelines as equals, or is one presented as
being more real than the other? Or, if not more real, perhaps more final?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[tdvance]

Well, the movie's timeline must have been more real, because the special effects looked more real :)

But no, I don't think any characters in the movie addressed that. More like, that's the way time was then, this is the way it is now...or however you say it.

[Jeff Root]

The future isn't what it used to be. Now it's history.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jason Thompson]

Does the movie treat the two timelines as equals, or is one presented as
being more real than the other? Or, if not more real, perhaps more final?

Neither. They simply state that Nero's actions created a new timeline.

However, notably for Star Trek, they never make any attempt to 'fix' the timeline and restore it to the original.

[Van Rijn]

I disagree that it removed his motivation. Yes, he had plenty of time to save Romulus, but in the meantime his primary desire was to punish Spock and the Federation for failing to save his planet.


Why? That was extremely thin motivation in the first place (Spock and the Federation didn't fail for lack of trying) and Romulus exists in the new timeline. He either considers that to be his "real" Romulus (in which case there is nobody to punish) or he doesn't consider Vulcan to be real (in which case he can't punish Spock).



It is never stated in the film that he doesn't intend to go on and save Romulus after he's finished with Vulcan and Earth, since presumably whatever he does with Vulcan and the Federation the supernova will still occur (physics not generally giving a damn about politics and all) and he has plenty of red matter to hand.


If he was going to save Romulus, he should have done it as soon as he could. By the end of the movie, the means to save Romulus no longer exists and he destroyed one of the worlds that built the hardware for the attempt to save Romulus in the previous timeline. He might well have doomed Romulus a second time.



(That's another question: if so little red matter is required to create the black hole that Spock made in the first place, why is there so much of it on the ship in the first place?)


I'm guessing it's supposed to be mass related: A small bit for a planet, a big bit for a massive star.



He also now has the added bonus that he can cripple his people's main adversaries and not only save Romulus in this timeline but create a situation that allows the empire to become the dominant political force in the galaxy.


Then he should have saved Romulus first, and given them his advanced technology.

[Jason Thompson]

Why? That was extremely thin motivation in the first place (Spock and the Federation didn't fail for lack of trying) and Romulus exists in the new timeline. He either considers that to be his "real" Romulus (in which case there is nobody to punish) or he doesn't consider Vulcan to be real (in which case he can't punish Spock).

Where does that idea come from? You're applying your own thoughts on how the timeline thing worked to a fictional character's motivation. The man watched his home planet, and presumably a few friends and family along with it, burn up. That's surely going to unhinge him a bit, and his crew? He may have gone back in time to a point where Romulus still exists, but that's not going to erase the trauma of watching it burn, is it?

And while Spock was trying, he may believe that the Federation delayed his actions deliberately to remove Romulus and gain greater political power in the galaxy. Not everyone can accept that there's no-one to blame for a tragedy.



If he was going to save Romulus, he should have done it as soon as he could.

Why, if he's blinded by the desire for revenge?

If you apply that logic, Khan should have accepted the word of his lietenant in the second film and agreed that he had escaped exile and that was enough, since by the end of that film he had lost the ship and his entire crew.


By the end of the movie, the means to save Romulus no longer exists and he destroyed one of the worlds that built the hardware for the attempt to save Romulus in the previous timeline. He might well have doomed Romulus a second time.

He probably did, but his actions don't have to be so coldly rational. Romulans are not known for embracing the logic of Vulcans, are they?


I'm guessing it's supposed to be mass related: A small bit for a planet, a big bit for a massive star.

But Spock only intended to use it once for one star, and in the flashback sequence he doesn't seem to extract any more than Nero did to destroy a planet. Why does he have so much left after his one-shot attempt?


Then he should have saved Romulus first, and given them his advanced technology.

He didn't know when Spock would come through to his timeline, and if his main motivation is revenge then why wouldn't he wait, given that he knows he has over a century before Romulus is actually threatened again?

[Van Rijn]

Where does that idea come from? You're applying your own thoughts on how the timeline thing worked to a fictional character's motivation.


I'm just listing different possibilities: If he considers this universe real, then I would expect he would want to project Romulus. If he doesn't consider it real, he can't punish Spock.

This isn't making any assumptions about how time travel is supposed to work. As shown in the story, Romulus and Vulcan did exist in the new universe. He can either accept it as real to him or not.



