Lady
Ensign
[ss:Federation]
Posts: 69
|
Post by Lady on Dec 5, 2009 12:54:25 GMT -6
What I didn't understand is why Nero just didn't kill the enterprise crew with Kirk as captain instead of making so many changes in the passed.
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Dec 5, 2009 13:20:17 GMT -6
He was mad and went for the first target that appeared which was the Kelvin which led to the incident at Vulcan which was revenge for Romulus. Also because of the Kelvin, Kirk was ready for him and he wasn't Captain when Nero left for Earth.
|
|
Lady
Ensign
[ss:Federation]
Posts: 69
|
Post by Lady on Dec 5, 2009 13:28:28 GMT -6
Thanks Arkroyal.
|
|
Dax123
Commander
[ss:NX-01]
Posts: 1,207
|
Post by Dax123 on Dec 7, 2009 12:47:53 GMT -6
His charecter really, really scared me!!
|
|
|
Post by andrewlee on Dec 7, 2009 13:46:50 GMT -6
Nero was a madman bent on blind vengeance!! The name of the character was a good choice as the real Nero was an insanely evil emperor of Rome!!
|
|
|
Post by trelane on Dec 7, 2009 14:42:05 GMT -6
Nero was a madman bent on blind vengeance!! The name of the character was a good choice as the real Nero was an insanely evil emperor of Rome!! Excellent point! I hadn't considered that, so great input
|
|
|
Post by andrewlee on Dec 7, 2009 16:19:32 GMT -6
Nero was a madman bent on blind vengeance!! The name of the character was a good choice as the real Nero was an insanely evil emperor of Rome!! Excellent point! I hadn't considered that, so great input Thanks TrElanE !! I almost immediately saw the insanity in common with both the Romulan Captain and the former Roman emperor!! Mad obsession, violence, murder, and so on!!
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Dec 7, 2009 21:03:39 GMT -6
Oh yes, I remember on the CD one of the tracks is called "Nero Fiddles, Narada Burns" obviously referencing the Roman Emperor Nero who was rumoured to have played his fiddle as Rome burnt around him. (Though actually it was a lyre since fiddles hadn't yet reached Rome and one historical account puts him in Antium at the time and his performing with the lyre was just a rumour)
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Dec 10, 2009 9:21:54 GMT -6
I always thought that meant "fiddling around" as in wasting time, not do much of anything. But of course, various cartoons took it literally, which is why that image is so funny.
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Dec 31, 2009 1:48:21 GMT -6
I really dont get it. The movie was set before the original series and all of the rest and in the movie vulcan was suppsoadly destroyed. But in future original series epsiosodes and tng episodes vulcun is shown i dont get it! Can anyone shed some light for me? Spock explained it himself in the movie. I don't understand why people keep saying the new movie was set in an alternate timeline. The reality is: the new movie was set in the prime timeline. The point of divergence between the prime universe and the new universe created by Nero's entrance into it was on the day of Kirk's birth. Nero had not traveled back in time so the point that really diverged the two timelines was Nero's presence in it. Basically, it works like this: We have the prime timeline in which the forty-plus years of Star Trek existed, from the time of Archer's Enterprise to the time of Janeway's Voyager, plus all the futures we were treated to in various episodes (for instance, in Enterprise we actually got a glimpse into the 26th century, I believe it was). That universe continues and will exist as we knew it. However, Nero's presence in the 23rd century at the point of Kirk's birth created an alternate universe -- a divergence from the universe we knew. Even if Nero hadn't killed Kirk's father and destroyed Vulcan, his presence alone would have established an alternate timeline -- one in which Nero had come back through time and one in which he *hadn't* come back in time. That one in which he hadn't come back would be the prime universe, the universe we knew before the film. However, Nero's presence created an alternate timeline and everything that occurred by Nero coming back through time (i.e. destroying the Kelvan, killing Kirk's father, destroying Vulcan, Spock coming back through time, etc) all occurred in the new, divergent timeline. The prime timeline continued on as it would have had Nero not come back. Hopefully this explains it a bit better and wasn't just senseless rambling. lol
|
|
|
Post by andrewlee on Dec 31, 2009 8:55:27 GMT -6
I really dont get it. The movie was set before the original series and all of the rest and in the movie vulcan was suppsoadly destroyed. But in future original series epsiosodes and tng episodes vulcun is shown i dont get it! Can anyone shed some light for me? Spock explained it himself in the movie. I don't understand why people keep saying the new movie was set in an alternate timeline. The reality is: the new movie was set in the prime timeline. The point of divergence between the prime universe and the new universe created by Nero's entrance into it was on the day of Kirk's birth. Nero had not traveled back in time so the point that really diverged the two timelines was Nero's presence in it. Basically, it works like this: We have the prime timeline in which the forty-plus years of Star Trek existed, from the time of Archer's Enterprise to the time of Janeway's Voyager, plus all the futures we were treated to in various episodes (for instance, in Enterprise we actually got a glimpse into the 26th century, I believe it was). That universe continues and will exist as we knew it. However, Nero's presence in the 23rd century at the point of Kirk's birth created an alternate universe -- a divergence from the universe we knew. Even if Nero hadn't killed Kirk's father and destroyed Vulcan, his presence alone would have established an alternate timeline -- one in which Nero had come back through time and one in which he *hadn't* come back in time. That one in which he hadn't come back would be the prime universe, the universe we knew before the film. However, Nero's presence created an alternate timeline and everything that occurred by Nero coming back through time (i.e. destroying the Kelvan, killing Kirk's father, destroying Vulcan, Spock coming back through time, etc) all occurred in the new, divergent timeline. The prime timeline continued on as it would have had Nero not come back. Hopefully this explains it a bit better and wasn't just senseless rambling. lol I have posted a few things like this before, but not in the detail you have!
