Why "Star Trek" is not right...
- Thread starter Captain Mike
- Start date
I thought we were talking about the bit in the transporter room after Amanda died, Vulcan was destroyed and Spock removed from command. Sarek tells Spock that if he really can't control his anger, not to try. He also says he's grateful for him, and admits he loved Amanda.
I would submit that that is not the version of Spock that became iconic. I'm not sure about Spock in "Where No Man Has Gone Before?". Number One was pretty stiff and unemotional so I would have thought he carried forward similar qualities but perhaps not to the degree he did in following episodes?
"The Cage", as the first pilot, isn't indicative of Spock. Granted, parts of it were included in "The Menagerie" but they aren't typical of his character. If Spock had stayed like that, I don't believe he would have the same place in our culture.
Well Spock was able to make hard decisions without letting his emotions apparently interfere. I should think we will see less of that. Possibly also displaying emotional responses. Would he still be as logical? That's not quite the same thing of course so I don't know. Emotion often seems to get in the way of logic. Fortunately it's not my problem. I just think potentially undermining the essence of a principal character is a strange way to make Trek.
Maybe that loss of control will be a one off and Spock will be back to "normal" in the next movie. Anyway it will be interesting.
That depends on what you mean by "interfere." Arguably one of the best Spock episodes in TOS was "The Galileo Seven," in which Spock's prominently irrational gambit at the last minute is what saves everyone's lives. And then there's Spock's "jump for joy!" at the end of Amok Time on discovering that Kirk is still alive... I think maybe you're under-estimating the "tease" factor implied in the fact Spock, outwardly the total ice-man, shows rare glimpses into a highly passionate individual buried beneath layers of mental training.
Again, examples are replete throughout TOS. The usual excuse was Spock being under the influence of something--polywater contamination or those hippy flower spores--and one VERY explicit example in the look on Spock's face when Sybok replays the day of his birth.
But lack of emotions was never Spock's appeal. The thing that drew alot of us to him was the fact that he clearly HAS emotions--in fact, un-fucking-believably strong emotions--and manages by titanic force of will to keep them all under control. We saw in STXI just how strong those emotions can get (say anything bad about Spock's mom and he'll kick your ass) and that puts even his TOS actions in a new perspective: "I feel like getting up and slapping you silly, but instead I'm going to sit here calmly and do my job."
Actually, it shows that Spock has come to terms with his human side enough to display emotion.
Nero refusing help (rather dramatically) led to KIRK giving the order to destroy the Narada.
Presumably, knowing that the Narada and another vessel survived a trip through the Black Hole, he decided to stop a madman from wreaking havoc upon whomever/whatever was on the other side.
The "revenge" element is there, but I'd call it field justice.
Yet, I suspect that the OP is okay with the "subspace shockwave" in STVI.
The answer is no, people don't "remember" that Spock. That version of Spock did not become iconic.
You make some good points but as you say it’s his normal "in control" behaviour punctuated by infrequent displays of emotion (often due to external factors) that make the character.
That would explain why some seem willing have Spock find his "human" self, but perhaps they don't realise the implications of what they would be missing? If he "lost it" more often or became as, or more emotional than an average human, where's the point? Where is Spock?
As you also point out, Vulcans do have strong emotions that they control, for a reason. Telling even a half Vulcan that that's not really necessary seems problematic at best. I guess the assumption is that Spock's humanness will allow him to remain functional most of the time. Maybe, but he still won't be Spock without the tension you mention.
Even if the writers think Spock is already too iconic to damage by humanising him, the above point does highlight their problem if they have let the genie out of the bottle, doesn't it? We might excuse Spock's lapse re Nero's demise under the circumstances but if he keeps that sort of thing up, maybe he should consult a plastic surgeon as well.
From what you have said, it seems like you should have the same concerns I do, right?
That's what I'm worried about!
Last edited:
Okay, let's not be dragging that in here again. I still haven't got the stench out of the carpets from the last time it happened.Or you can visit the TOS forum and whine about a show that was cancelled over 40 years ago!!
I'm tired of re-hashing all this over and over again too, but this is what these forums are for.
Well I don't know what the OP is talking about then. Since the scene in the transporter takes place well after Spock decided to join starfleet. But I don't recall Sarek telling him to follow his emotions. Maybe the closest one was where he said something along the effect of "What is necessary is never unwise."