The man watched his home planet, and presumably a few friends and family along with it, burn up. That's surely going to unhinge him a bit, and his crew? He may have gone back in time to a point where Romulus still exists, but that's not going to erase the trauma of watching it burn, is it?


Trauma or not, I'd expect they either would want to save Romulus this time around, or somebody would at least explain why they won't.

If you want me to get behind the story idea, somebody has to explain their reasoning, since right now it doesn't make sense.



And while Spock was trying, he may believe that the Federation delayed his actions deliberately to remove Romulus and gain greater political power in the galaxy. Not everyone can accept that there's no-one to blame for a tragedy.


This is speculation. It was not mentioned in the story.



Why, if he's blinded by the desire for revenge?

If you apply that logic, Khan should have accepted the word of his lietenant in the second film and agreed that he had escaped exile and that was enough, since by the end of that film he had lost the ship and his entire crew.


In this case, he had the chance to go to Romulus as a hero, and get everything he wants by working with them.

And I don't buy the blinded by rage bit. They had decades to think it over. If he was that utterly, totally, mad, I would expect that the crew would at least try to take over.



He probably did, but his actions don't have to be so coldly rational. Romulans are not known for embracing the logic of Vulcans, are they?


They are more emotional than Vulcans, but they aren't supposed to be crazy idiots.



He didn't know when Spock would come through to his timeline, and if his main motivation is revenge then why wouldn't he wait, given that he knows he has over a century before Romulus is actually threatened again?


As soon as he had Spock, he should have taken care of the impending supernova. Then he could do whatever else he wanted.

[Jason Thompson]

I'm just listing different possibilities: If he considers this universe real, then I would expect he would want to project Romulus.

You still assume that he must have gone there right away.


Trauma or not, I'd expect they either would want to save Romulus this time around, or somebody would at least explain why they won't....

In this case, he had the chance to go to Romulus as a hero, and get everything he wants by working with them....

As soon as he had Spock, he should have taken care of the impending supernova. Then he could do whatever else he wanted.

The supernova wasn't 'impending' in any meaningful sense to the people he would be trying to protect. It was about a century away. In the original timeline no-one knew it was dangerous to Romulus until it actually happened, otherwise they'd have been ready for it. How likely is he to be hailed a hero if he turns up, collapses a star that doesn't seem to be causing anyone any problems just yet, then goes off to Romulus and says 'hi, I've come from a hundred years in your future where that star blew up and destroyed this whole planet'? He has an advantage: he knows when it's going to happen. If he's going to be a hero he needs to step up at the right time or else he'll be locked up as a madman and his ship stripped down.

[Jeff Root]

And I don't buy the blinded by rage bit.
I do. Human behavior is guided more by habit and emotion than it
is by reason. Why should Romulan behavior be different?



They had decades to think it over. If he was that utterly, totally,
mad, I would expect that the crew would at least try to take over.
Not "utterly, totally, mad". Only as mad as you or I would be if we
saw Earth destroyed. Or as the German and Russian people were
when they saw their economies being destroyed by Jews, or as
Islamic fundamentalists were when they saw their culture being
destroyed by Americans. There are many other examples, several
in the news just in the last week.

The Star Trek script wasn't written in a cultural vacuum.



They are more emotional than Vulcans, but they aren't supposed to
be crazy idiots.
My neighbor just trashed his own apartment out of anger at his
significant other. Not rational, obviously, but he is neither crazy
nor an idiot, as far as I can tell. Just very, very unhappy.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Swift]

<snip>
Or as the German and Russian people were
when they saw their economies being destroyed by Jews, or as
Islamic fundamentalists were when they saw their culture being
destroyed by Americans.
I'm not going to discuss the specifics, but this is bound to be inflamatory. Let's leave such comments out, particularly in a Star Trek discussion. Thanks.

[Jeff Root]

History and recent history. Nothing more than that, Swift. Events which
probably directly drove the plot of the film. To leave out comments on
such events would be a travesty against history, in my opinion. While it
has the potential to be inflammatory, it certainly isn't bound to be so.
I certainly don't want it to inflame anyone or any thing. It is just history.
We have to live with it, not ignore it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Van Rijn]

You still assume that he must have gone there right away.


No, I don't. However, I do expect that if he intended to save Romulus that there would be a good explanation for why he was waiting to do so. A good explanation would be something better than "he's crazy!"