|
|
|
Post by christianjames on Dec 31, 2009 13:06:46 GMT -6
i absolutly agree here, all the trek we know and love is still in tacked and hopefuly one day they will pick up from the end of voyager and continue on the 'prime' timeline. ur right, the new movie has forked off on another timeline unfortunatly, meaning that a lot of star trek watchers will dismiss it. my only niggle is that the producers are going to continue on this forked off timeline for a few years to come so basically we now have two different universes to keep track of and i really do hope that one day they meet again!
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Dec 31, 2009 23:36:38 GMT -6
Spock explained it himself in the movie. I don't understand why people keep saying the new movie was set in an alternate timeline. The reality is: the new movie was set in the prime timeline. The point of divergence between the prime universe and the new universe created by Nero's entrance into it was on the day of Kirk's birth. Nero had not traveled back in time so the point that really diverged the two timelines was Nero's presence in it. Basically, it works like this: We have the prime timeline in which the forty-plus years of Star Trek existed, from the time of Archer's Enterprise to the time of Janeway's Voyager, plus all the futures we were treated to in various episodes (for instance, in Enterprise we actually got a glimpse into the 26th century, I believe it was). That universe continues and will exist as we knew it. However, Nero's presence in the 23rd century at the point of Kirk's birth created an alternate universe -- a divergence from the universe we knew. Even if Nero hadn't killed Kirk's father and destroyed Vulcan, his presence alone would have established an alternate timeline -- one in which Nero had come back through time and one in which he *hadn't* come back in time. That one in which he hadn't come back would be the prime universe, the universe we knew before the film. However, Nero's presence created an alternate timeline and everything that occurred by Nero coming back through time (i.e. destroying the Kelvan, killing Kirk's father, destroying Vulcan, Spock coming back through time, etc) all occurred in the new, divergent timeline. The prime timeline continued on as it would have had Nero not come back. Hopefully this explains it a bit better and wasn't just senseless rambling. lol I have posted a few things like this before, but not in the detail you have! Thank you. I'm nothing if not a stickler for detail. And christianjames, I absolutely agree that I wish they had continued on after Voyager in the prime timeline, and would love it if they would again. However, it seems very unlikely as the producers seem to be interested in the Trek reboot. As much as we would all love it to happen, I think it unlikely they will ever revisit the prime timeline. Sad to say, I think we're stuck in this alternate timeline.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Jan 2, 2010 9:21:50 GMT -6
I don't understand why people keep saying the new movie was set in an alternate timeline. The reality is: the new movie was set in the prime timeline... No, it is not. It is set in an alternate timeline that Nero created by time travel -- exactly the way YOU explained it. That's why we call it an alternate timeline. Because this movie is not set in the Prime timeline, nothing that happens there is of any interest to me (any more than I was interested in what happened in the Mirror Universe in the ENT episode "In a Mirror Darkly.") I hope that explains my position. Now I'm going back to my promise not to say any more bad things about the movie. If you guys enjoyed it, that's great.
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 2, 2010 15:19:10 GMT -6
I don't understand why people keep saying the new movie was set in an alternate timeline. The reality is: the new movie was set in the prime timeline... No, it is not. It is set in an alternate timeline that Nero created by time travel -- exactly the way YOU explained it. That's why we call it an alternate timeline. Because this movie is not set in the Prime timeline, nothing that happens there is of any interest to me (any more than I was interested in what happened in the Mirror Universe in the ENT episode "In a Mirror Darkly.") I hope that explains my position. Now I'm going back to my promise not to say any more bad things about the movie. If you guys enjoyed it, that's great. Oops, sorry. I meant "alternate universe", as if the "prime timeline" and the new timeline were never interconnected. They are definitely alternate timelines, but set in the same universe. But hey, you have a right to your opinions just like we do.
|
|