Duncan MacLeod wrote:
I haven't seen the movie and don't ever intend to. But based upon what I have read about it I would like to offer another point of contention.
Would the Spock who went back in time in COTEOF to prevent McCoy from changing the past, and who insisted that Capt. Christopher had to be returned in TIY to preserve the future; be so willing to write off the destruction of Vulcan and all the inhabitants, when he knew that this was not as history should proceed?
I submit that the answer is he would not. Thus in the history that he comes from, there must be no conflict, and to his knowledge Vulcan was destroyed. If it were otherwise, then Spock, through inaction, would be condoning genocide.
I'm sorry but the Spock of TOS would not do that.
You're right, the TOS Spock wouldn't do that because he was a younger man who had not yet had the years of experience of his older self. People change as they get older. Their perceptions change. New truths present themselves. But Spock Prime, having lived a long life and having had time to contemplate that life, has come to different conclusions than the person he once was.
Which of us is ever the same person we were 10 years ago? Imagine how much more different a person could be after 100 or so years of life. He or she wouldn't see eye-to-eye with their younger selves. Then again, which of us do?
Nevertheless, Spock Prime was played by Nimoy as being the same person as the version he played in TOS-TNG, but someone who has grown comfortable with himself. His performance is informed by that choice and it shows on screen.
Also, by not "putting things right that once went wrong", the movie may say something more than the episodes where the timeline was "restored."
Yes, Vulcan is gone. But things happen and we must live with them. There is no going back and undoing the tragedies of our lives, our era. We must move forward and survive them. In doing so, we strive for a better tomorrow.
Hmm...maybe there was a bit of optimistic Roddenberry-ism in the movie after all.