The supernova wasn't 'impending' in any meaningful sense to the people he would be trying to protect.


It certainly was "impending." A supernova doesn't just happen. With today's science, we would know if there was a nearby well evolved star that was likely to develop into a supernova relatively soon. We wouldn't know if it was going to happen tomorrow, or in 50,000 years, but we would know about the danger.



It was about a century away. In the original timeline no-one knew it was dangerous to Romulus until it actually happened, otherwise they'd have been ready for it.


They would have known it was dangerous. There was no indication in the movie that Romulus would have been ready for it if they had known the exact date of the supernova. The attempted solution was a last-ditch Federation effort with major input from Vulcan.



How likely is he to be hailed a hero if he turns up, collapses a star that doesn't seem to be causing anyone any problems just yet, then goes off to Romulus and says 'hi, I've come from a hundred years in your future where that star blew up and destroyed this whole planet'?


Again, they would already know the star was dangerous and he had the advanced technology to give to Romulus (or not - he could be a conquering hero).

[Jason Thompson]

No, I don't. However, I do expect that if he intended to save Romulus that there would be a good explanation for why he was waiting to do so. A good explanation would be something better than "he's crazy!"

There are plenty of good explanations, two of which I have already offered. He wants to punish Spock, but doesn't know exactly when he'll arrive, while he knows exactly how long he has until Romulus is directly threatened. So he doesn't want to miss Spock, and he can turn up just in the nick of time and guarantee his hero status by saving Romulus at the 11th hour.


Again, they would already know the star was dangerous and he had the advanced technology to give to Romulus (or not - he could be a conquering hero).

Why would he want to conquer Romulus? He shows no such desires at any point in the movie.

It seems to me that you are constructing a series of events that he 'should' have taken, but I see no reason why your expectations of a fictional character's motivation are any more or less valid than mine. Why shouldn't he be waiting to step in at just the right time, given his knowledge of the exact date of Romulus's destruction?

I still want to know why that ship was carrying so much red matter though.... :)

[Van Rijn]

There are plenty of good explanations, two of which I have already offered.


And I already discussed problems with those explanations. Ultimately, it comes down to "he's crazy!"


He wants to punish Spock, but doesn't know exactly when he'll arrive, while he knows exactly how long he has until Romulus is directly threatened. So he doesn't want to miss Spock, and he can turn up just in the nick of time and guarantee his hero status by saving Romulus at the 11th hour.


If he wanted to save Romulus, he would wait for Spock, because that's where he would get the means to save Romulus. However, if he cared, he probably would warn Romulus. But as previously noted, if he had had any intention of saving Romulus, he gave no indication of it.


Why would he want to conquer Romulus? He shows no such desires at any point in the movie.


:wall: I'm not saying he would. I'm saying he could have. This is part of a discussion going back to one of your previous statements:


He also now has the added bonus that he can cripple his people's main adversaries and not only save Romulus in this timeline but create a situation that allows the empire to become the dominant political force in the galaxy.

And I pointed out ways he could make Romulus the dominant political force in the galaxy. Of course, all those methods start with saving Romulus from its doom.



Why shouldn't he be waiting to step in at just the right time, given his knowledge of the exact date of Romulus's destruction?


I think we're going in circles. This is another item I already answered. One more time: It's extremely dangerous to wait and would serve no advantage. By the end of the movie, he was dead, the means to save Romulus was gone, and with Vulcan gone, it was unclear the capability could be recreated in this timeline to attempt to save Romulus. By his actions, he likely doomed Romulus.

HE SHOULD HAVE SAVED ROMULUS FIRST. FAILING THAT, HE SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED WHY HE WASN'T SAVING ROMULUS FIRST. Not doing either of those things was bad story telling.



I still want to know why that ship was carrying so much red matter though.... :)

You'll have to ask the writers about that.

[Derek the Geek]

O.K..you know you're a geek when you join a forum for the express purpose of joining in a Star Trek discussion, lol.

Just wanted to point out why Nero didn't take the Red Matter directly to Romulus instead of waiting for Spock, which seems to be the main point of contention here.

Simply put, he didn't have the Red Matter.

He waited for Spock and captured him as Spock left the wormhole. The aforementioned Red Matter was on Spock's ship, as is clearly shown in the movie. Several times Spock's ship is shown in the hold of the Romulan ship. The Red Matter is aboard it in it's "containment" chamber. It is still aboard when "young Spock" steals the ship.

