VaBeachGuy

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Phase...ShockwaveII.jpg

That's not a turret, that's a cannon (specifically a phase cannon). A turret is an enclosure that contains guns (or cannons) and in most cases their crews that man them. Not all turrets have to contain a turret crew, some turrets on WWII planes were small and were operated by a gunner inside the plane (I'm specifically thinking of the B-29).

What you're showing in the link above would be more akin to the cannons being brought out on a Galleon to prepare for battle.

I honestly can't think of any Federation ship that has turrets. DS9 had turrets but that's Cardassian in design. I could be mistaken or just forgetting a specific Federation ship that had turrets, but I can't think of any.

The Kelvin had a lot of such turrets and had a lot more firepower (in terms of how many phasers could be fired at once, not the strength of the phasers) than other ships we have seen. As far as we know Starfleet hadn't experimented with full automation until the M5 project and even Scotty was still working the bugs out in TSFS. It seems likely to me that at least some of the turrets would have to be maned if the goal is maximum firepower. The targeting computers of the time wouldn't be fast enough to keep all turrets engaged.

What came to my mind after reading this (the part about automation) was "Balance of Terror", the specific sequence I'm thinking of is when Kirk is calling down to Phaser control to fire but they've all been overcome by a gas leak of some sort and can't fire, so there didn't seem to be any automation in the weapons systems in TOS. There was the requirement for a crewman to actually take steps to fire the weapons.

Star Trek The Motion Picture isn't really a bad movie, it has a decent story and excellent sci-fi themes. It's problem is that it is trying too hard to be this epic movie and in the process messes up its pacing. It's good but too long.

I agree, it's not a bad movie. I think everyone is just used to more action from a Star Trek movie after the last 10 that came out. Thinking back though the movie was epic... to me anyway. Of course I was 10 at the time and this was the first time I'd watched a "brand new" Star Trek that I actually understood and could comprehend. I say that because I did see three episodes in first run ( The Savage Curtain, All Our Yesterdays and Turnabout Intruder) even if only in little glimpses since I was just an infant lol. My father always made a point to tell me as I was growing up though that he made sure that I was there and at least pointed at the TV while they were on (same with the landing of Apollo 11 and Elvis Presley music).

I've always wondered if those things "imprinted" on my mind because I grew up a huge Elvis fan, a huge Star Trek fan (obviously) and the Apollo program has fascinated ever since I was a baby.

Anyway, back on topic... while it may seem slow and boring now we have to remember that without Star Trek The Motion Picture there wouldn't be 4 more series and 10 more movies for us to enjoy, love, hate or argue over.

It may be at the bottom of the list of Star Trek movies now but when it came out it was a huge deal and a big hit.

He was The Cowboy in "InnerSpace" too.

I know, Kevin. You've never sugarcoated your distaste. I just thought it'd be amusing to kill your joke with some trivia.

 

Although, I find that even with the most awful, awful artists, there's usually at least ONE song by that artist that I can tolerate or even like. Except modern mainstream country artists. They irritate me to no end. I also thought at one point you said you don't mind the Sgt. Pepper and later stuff, since that wasn't as "Cotton Candy" as their earlier stuff.

 

Just make sure to add "For Martha" to your iTunes. lol

There are a few songs that I can 'tolerate', heck growing up in the 70's with no record player of my own and having to listen to my brothers play their Beatles albums (yes kids, that's before CD's lol) there'd have to be a few that I'd be able to tolerate. If forced to pick a Beatles song that I'd classify as my 'favorite' it'd probably be "Help".

Now keep in mind that when I describe having to listen to my brothers Beatles albums, I'm not just talking about listening to them forward. I had to listen to them backwards too! lol "Paul is dead now... Paul is dead now...." "Turn me on dead man... Turn me on dead man.... "

I'l have to watch it again, but I thought Spock Prime's ship and all the red matter on it had been destroyed when young Spock rammed it into the Narada. Even if it wasn't, Spock Prime's ship was built for a specific mission - and engaging a much larger ship wasn't it. (Heck, I'm surprised the Vulcan designers bothered to outfit it with weapons in the first place.)

I had forgotten that the ship was destroyed, but none the less he could still time travel with the technology of the day in order to get back and correct what the writers screwed up.

There's any number of ways that it could be done, he could travel back far enough in time to kill Nero's great-great grandfather and thus no Nero. He could travel backward in time and use green matter to close the space-time rift that was created by the red matter. Or he could use blue matter to render the Narada's weapons inoperable thus allowing the destruction of the ship. After all why not come up with silly solutions to solve something caused by a silly invention of "red matter"?

I thought blue matter only affects Bizarro Nero.

No, that's purple matter.

Capt. Janeway has the right idea. Don't start messing with time travel.

 

I do wish the writers would stop with the whole-- let's use the "change "time"" crutch to write movies..

 

All is still possible- if Star Trek writers merge the two concepts of time together-- both the linear concept & string theory. Sorta like Light( Both particle and wave properties- simultaneously co-existing).

 

I think they could have written us a Star Trek movie without the need for L. Nimoy or time travel.

 

But, what we got is what we got. We got to live with it.

 

How about the inside shots of the Enterprise? I actually liked the "wide open" industrial look myself for most of the interior scenes.. I especially like they fixed the hallways..( expecially getting rid of the Wood grain panels that was used at the ceiling( at intervals)... and I liked all the piping. though I doubt you could use water to cool anti-matter warp engines.. and kinda strange the NX-01 looks more "advanced" than this-- Hmmm, Enterprise Class???? NCC-1701. Pike did say it was their Newest Starship. ( Which this change is totally Sucky--) But without claiming that-- they'd have to use the old Previous story of a Enterprise undergoing a--REFIT... which would have worked for me.

 

The Bridge... Naa, I would have preferred a dressed up-date of the classic design, maybe minus the funky colors( forerunner to the Orange Marmalade countertops( circ 1970's) kitchens.

 

And where were the Mini-Skirts!!! Ya can't have a TOS Movie without explaining the mini-skirt (female) uniforms!

Personally I didn't like the new ship sets, it wasn't something that I'd "hate" the movie over but I just think it'd have been really cool to have the same set design from the real Star Trek in this movie. They could have done it and it would have worked just fine without throwing out what the real Enterprise looked like. They were able to pull it off in TNG, DS9 and Enterprise so there's no reason they couldn't have done it in this movie. But I understand that they (the writers and director) were wanting to throw out everything that was Star Trek so they could design their version of what they thought it should be.

No he can't. The technology of the day cannot defeat the Narada. The most advanced Federation starship (presumably) would have been taken out with two shots or thereabouts (took one, couldn't take another).

I didn't say anything about defeating the Narada.

How else do you propose preventing the perceived changes in the timeline? Spock Prime couldn't go forward, because he would traveling to the future of this timeline, a future with no Vulcan and thus the events that led the Narada and Spock Prime to travel back would not occur. And if he goes backwards to create another timeline similar to the prime one, he would have to defeat the Narada. There's no way around that.

 

He's stuck in the alternate timeline. He cannot change that.

There's any number of ways that it could be done, he could travel back far enough in time to kill Nero's great-great grandfather and thus no Nero. He could travel backward in time and use green matter to close the space-time rift that was created by the red matter. Or he could use blue matter to render the Narada's weapons inoperable thus allowing the destruction of the ship. After all why not come up with silly solutions to solve something caused by a silly invention of "red matter"?

Or he could time travel backward in time reversing what has happened then forward in time to a point before Nero goes back in time and prevent Romulus from being destroyed thereby preventing Nero from being thrown back in time to cause the damage that was done. Remember, throughout modern Trek it's always been said that time travel can't be fully understood and that there are actions and reactions that can't be predicted. Of course that's a way of keeping all possibilities open for the writers and in reality (in my opinion) time travel isn't possible. So good writers (not the jokers that we're stuck with at the present) can write good stories to fix what bad writers screwed up.

