Where did Spock go?

I made a brief list a few pages ago. The original series contradicts itself and changes premises. Fact. You can rationalize it all you want, but if TOS can fit into the same continuity, then ENT, TAS, TNG, DS9 and STXI's Old Spock and timeline divergence point can all be part of one huge one.
You can't ignore the mistakes in TOS but not similar ones in STXI, reguardless of whether you thought the film was any good or not.

 

It doesn't matter what the people who made the film think. Nor what you nor I think. The film is irrelevant to TOS. TOS was complete in 1969. This is fact.

It's similar to what happens when a book is later made into a movie. Even if it deviates grossly from the book, the movie does not change the book.

 

Spock Prime came from the TOS universe; the movie is connected to the TOS universe and is not a "clean reboot." The assertions otherwise here are not based on "on-screen evidence" but on narrow, subjective interpretations of details in the movie being wedged to fit into a preconceived, preferred conclusion.

 

None of you are who you claim. You'd never have said any of this stuff.

I have decided you're all inconsistent with your true selves from 30 years ago.

 

Pull!

 

AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, BECAUSE STONE COLD BAILEY SAID SO!!

 

While nuSpock was dicking around in the Abramsverse TOS Spock went out for a bucket of original recipe KFC for the gang. Probably picked up some brownies and macaroni salad, too.

Well, I think I did see him sucking on a Tootsie Pop once.

 

I KNOW you are speaking in jest here. The macaroni salad I could see but the rest would be MOST illogical.

And that guy with the tootsie pop was DEFINITELY an alternate universe Spock. I wonder if that picture is on the web somewhere.

 

Who knows? In the 23rd century the food could be replicated so that it wouldn't be actual animal meat. And I HAVE seen a rare photo of Nimoy in full costume and makeup sucking on a Tootsie Pop.

 

He sticks a lollipop into his mouth right after flubbing a line in "This Side of Paradise": "The plants act as a suppository." It's on film and it's been aired (it was on USA's NightFlight) so it must be canon.

 

It also means that the plants really do act as a suppository. Now we know just which side of paradise we're dealing with.

 

The dark underside of it apparently

 

After he stopped getting drunk and re-telling the story, he might have just had a personal policy of holding his tounge on the whole subject.

With all due respect to the character, in the grand plan of the universe how important or irreplaceable was Lily? The impression I received was that she was to be one of the crewmembers on the first flight, either in Riker's or LaForge's position. But how many people can remember the name of the flight engineer on the B-29 that dropped Chuck Yeager's plane the on day he broke the sound barrior?

I thought one of the most interesting changes, an obvious change, was that on the wall on the observation lounge behind the bridge there were previous ships that had been named enterprise (Human only and Starfleet). Prior to FC, Archer's ship was absent, after FC it was present. I believe that Cochrane push to have the first long range explorer starship named Enterprise and that in the original timeline he didn't. Archer's ship still existed and Archer was still the Captain, but the ship held a different name.

It would seem that TOS leads to TAS leads to TMP, it looks fairly obvious anyway. After that Warped9 it admittedly becomes less clear. You can have a single continuity without ejecting entire series , if instead you peel off only select episodes. Or in some cases only a relatively few scenes from those episodes, Warped9 you have to admit it's only a few snippets of dialog that really screws up the over all continuity.

An infinite number of Beverlys giving birth to an infinite number of Wesleys

 

What Dennis said works for me, silly rolly-eyed emoticon notwithstanding.

 

It works for anyone who hasn't went off the deep-end of creepy obsessive fandom.

 

No, it works for me, too.

 

Your argument seems to hinge on Spock Prime being able to closely discern Kirk's age. Allow me to echo several other posters here in pointing out that this argument is rather weak. Consider what we actually know about Kirk's age.

In Star Trek (2009) Kirk is 25.38 years old when he meets Spock Prime, according to the stardates in the film. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't actually know exactly when Kirk took command of the original Enterprise. We can make an assumption based upon what we do know, however. We know that the Enterprise is on a five-year mission. We know that during the middle of the second season Kirk is 34 years old ("The Deadly Years"). We know that the five-year mission lasts for at least a year and half beyond that episode (approximately). We don't know when Kirk's birthday is, beyond a stardate in "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Since that stardate is found on a tombstone which gives Kirk the middle initial of "R." and due to the notoriously unreliable nature of stardates on Star Trek (1966-1969) this information doesn't help us. For all we know Kirk may have just turned 34 prior to "The Deadly Years" or he may have been about to turn 35.

Knowing all this information, we can guess that Kirk is somewhere in his early 30s when he takes command of the Enterprise in the original timeline, probably between 30 and 31.

Therefore, Spock Prime emerges into the past at an indeterminate point (Nero didn't know when he was either, which is why he must ask Robau). He meets Kirk, without a tunic indicating rank, at the age of 25.38 (Kirk may be "barely out of the academy" in the new movie, but keep in mind that due to the death of his father he delayed entry into Starfleet). Spock misjudges the age of his old friend, who he hasn't seen in decades, by five years. Big deal.

But before I continue going off into the deep-end of creepy obsessive fandom, I'll leave it at that.