(it could be presumed that Vulcan will not be revived, because that would strip the dramatic core of the most recent film) |
m (moved Forum:Planet Vulcan's Future / Closed Reality ? to Talk:Vulcan (alternate reality)) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 14:39, 5 September 2009
In the 'alternate reality' from the latest film from J.J. Abrams, Planet Vulcan is destroyed. Since Vulcan founded the Federation and has always been intergral to the Star Trek universe and IDIC, I took it for granted that this 'alternate reality' would be closed in a subsequent film sequel, which would bring Planet Vulcan back to life and reconcile the timelines.
Was this a bad assumption on my part? I've not found a discussion on this topic anywhere. Can a continuing Trek franchise exist without a Planet Vulcan? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.251.71.27.
- There is no way of knowing what the creative team has in store for subsequent films, though I think it could be presumed that Vulcan will not be revived, because that would strip the dramatic core of the most recent film. --- Jaz 04:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I found that the destruction of Vulcan / Amanda's death an interesting way to get around the established canon. A new 'alternative timeline' means that the writers are in no way obligated to rigoriously stick to established ST history. The federation was established in Jonathan Archer's time so it already exists. BobT
- I wouldn't have made this change, but I suspect it won't have serious ramifications. I think they'll go with Vulcans as revered but scarce "wise men" in future movies. It's not a franchise-ending change because we've rarely seen more than a handful of Vulcans at a time. Rob Schmidt
- "it could be presumed that Vulcan will not be revived, because that would strip the dramatic core of the most recent film" Spock? Is that you? --TribbleFurSuit 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)