ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Thoughts about Vulcan being destroyed in the new movie?

Report this
Created by: picard_2305


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 168

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 12:53 am

What are your thoughts on this decison?

Who am I to argue with the captain of the Enterprise?


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 168

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 12:55 am

I despised the decision to destroy Vulcan, one part of the fim I was truly unhappy with. 

However, since it's a parallel universe I treat it no different than Quark being killed in "Crossover", he is still there in the prime universe.

But still not a decision I was happy with.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 168

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 3:52 am

I won't deny that it was a brave choice.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 32043

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 4:16 am

So much of Vulcan was Star Trek it is going to be a very different universe


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 7:13 am

I don't understand what's to "hate." I never have. It's a movie. Decisions are made by writers to create drama and tension in movies. That's the way things are. People die, disasters happen, tragedy is real.

I'm glad. It was a bold statement that Trek isn't going to wallow in its own conservative "play it safe" zone any more.


Why are fans always so bull$#!t about this kind of stuff?

Spock dies? Letter writing campaign!!!

Enterprise self-destructs? Boycott!!


Data dies? LYNCH THE #$%& who wrote this!!


Do we REALLY want Trek to just be this safe, stagnant little world that you can keep in a jar and things never change?




GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1142

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 8:33 am

The Vulcans better start humping more often than once every seven years


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 9:35 am

It really didn't have to happen. It was a cheap 30 second shocker that will have lasting repercussions on every movie or tv show developed that takes place in this new universe. Wasn't it enough that they killed Spock's mom? Did they really have to do in the whole planet? I think it was a bit over the top. No, it was alot  over the top.


GROUP: Members


Report this Feb. 25 2011, 10:00 am

I kept thinking that when Nero got sucked back into the vortex that it would reset the timeline.  Kind of a "Back to the Future" fix.  

You can't believe it happened, then boom Nero goes back through, and you flash back to the opening scene. The USS Kelvin reporting to star fleet command a rift in space appeared, but then disappeared without incident.  Cut to sickbay for the birth of JTK.



GROUP: Members

POSTS: 601

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 10:09 am

hated it, just like I hated the movie


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 10:56 am

Hated it, but what's done is done. I hope JJ or whomever is able to draw a good story from that well otherwise it was just a cheap trick. I'm not a ST Canon-nite disciple (so it has been written/filmed so it shall forever be done), but I can admit the destruction of Vulcan did not sit well with me.

Also (to the person who joked about it), Vulcans can have sex whenever they want. They must do it every seven years, not they ONLY do it every seven years. So yes, there will be much LOGICAL, um, congress amongst the survivors.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 11:00 am

it certainly shakes things up

We welcome refugees! click on the image


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 11:26 am

I have yet to see an answer that explains "WHY" people were so against it? Why is it so unthinkable and "over the top?" Why is it a "cheap gag?" How is killing Spock, Kirk, Data, the original Enterprise, and the Enterprise-D not a cheap gag in comparison.


I still don't get why it matters or what it is about it that torques people off so much. So what? The Trek universe as we know it is different now. I don't understand why that is such a bad thing. Is it simply because you've allowed yourself to be over-invested in something? Is it because you have a pre-existing believe about the way things SHOULD be?


I've been a Trek fan my entire life, and it didn't bother me. I mean, did it create an emotional reaction? Yes. Did it make me want to thrash about uncontrollably and wish ill upon the writers? No. I'm trying to figure out why so many other people seem to disagree. I can't get my head wrapped around it.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 461

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 11:40 am

It was just to try to get fans to react, it worked but not in the WOW what are the federation going to do now, it, it wasn't even sad, it just piss of alot of people, it lacked Tactic, it was done in a rush, which not only was useless to the movie, but left the movie with a sour taste.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 11:58 am

I wish this poll had more choices.

I didn't hate the destruction of Vulcan in the new movie.  "Hate" implies that this plot point ruined the movie or at least was an unendurable part of the movie, and I don't feel that way.  I liked the movie, I enjoyed the scenes involving Vulcan's destruction (to the extent and in the way that people enjoy fictional disasters), and I don't think this plot development has ruined the franchise or ruined stories told in this alternate time line.

However, I think the movie would have been better had Vulcan not been destroyed.  I just didn't think that the planet's destruction was consequential enough to the larger plot of the movie to warrant such a big disaster.  Basically, the destruction of Vulcan was included to show that Nero meant business and that this new time line is different from the other one--at least that's my opinion--and that seems like too overtly artificial a reason to write in some tragedy.

People often suggest that a movie should include significant unpleasant events to keep things exciting, to avoid becoming stale and predictable, but cataclysmic disasters and tragedies have almost become the predictable formula for movies in a long running franchise.  Certainly, in the case of Star Trek, we've had Spock's death, the destruction of the Enterprise, Kirk's death AND the destruction of the Enterprise, Data's death, and now Vulcan's destruction.  Out of the 11 movies, almost half of them have included some tragedy or disaster (presumably) meant to shake things up.  I liked all the movies to which I've alluded, and I thought that some of the deaths and disasters in those movies were well done.  But I'm also impressed when writers can deliver a fun, exciting, entertaining movie without resorting to the "tragedy and disaster" formula.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Feb. 25 2011, 12:19 pm

Vger, no one is losing sleep over the destruction of a fictional planet. Well, most folks aren't. Some people who post leave me wondering about their mental well-being.


But since you asked for it, and GAH I am loathe to go there, it was the one plot device where I have to agree with some ST09 critics who called it a SW-ification of ST.

Vulcan = Alderaan

At least the Emperor met his political objectives (temporarily) LOL. Nero accomplished nothing but hurting Spock. Meanwhile, 100+ years later the Romulan star is STILL going to megasuperuberextranova. Fail, Nero, fail.


Having said all of that, I still love the movie. I intend on seeing the next one. And I have no expectation that made up characters, and the people who create them, must adhere to my ideas and wants.

It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: OneDamnMinuteAdmiral, CO_Fowler

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum