Star Trek Into Darkness and the 4th wall

IMO, NuSpock being more emotive than prime is logical given his different life experiences. The. End.

Not enough for you, then consider how, when he went back 5000 years in time, he began regressing to a more primitive state - same as how Vulcan's of that time were behaving back on Vulcan. Now apply some NuMysticism to the mix and we get a more emotional Spock BECAUSE Vulcan was destroyed, some magical link between them was broken thus scarring and altering NuSpock.

For needing to explain it to you I must ask you turn in your membership card. That goes for everyone stuck on some bit of minutiae, apply some salve to the butthurt and think like a Trekker!

 

No, the actual question is: what do you have to do as a storyteller to earn the right to break the supposedly pervasive Vulcan commitment to logic instead of emotion? That it "seems really cold" to expect it to withstand death is sort of the point. It's "logic" -- really emotional detachment -- that's meant to be what makes Vulcans or even half-Vulcans "alien" and a character like Spock distinctive, that's precisely what made it such a good storytelling innovation in the first place. And it's fair to wonder if NuTrek seems to hold it rather cheaply, destruction of Vulcan or no.

 

Oh boy, pile on Yanks day...

See above. On a personal note, sure I have.

It amazes me that you all beleive writing nuSpock with the control of a child is good writing or consistant with anything.

Not cold, realistic.

You can't tell me that a unromantic/not-family relationship a few months old is anything close to one developed, tested and grown over decades.

I'm not saying it wouldn't hurt - of course it should hurt, I'm saying it shouldn't send him into a rampage. Especially since he's half Vulcan.

That's not this issue, it's why nuSpock loses control, not how he acts if he loses it.

One could argue that Vulcans reaching the age of Spock(prime) start to lose their "control"... and he didn't lose it.

Again, those that use Spock's character in The Cage to justify emotions is a weak stance for reasons I stated above. Hell, Nimoy will tell you that.

What?!?! Because I've seen everything that contains Spock(prime)?

You can imply whatever trips your trigger to justify something.

Again, one can't use The Cage

I've turned it in more than once. Usually for screwing up some canon fact, never for not applying some Trip/T'Pol linkage to nuSpock and Vulcan.

 

The photo I used this time is from the episode Amok Time. "Kolinahr" is from Star Trek: The Motion Picture. And you still haven't given a good reason why we should ignore The Cage, especially since the footage of that Spock is used in The Menagerie I/II.

Spock was an incredibly emotional being. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't know "Star Trek".

 

Vulcans are full of emotions. The ones they show most often are egotistical pride, xenophobia, and pomposity. They are also rude. This has been seen in both universes across all variations of "Star Trek".

Being half human isn't what made Spock emotional, but it gave him a different perspective on the Vulcan philosophy of complete dedication to logic and the place of emotions in a healthy psyche. His Vulcan brother Sybok rejected the dedication to logic outright, and fully embraced emotions. In a world of IDIC, why couldn't Spock tolerate that?

Vulcans are very contradictory people. In ST09 Vulcan is being torn apart, and where do we find Sarek and the elders? They've gone to a temple in a cave to apparently engage in a spiritual service of some kind. Is that logical? To go stand with head bowed before a statue at a time of great natural disaster? Yet that's exactly where Sarek and the elders went.

Oh and by the way, curiosity is an emotion. What we choose to interest us and what doesn't interest us. A strong sense of curiosity guided Spock almost as much as anything.

 

In all his travels, Kirk said he had never come across anyone more human.

 

So you're speaking for Leonard Nimoy now? I'm impressed that he's decided to confide in you what he was thinking fifty-years ago when developing the character.

Who the hell are you exactly to tell me what episodes I can and cannot use in my examination of the character? Per Paramount and CBS, if it's live-action on screen material, it's canon.

 

Having an actor's eyeline play just off to one side of the lens in a tight closeup is SOP for cinematography. The closer to actor's eyeline to the lens if commonly called "intimacy". There's nothing at all unusual about the shot of Bones here for film of almost any period, period.

 

Too much quoting, to little time

Not sure how your quote substantiates your comment that Spock is an emotional being. (not that I disagree with that)

 

Never mind, you'll use whatever you choose.

But it's not logical.

 

What's not logical is to treat a character as a monolithic entity that never changes. The Cage gives us a front-row seat into the evolution of early Star Trek and of Spock. That is what Spock was like thirteen-years prior to TOS and if Roddenberry didn't want us to see that version of the character he would have never allowed those elements to make it to the screen.

I'm also curious where and when Nimoy said we should ignore The Cage when examining the Spock character?