Besides, if the Federation was able to fend off the Borg there's no way you'll convince me that with the proper warning they couldn't fend off Nero. A large enough fleet of Federation ships (Vulcan, Human and Andorian) would indeed be able to defeat that one ship. It wasn't invincible.

The whole situation is the result of piss poor writing by writers that shouldn't have been employed to write a Star Trek movie and that's truly a shame. There was so much potential and with the way they wrote this movie they blew it.

No he can't. The technology of the day cannot defeat the Narada. The most advanced Federation starship (presumably) would have been taken out with two shots or thereabouts (took one, couldn't take another).

I didn't say anything about defeating the Narada.

The main part that I dislike and suggest is antithetical to the past 40+ years of Star Trek is the part where old Spock just sort of shrugs off the destruction of Vulcan as if it's no big deal... "cest la vie".

 

The point where as a Federation ambassador he had a duty and responsibility to 'fix' things was at the end of the movie when he gets his future ship back and can then take action or at the very least TRY to fix things. You know... the "good of the many" and all that stuff? Having Spock just walk off into the sunset after such an event just isn't Star Trek.

Um, he didn't get the Jellyfish back. It crashed into the Narada and the red matter detonated. Actually, that right there is why he can't change anything even if he wanted to. The Narada was only defeated with red matter. Without that, every possible ship in the era that Spock currently finds himself in is vastly outmatched by the Narada. We don't know if he can create red matter with the current level of technology, but I'm willing to bet it would be difficult, even if it is possible. It could take a lot more time than Spock has.

I had forgotten that the ship was destroyed, but none the less he could still time travel with the technology of the day in order to get back and correct what the writers screwed up.

Scotty could have mentioned it in an unseen TOS moment. At any rate, both he and Kirk had no choice but to seek out the station, Scotty or no Scotty.

 

And I'm not the one who said old Spock had no other option. He had competing priorities that were unachievable with his *limited* options, so he did the best he could.

If it had been that Scotty had mentioned it in an unseen TOS moment then Spock wouldn't have been surprised to see him there, and yes you weren't the one that said he had no options but your reply was to my reply to that statement. So I was kind of agreeing that Spock did indeed have options. At this point in the movie, his options are indeed limited but there were options.

The main part that I dislike and suggest is antithetical to the past 40+ years of Star Trek is the part where old Spock just sort of shrugs off the destruction of Vulcan as if it's no big deal... "cest la vie".

The point where as a Federation ambassador he had a duty and responsibility to 'fix' things was at the end of the movie when he gets his future ship back and can then take action or at the very least TRY to fix things. You know... the "good of the many" and all that stuff? Having Spock just walk off into the sunset after such an event just isn't Star Trek.

Or I could just take that comment in the spirit intended and snidely, but jokingly, retort by calling you a heretic.

I don't hide the fact that I greatly dislike the Beatles, always have and always will. I grew up with 2 brothers that were huge fans, I've heard every Beatles song ever made but I don't like them. If I have an oldies station on and the very rare occasion happens that they play a Beatles song, it gets turned off within the first few notes.

For all we know he was probably on his way to see Scotty already when Kirk and the big, scary monster things caught his attention. The arrival of Kirk changed his methodology somewhat.

Well that would seem to negate the notion that he's "staying out of way because he has no other option", wouldn't it?

Of course even if he is on his way to the outpost, he would have no idea that Scotty was there.

I was being facetious of course. I still don't accept the whole concept of needing to alter the timeline nor do I accept the need to abandon some of the fundamental concepts that have been part of Star Trek going back to the first season of TOS and following through all the way to Enterprise. That fundamental concept is that any alterations to the timeline must be corrected. Spock, as a Federation ambassador and former member of Starfleet had a sworn duty to correct the damage that was done.

