Wasn’t Nero’s decision making in Star Trek lame?
Question by ZeppineX: Wasn’t Nero’s decision making in Star Trek lame?
I know it’s just a movie but I think the writers tried to hard writing a story just to fit in Leanord Nimoy as the old Spock.
The Supernova destroyed Romulous in which Spock tried to save from happening. So Nero was off planet and when he got back his home planet was destroyed along with his expecting wife. Then he goes on blaming Spock for not being able to save Romulous. He tries to kill Spock but gets sucked into the black hole that takes him back in time along with Spock.
This is where it gets dumb.
He now went back in time where Romulous is STILL there but instead of going to his home planet to protect and warn everyone of a disaster that will happen in 100 to 200 years or so into the future, he instead destroys Spocks planet Vulcan so that the old Spock AND young Spock watch in anguish.
That’s what’s stupid about the movie.
If we saw Earth get destroyed and knew an alien tried to save it but couldn’t. And then we happened to go back 100 years into the past where Earth is still there, we would go out of our way to warn and prevent it from happening instead of getting revenge on that alien who couldn’t save Earth.
That part of the movie was dumb.
Best answer:
Answer by tigelord95
i didnt like star trek that much because of too much sci fi action ruined it
Add your own answer in the comments!