 

Hari-Khan????

such a funny name you came up with. am laughing now.


I totally understand how nu spock is been written. they have to make Spock show emotions because they only have 2 hours to work with and in those 2 hours his character has to be as 3 dimensional as possible.

TOS Spock hardly showed emotions but that was fine he had 79 episodes to act like a robot.

Spock showing no emotions in films will make him one dimensional. I loved how Kirk made him lose control in the first film.

I loved when he tried to hold back tears after his mum and planet went toast. those where nice emotions he showed that was still in check with his character.

the Khan scream in the second film was ridiculous and it gets worse when you know the writers deliberately put it there as a homage to Shatner.

 

Actually, he did: The Cage was made before "logic" was added to the Vulcan mythos, which is a pretty good reason for "logic" to not yet be part of the character. Which is something of course I'm sure you already know. Adducing it as a defense for Spockian illogic post-the development of that mythos is therefore not super-duper-convincing, nor is yelling and screaming about it when challenged.

To which Spock if alive of course would have said: "I see no need to be insulting, sir."

Seriously though, a poetic statement at the guy's funeral has little direct relevance to the plot point that Yanks is talking about.

Yes, unfortunately it was. For that matter one of the more unfortunate tendencies of TOS, aside from its sexism, was also its tendency to categorize things like diplomacy or the human sciences as "women's work" to be inhabited by eye candy.

 

If Roddenberry hadn't wanted it included he would've re-cut The Cage elements of The Menagerie to reflect the new status quo. However, even after the introduction of logic, Spock was still quite an emotional being (See: Where No Man..., The Corbomite Maneuver, Amok Time, etc...).

But I still don't see how we can rule out that a human-Vulcan hybrid's emotional control would evolve over the course of a lifetime even if you subtract The Cage from the equation? There is nothing in the Abramsverse version of Spock that conflicts with the TOS version of the character. If you subtract The Cage then that period in Spock's life is an open book and open to any interpretation, including the Abrams version.

 

The Cage was never shown as part of TOS. The filmed footage was used for The Menagerie, after logic entered the Spock-character.
You may dismiss The Cage but you can't dismiss The Menagerie.

 

Thank you!

 

But of course the footage of The Cage itself used for that purpose still predates the "logic" innovation. They took a crack at making it all fit with Vulcan logic, but those parts that don't really fit have a quite inescapably valid chronological reason for not doing so.

BillJ I think is reaching in attempts to portray TOS Spock as "quite an emotional being;" it's hard to count the occasional throwaway reference to something resembling an emotion as counting as any kind of real breach in Vulcan reserve, and the rare occasions when something more dramatic happens have specific explanations (the mind-altering spores in "This Side of Paradise" rendering him vulnerable to racist taunts, "Amok Time" and the effects of the Pon farr and so on). At all or most other times Nimoy sold the power and pervasiveness of Vulcan reserve, even in a half-Vulcan whose emotions were closer to the surface, very convincingly.

The destruction of Vulcan in ST09 functions similarly as a convincing reason for Spock's emotional vulnerability in that film. The question is, is it still saleable as dramatically "earning" Spock's pursuit-in-a-fury of Khan at the end of STiD? There's no absolute answer to that question, but with a character like Spock the danger of overusing the "breach in Vulcan reserve" trope is quite real in terms of undermining his distinctiveness. I personally was not nearly as offended by the KHAAAAN! yell as some, but I do think there's a real problem in terms of having "earned" the scene (beyond just the indulgence of a superficially clever parallel).

 

Now I agree that this is a real concern. We need to begin to see these characters grow, at least in the broad strokes, into the characters we know in TOS.

 

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness whnand the 4th wall

Most stories that center around Spock and other lead Vulcans ( and guest Vulcans) are about challenges to the Vulcan ideas of logic and emotional control. So the the answer to the question is, be hired to write for Star Trek.

Spock is constantly breaking the Vulcan Two Commandments.

He smiles in the Cage.

He gets all weepy in Naked Time.

He goes for the impulsive gut move in Galileo Seven

He lies, forges documents and deceives in The Menagerie to help hos old commander.

He get's all happy when finds out Kirk is alive in Amok Time.

He gets all lovey and aggressive in All Our Yesterdays

He lies and deceives in The Enterprise Incident.

The only time Spock is played as the logical emotionless Vulcan is when he's in a secondary or advisory role.

 

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness whnand the 4th wall

The best Spock stories are always the ones that are about how he responds to emotional pressures. And many times he comes out looking like he can't really handle them.