But yet the smiling enthusastic Spock is still part of Spock's and Trek's history. This Spock is in the same time frame as that Spock. That can not be denied. That's why OneBuckFilms is correct. I believe even Nimoy spoke about this. This is Spock at a time when he's learning to deal with both of his sides. This Spock is no more "humanized" than what is expected of him here, and certainly no more to the level that some are making him out to be. Outside of not making him smiling constantly as they did in the early episodes that is.
After watching this movie for 3 times I have noticed several discrepancies in the first 30 minutes alone. When the Narada first exits the "black hole" or " lightning storm", It attacks the Kelvin with no provocation let alone it being a vessel that it is closest to. Why is that? With all the 24th century sensors (And with all the gushers need to include Borg tech from the comic) It didn't know it was dealing with a Federation starship from almost 200 years ago?
2. In the TOS era, Spock's and Sarek's separation from each other was because Spock chose entering Starfleet rather than entering the Vulcan Science Academy, which is what Sarek wanted him to do. Why on gods green earth would Sarek tell him to follow his emotions?
3. I understand some of the "time" indomitableness and faves of the so-called director, but why the "Beastie Boys" and that annoying NOKIA ringtone. I for one WOULD NOT be listening to them 100 years for now...if I was still kicking..
If these are the worst qualms you have about the movie you must have liked it a lot.
1. It seems clear Nero did know, he disabled the vessel then wanted to talk to a Starfleet cpatain who might know about a Federation Ambasssador.
2. Same thing happens in the movie, I don't think Sarek was too pleased about Spock being in Starfleet till he saved him from Vulcan.
3. Why not? Song fit the scene...the song is just old enough to be a "classic". The Nokia tone was there for product placement and familiarity.
RAMA
We also have to remember that this is now a movie franchise. They have no time to be subtle or languid. Sarek and Spock's arc had to be squeezed into two hours without detracting too much from the overall plot.
There are many plot holes that you can hand-wave away. There are a lot of changes that can be sacrificed on the altar of 'alternate timeline'. There are also a few plot holes that don't sit well with a lot of people.
Now that the origin story is out of the way I just ope they tighten up on the plot a bit more in the sequel.
There are many plot holes that you can hand-wave away. There are a lot of changes that can be sacrificed on the altar of 'alternate timeline'. There are also a few plot holes that don't sit well with a lot of people.
Now that the origin story is out of the way I just ope they tighten up on the plot a bit more in the sequel.
Besides, give the guy a break. He had just lost his home planet with basically everyone on it, including his mum, and then some punk human belittles his affection (in front of the whole bridge crew, no less) for his (just deceased) mum.
Vulcan or not, a little breakdown was bound to happen. He's a person and not a robot. Besides, five minutes later he was all normal and controlled again. He didn't blame Kirk for it, hold a grudge or anything. That's very Spock in my book.
Vulcan or not, a little breakdown was bound to happen. He's a person and not a robot. Besides, five minutes later he was all normal and controlled again. He didn't blame Kirk for it, hold a grudge or anything. That's very Spock in my book.
But snogging his girlfriend on the transporter just because he was going off on a dangerous mission was very not Spock - removing the dialogue about their communicators also made it look like the only reason she was there was for a goodbye kiss. Plus as the only one who spoke fluent Romulan, she should have been going with them anyway - but the two boys MUST hog all the action!
Remember, this Spock is from a little earlier time than we saw on TOS; he's more shouty here. And apparently, (& logically, imo) more hormonal.
He'll grow more into the character we remember as it goes along.
He'll grow more into the character we remember as it goes along.
Yeah, let's ignore the fact that he had just.... oh wait, I just said all of that. Paul, come on. Lose your entire species and actually watch your mum fall to her death and then try lecturing Spock about how illogical he's behaving. All things considered, he was very poised and very logical.
A full human would have been in such a bloody huge state of shock it would have completely incapacitated them.
Comparing this situation to anything else is unfair. Uhura, in this case, was the only female loved one left in his life. It doesn't take Freud to make the connection between his display of affection and the recent loss of his mother.
As for her staying on the Enterprise.... what does that have to do with Spock being emotional?
A full human would have been in such a bloody huge state of shock it would have completely incapacitated them.
Comparing this situation to anything else is unfair. Uhura, in this case, was the only female loved one left in his life. It doesn't take Freud to make the connection between his display of affection and the recent loss of his mother.
As for her staying on the Enterprise.... what does that have to do with Spock being emotional?
Similar threads
- Poll