How?

 

He was pulled through the black hole at the same approximite time that Nero was. He rematerialized a generation later than Nero did, so Nero had all that time to plan Spock's capture. Perhaps Spock could have used his ship to engage Nero at that point, but he had no idea what had happened. Shooting first and asking questions later was never Spock's way. Very soon before the attack on Vulcan Nero separated Spock from his ship and left him stranded.

 

He might have been able to hook up with Scotty on the ice planet to somehow reverse things, and perhaps he was already en route to do that, but without a ship to travel back to pre-Kelvin time there was nothing either of them could do. Use the Enterprise? Possibly, but that would mean old Spock and young Spock meeting up in a different way which, at the time, old Spock was trying to avoid. He later changed his mind, and maybe the sequel will have old Spock, young Spock, Kirk, Scotty, going back in time and taking out Nero before engaging the Kelvin and restore the original timeline, but that is all speculation.

That's the thing, will they restore the timeline at some point? Right now we don't know but maybe in a couple of years we'll have that answer. As to how Spock could do it, I'm not suggesting that he come out firing. But at the end of the movie he seems content to just let things be and he's off to start a Vulcan colony for the 10,000 survivors.

At that point he has his future ship that he could then do a warp around the sun to travel back to the future (with Doc Brown?) and there fix the things that caused the problems to begin with. Will they do that in the next movie or something similar? I don't know, I doubt it because I have zero faith in these writers and this director but I hope so.

I don't know about mental stability, but she did seem less stable at times. Stable from a command standpoint, not a mental standpoint. For Janeway and Voyager fans, don't take that as an insult to her character. It was just the way she was written and for the most part it worked. If I had all of my Star Trek knowledge ahead of time and was given a choice to serve with Picard or Janeway though it'd probably be Picard.

Given a broader choice that included Sisko though, it'd be Sisko.

I kind of lost interest after T2, I think I saw T3 but couldn't really tell you about a single scene from it. Was Arnold in that one? I know he wasn't in this new one, but I really have no desire to even download this new one.

Yes, because giant carnivorous life-forms are such a stretch from reality. I mean, its not like this planet was once dominated by giant creatures. Some of which were carnivorous. Or as if there are no large carnivorous life-forms today.

 

And yes, the idea of a creature that appears monstrous but is actually understandable (like the Horta) is a great sci-fi concept, but the idea of a universe that is populated with only those types of creatures is not. It would be unrealistic to say there are no wild animals on any planet in the Star Trek universe. And as such, it is a good thing that they do exist and that some of them are dangerous (Mugatus, Ceti Eels, Hanonian land eels, sehlats, etc).

 

I would also like to point out that the two creatures in the movie are in fact, integral to the plot of the movie. If Kirk is not chased by them, he never meets Spock Prime (he is going away from him at the time) and he would not be able to prevent the destruction of Earth and stop Nero.

 

And while Star Trek is more reality-based than Star Wars or Lost in Space, it is not completely grounded in reality or real-world science.

The way it was done in this movie was cartoonish and lowers the intellectual level of Star Trek down to Lost In Space. Fan acceptance of such things and a seeming unwillingness to question the writers poor decisions is what will doom the franchise to death.

Star Trek has, for the most part been above such obvious acts has having giant scary space monsters scurrying around trying to eat the hero of the movie/episode. In my opinion it's just lowbrow and beneath Star Trek. As for the 2 scary space monsters being integral parts of the plot, that's simply due to a lack of creative imagination on the part of the writers. They could have written it in such a way that Darth Vader was an integral part of young Kirk meeting old Spock on the planet Hoth (after all Hoth does have giant scary monsters that try to eat heroes too). I just wish they had left it out or at least left it on the editing room floor. It was silly.

Spock is doing all he can. At first, he's marooned. He has no way of stopping Nero. He is complying with the only part of Temporal Prime Directive that he can: he's staying out of way because he has no other option. When he has the opportunity to minimize the changes to this timeline, he does take the opportunity to do so (by sending Kirk back to the Enterprise).

