Ali Arikan, one of Roger Ebert’s Far-Flung Correspondents, argues that the destruction of Vulcan should be the sociological basis of the Star Trek reboot universe:
Talk about diverging timelines: this one bold, perhaps reckless plot improvisation, annihilating Vulcan, calls for a page-one rewrite of the whole Roddenberry-inspired mythos. Imagine if France or Japan were destroyed by a madman and its displaced citizens were left without a home, or a focal point for their cultural memories. That’s what the citizens of the Federation must have experienced after the death of Vulcan. It is an event that must have changed everything, as we humans have said of our real-world knowledge of mass death and destruction and other cataclysmic historical events. […]
Abrams’ “Trek” films have been criticized for shifting the original series’ focus away from exploration and onto political and military intrigue, but this needn’t necessarily represent a betrayal of what the original stood for. The destruction of Vulcan could let Abrams formalize an interest that’s already evident to anyone who’s seen “Star Trek” and “Star Trek Into Darkness,” and let the new series look at many of the classic “Star Trek” philosophical and moral issues through a fresh prism.
It’s a good idea, and I’d love to see a movie focusing on the Vulcan diaspora. That would be quite the change of direction, though, from Star Trek Into Darkness, which was action-packed to a fault. In fact, it was the relative lack of thoughtfulness, not “political and military intrigue” that detracted from Into Darkness for me. That intrigue was present in the series well before the latest movie, and it was actually the basis of some of my favorite episodes of Deep Space Nine.
(And why does the author feel the need to invoke Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle? Is it no longer possible to make a point without tossing in an inapt reference to quantum mechanics?)