As for the other parts of "Bad Science"....it's a movie, not a thesis. It's entertainment, not theory.

... hmmm, just why was there so much Red Matter....?

[Van Rijn]

O.K..you know you're a geek when you join a forum for the express purpose of joining in a Star Trek discussion, lol.

Just wanted to point out why Nero didn't take the Red Matter directly to Romulus instead of waiting for Spock, which seems to be the main point of contention here.


No, the debate (well, one of the debates :) ) is over what Nero did with it once he had it. As I said in my previous post, "If he wanted to save Romulus, he would wait for Spock, because that's where he would get the means to save Romulus." Once he had the red matter, if he cared about the fate of the now existing Romulus, I would expect him to collapse the soon-to-be supernova first, and do whatever else he wanted to do after that.

[Van Rijn]

O.K..you know you're a geek when you join a forum for the express purpose of joining in a Star Trek discussion, lol.


Oh, I forgot to welcome you in the last post. Take a look around, you might find other things you find interesting on the site.

[Buzz-Lite-Punch]

A quote from Star Trek the Man Trap season 1

Vulcan, has no moon Mrs Uhura.
I’m not surprised Mr. Spock as Nero blew it up with red matter!

[Buttercup]

Young Spock, get out of my mind!
My love for you is way out of line
better run Spock --
you're much TOO young Spock! :p :lol:

I *loved* the scenes of he and Uhura kissing. I wanted to say, "Next!" :D

[solomarineris]

Wait, we do? Oh, I am sooooo not watching that movie.
Last time I went to that movie it was strictly for entertainment purposes; what is your beef?
It was well done, acting was great. (Even Phil Plait, SGU guys liked it).
Granted the story was dumb.

[Gillianren]

Granted the story was dumb.

You've found my beef.

[Tuckerfan]

You've found my beef.Its a good beef to have, IMHO. I've seen the film (and did not put a dime in Paramount's pockets to do it, BTW), and they certainly had the elements to make a workable film, but what showed up on the screen was not, IMHO. Even if you hand wave away the things the film got wrong (Vulcan having a moon, Chekov being born several years before Nero showed up in the past, even though in TOS Chekov's age was such that he would have been born years after Nero appeared, etc., etc., etc.) its not a good film.

For example, Nero did something for 25 years after he found himself in Kirk's time. What, we don't know (though him ending up on a Klingon prison planet supposedly wound up on the cutting room floor), but he did not just hang out in one spot and wait for Spock to show up. (Right before Spock appears, one of the Romulans on Nero's ship says, "We're at the coordinates, sir.") Bear in mind, that Nero had a ship which was 200 years more advanced than anything in the Federation/Romulan/Klingon fleets. He could have ripped the galaxy apart and propped himself up in charge of it all fairly quickly (think what would have happened if a modern US aircraft carrier found itself parked outside of New York harbor on July 5, 1776). That's just one of the glaring plotholes in the film.

I will say some things in favor of the film. The size of starship crews was more realistic (800 on the small ship that Kirk's father was on, given that modern US warships hold that many or more, this makes more sense than the 400 of TOS), and the ships moved in three dimensions. They swung around, dove, twisted, and spun, instead of just coming at one another on the same plane, as they tended to do in previous incarnation of Trek. The cast was also pretty good, with some of them managing to capture the right elements of the original characters by the end of the film. (I did keep expecting Simon Pegg to be forced to shoot his mother, however. ;))

Its going to be interesting to see the reaction of folks who loved the film on the big screen, when they pick it up on DVD. I have a feeling that a significant portion of them are going to have the same reaction to it that a friend of mine did to Tim Burton's Batman when he watched it on video, "You know, this looked pretty cool in the theater, but watching it on TV, you realize it kind of sucks." (He said that less than 10 minutes into his first VHS viewing of the film. :D)

There's a real lack of depth to the characters in the new film. I've seen TWoK enough times to have the dialogue memorized, and I still pull new elements out of them based on the interaction of the characters. As I've grown older, I've found Kirk's wrestling with his mortality, that of his friends, and a son who neither knows who is, nor cares, to be more relevant to my life. How many of the kids seeing NuTrek today, will keep going back to it, decades after they first watched it, and identifying more and more with the characters in it?