So, Spock is so intellectually and physically limited that he can do nothing until young and clueless Kirk shows up? Suddenly Spock can spring into action and do something? Scotty and the Federation outpost was there on the planet before Kirk got there and Spock knew it. Spock also knew that the timeline had been altered due to his actions. So why didn't he head out to the outpost before Kirk got there? Spock had no idea that Kirk would be showing up so as it seems, Spock was content to just let things be. Then Kirk shows up and he MUST do something. Not to save Vulcan and billions of Vulcans that didn't die before (as well as billions that were born before but now never will be) but just to get Kirk in command of the Enterprise and make "alternate" Kirk and Spock friends.

There were aspects of this movie that were just poorly written, either due to lazy writers or due to unimaginative writers (or both).

This is not the worst of the 11 movies but it's also not the best of them either, and that's assuming that you rank them with the other 10 as opposed to putting it into it's own category as a stand alone movie.

Actually, "Draxton's" name is Braxton. I very much enjoyed this episode.

I've been reading this again for the first time in a few years and every time I read it I'm struck with how interesting this book is. I again bump this and urge any Star Trek fan to get it and read about how it all came about.

The chapter (Chapter 4) about "The Cage" was very interesting to read, it wasn't a typical chapter where it's talking about production or back stage stuff. It's the original outline that Gene wrote for "The Cage" and it completely details the entire episode. In the original outline the "Keeper" and others of their race are "crab like" creatures with claws. Not the large headed aliens that we came to know from the actual episode.

The link in the first post here still works and still leads to the books, though some of them are quite high in price you can still find some for one cent (before shipping).

Cara, I see that no one answered your question on conversion rates on the price. Here's a conversion calculator: http://www.unitconversion.org/currency/us-...conversion.html

worse that a "Kirk eating Monster" that's non-reality based is a "planet/super-nova eating artifically produced black hole which dissipates after consuming it's Plot specified target on the one hand.... yet, will also allow certain spaceships to travel Through and emerge 100+ years in the past in different areas of the same galactic quad of the galaxy.

 

Also, anyone have an issue with Spock making such a silly little mistake-- like mis-calculating the rate of expansion of the super-nova and not saving Romulas in time? Usually he's pretty accurate at that sort of stuff.

Yeah, I had thought about the Spock thing. I chocked it up to the writers being knuckle heads and just deciding that it's "their way or no way" and they needed a "dumbed down, Starfleet regulation ignoring" Spock so that's what they wrote.

Well, firstly, I disagree about the need to alter the timeline. I'm not going to go into why but I think what was done was done for the right reasons and in the right way.

We'll just have to disagree on that point. I think it was done for the wrong reasons and was done in the wrong way and basically craps on 40+ years of Star Trek.

Secondly, not all alterations to the timeline have been corrected. In fact, Starfleet officers have deliberately attempted to "damage" the timeline in some instances, often successfully. Kirk and crew remove two whales and Gillian Taylor from 1986. Admiral Janeway travels back and changes her history so that Voyager gets home 16 years earlier. Chakotay and Kim prevent Voyager from crashing onto a Class-L planet. Jake Sisko and the surviving members of the DS9 crew attempt to prevent Ben Sisko from being pulled into subspace. None of these are attempts to "repair" the timeline.

While it could be suggested that bringing 2 humpback whales from 1986 to the future "alters" the timeline I would argue that that suggestion is out in left field and not in the same realm as what we're talking about in Star Trek (2009) so I don't equate that with this situation in the least. I have always had some question in my mind about the writers taking Gillian to the future but some of the writers/directors that they picked for the movies were knuckle heads anyway.

Talking about Janeway and Chakotay/Kim, in those instances did they do what they did with the full blessings of Starfleet or were they pursued as criminals for attempting to break the Temporal Prime Directive? Also in those situations, Janeway getting the crew home earlier and Kim/Chakotay saving Voyager from crashing suggests 1 timeline. Otherwise what does it matter if they do what they did or not? It's just another timeline out of countless trillions of possible timelines, right? Their actions alone suggest a single timeline that if altered affects everything and is not just something "alternate".

The DS9 crew didn't attempt to prevent Sisko from being pulled into subspace at all, their attempts were to rescue him from subspace many years after the fact. If they had been successful then Sisko would have began living in that time frame after spending decades inside subspace. No timeline alterations would have been made at all. In the end of that episode (The Visitor), elderly Jake realizes that that Ben has been sort of tethered to him for all these years and that if he (Jake) were to die while Ben was there with him then the tether would "break" and Ben would then be thrown back to the moment of the accident and he could then avoid the accident. Again, this episode supports a single timeline otherwise why worry about him getting back and avoiding the accident at all. In some other timeline there would be no accident at all.

The only inconsistency with your examples would be Star Trek IV with bringing Gillian back to the 23rd century, but there is support in TOS for allowing this to happen in "Tomorrow is Yesterday", the only reason Capt Christopher was sent back to his own time though was because they discovered that he had to father a son that would lead an important Earth/Saturn mission. Again, this supports a single timeline otherwise it wouldn't matter if Col Shawn Jeffery Christopher lead the probe or someone else. So why bother with the trouble of returning Capt Christopher to father that son in the first place?

Did Janeway alter the timeline? Did Chakotay and Kim alter it? Yes, and in those instances they were portrayed as a rogue element that was breaking Federation law and they knew that in doing it they were breaking the law (to alter a single timeline).

Of course, the notion that there is only one timeline that can be damaged and repaired is not necessarily correct. There are several Star Trek episodes which support the notion that there are in fact multiple possible timelines, most notably Mirror, Mirror (and all associated Mirror Universe episodes) and Parallels. The alien species of which Cosimo is a member as well as The Sphere Builders also have the ability to view multiple timelines. Therefore, the idea of only one timeline is inconsistent with what has been presented throughout Star Trek.

You're confusing the timeline with alternate universes. In Mirror, Mirror and all of the other Mirror Universe episodes it was never ever put forth as an alternate timeline. It is a completely alternate universe. Independent from "our" universe. The same is so with Parallels, it wasn't suggested that these different universes were alternate timelines but rather different realities that are taking place at the same time as our own. The 2 story devices (timeline vs. alternate universe) can be confusing but are completely different.

In fact, the example of time travel presented in Star Trek (2009) is not incompatible with how time travel has been presented in the rest of the franchise. Of course, there would have to be certain allowances made for it to work in some instances. Most notably, proximity of others to the object which causes one to travel through time (mostly back) causes them to experience the future of the alternate timeline created but not to change themselves. So, for instance, Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Scotty, and the two security guards are 'jumped' to the future of the alternate timeline created by McCoy saving Edith Keeler due to their proximity to the Guardian of Forever.

In my opinion, this movie is completely inconsistent with the way time travel has been presented throughout all of Star Trek. In this movie they completely alter the entire future of Star Trek and the future of TNG, DS9 and Voyager. The only series not altered (if these were true life) would be Enterprise because it happened before this movie.

Look at every instance of time travel in Star Trek, in City they had to make sure Edith was killed in order to correct the timeline... (The single timeline). Tomorrow is Yesterday, they had to return Christopher to protect the single timeline.

Yesterday's Enterprise, Guinan told Picard that this timeline could not continue, that it was wrong. The Enterprise C had to go back and be destroyed in order to fix the single timeline.

Time's Arrow, the Enterprise crew has to prevent an alien race from causing damage to Earth's past and protect the single timeline.

All Good Things... If Picard didn't figure out what was happening in the 3 different times of his life (past, present and future) then all of humanity would vanish from existence so the single timeline had to be fixed.

Past Tense, Sisko and Bashir had to insure that the Bell riots took place just as they did in reality in order to protect the single timeline. Even though that meant that Sisko had to pose as Bell in order to preserve all aspects of the (single) timeline.

Little Green Men, Quark wants to give Warp drive to the Ferengi of the 20th Century and Nog points out that if he did that then the (single) timeline would be altered.

Trials and Tribble-ations, the crew of the Defiant must find the bomb to save Capt Kirk lest the timeline be altered.

Children of Time, the Defiant must crash on a planet after being thrown 200 years into the past but "alternate" Odo prevents it from happening in order to save Kira thus altering the single timeline and erasing the survivors settlement on the planet.

Future's End, the crew of Voyager must stop Henry Starling from using the time ship and destroying the 29th Century solar system.

Relativity, the fact that the USS Relativity even exists supports the single timeline.

Enterprise Seasons 1-3 with it's Temporal Cold War and Daniels insistence that Archer survive because of how important he is to the future Federation all support a single timeline.

There's a lot more episodes but they all support a single timeline and the new movie is totally opposite from this concept.

This is just me talking here. It may not necessarily be the case but the case can be made. I've read, on another board, there could in fact be two distinctly different forms of time travel: Branch (jumping between realities) and Trunk (traveling within one timeline). However, it is not always straight forward as to which has been experienced.

 

Overall, throughout the franchise, Star Trek has never had solid rules as to how time travel functions (various methods and various impacts). Therefore, one cannot single out Star Trek (2009) as being inconsistent.

For the reasons I stated above I believe it's completely inconsistent. Now it could be argued that this new movie is in an alternate universe completely and therefore there are different 'rules'. This could be supported with the age difference of Chekov in fact. But they're not portraying it as a mirror universe movie, they're telling us that this is "our" Kirk and Spock.

The movie just doesn't fit within the past 40+ years of Star Trek history and concepts.

To me it just doesn't make any sense to destroy Vulcan and leave it that way under the guise that they needed to attract new viewers. I can just imagine the writers sitting around saying 'We need something BIG... I know!! Let's destroy Vulcan!!'

Vulcan being destroyed isn't directly related to the attempt to attract new viewers. It was destroyed as a way to signify in a big way that this timeline is different from the prime Star Trek timeline, the establishment of which was designed to attract new viewers. So its more indirect.

 

What you described may have been how it was conceived but no one really knows for sure, aside from Orci and Kurtzman. I really don't think that destroying Vulcan was just something they threw in when they needed something big. That's the kind of thing that had to be there from very close to the beginning of the scripting process. It's central to the motivation of Nero.

I was being facetious of course. I still don't accept the whole concept of needing to alter the timeline nor do I accept the need to abandon some of the fundamental concepts that have been part of Star Trek going back to the first season of TOS and following through all the way to Enterprise. That fundamental concept is that any alterations to the timeline must be corrected. Spock, as a Federation ambassador and former member of Starfleet had a sworn duty to correct the damage that was done.

Throwing out those concepts sets this movie completely apart from all 5 live action series and all 10 Star Trek movies making this a "stand alone" movie and not really part of the Star Trek franchise. Now if, as I've read they intend on putting the timeline back to "normal" by the third movie then that would alter my impression.

Eating a large Turkey Original from Schlotzsky's Deli.

Will the Federation expand, after one of its founding members has been destroyed, or not, since they couldn't protect one of their own? Destroying one of the founders is a huge change...

That's a big and valid point. Suppose West Germany had been swallowed up by the USSR in the 60's, would NATO have had any credibility within Europe after that?

To me it just doesn't make any sense to destroy Vulcan and leave it that way under the guise that they needed to attract new viewers. I can just imagine the writers sitting around saying 'We need something BIG... I know!! Let's destroy Vulcan!!'

Standing on it's own, it's a good and interesting movie... standing on it's own.

Just finished watching the late 1970's mini-series "The Martian Chronicles".