So why doesn't Spock save Vulcan?

[RPJOB]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Nu-trek can still be "more realistic" without being "real-world realistic". It is simply a more realistic slant on THE FAMILIAR STAR TREK UNIVERSE.

For example, Casino Royale (2006) was certainly more realistic in tone than, say, A View to Kill, but it was still far from being a realistic representation of the actual world. Casino Royale was 'realistic' only within the framework of the James Bond world.

If you want a "realistic" Trek then you'd better get rid of Spock (human/alien hybrid), warp drive, phasers, transporters and all the rest of the trappings. If you make it realistic it won't be Star Trek any longer. If that's what you want then we need something to take the place of Trek, to update it.

YARN wrote:

---

What is the best story? If it is the one which is the most realistic, then Trek has always been in trouble (which is why quoting Orci doing his best to justify Trek in terms of quantum physics is preposterous). If it is to tell a story which is most coherent, then Orci would have been better served by a hard reboot. Just start over and perhaps never even raise the prospect of backward time travel.

If you're going to boldly go in a new direction, then just boldly go, and leave old Trek behind without a passing of the torch narrative.

And yet Old Spock still reported that he was emotionally compromised. And this means he still had motivation as well as justification.

What's the best story? Since Trek became a franchise the best story is the one that makes the most money. Period. You could make a movie that would win the Oscar, Hugo and Nebula awards but if it flopped at the box office then it's reboot time.

M'Sharak wrote:

---

If "dealt with" means the same thing to you as does "skipped over without acknowledging," then yes, granted. But, to spell it out more fully than I did upthread:

Slingshotting is not an available option. Period. The (then-current) model upon which the idea was based is effectively obsolete, and has been replaced (for purposes of this incarnation of Trek, at the very least) with a different model - one which does not allow closed-loop time travel. In practical terms, that mode of time travel never existed. To insist that it still does exist is to wilfully ignore The Way Things Are Now (according to the guys who are telling the stories).

If you're interested in participating in discussion, then you're welcome to do so. However, the recurrent cataloguing of fallacies in which you've been engaging has the effect, more and more, of making it look as if this really is the "gotcha" topic you've insisted it is not. If the responses you're getting don't fit the answers you had already written on your checklist, it does not automatically render them invalid or fallacious; it only means that it would probably have been more realistic for you to be expecting those other answers and not now be trying to force them to fit into your predetermined "right answer" checklist boxes.

That's all well and good but I don't recall anyone in the movie actually mentioning slingshot around the sun as a means of time travel. Orci can claim what does and doesn't work all he likes but until they come right out and say you can't time travel that way then, seeing as it's branched off a universe where you could do that then his opinion is just that, his opinion. He's also said in an interview that Delta Vega is the same planet in WNMHGB and ST09. Doesn't mean that it is. It just happens to have the same name.

For the Trek fans, this film includes many little references. For example you have Kirk dropped off on the planet Delta Vega, which was seen in second Star Trek pilot. It is a cool reference, but didn’t you also fudge canon by ignoring that Delta Vega was way out next to the galactic barrier.

Orci: True. Yeah we did. We moved the planet to suit our purposes. The familiarity of the name seemed more important as an Easter egg, than a new name with no importance.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/30/inte...alex-kurtzman/

[YARN]

BillJ wrote:

---

If he goes back pre-Narada, he changes the course of the universe for billions of beings. He eliminates twenty-five years of existence.

Let's think about that for a moment.

City on the Edge of Forever. Deranged McCoy goes back in time. Edith Keeler lives. The Nazis win WWII. The Enterprise disappears from existence. Our heroes propose to fix the timeline. Spock, in fact, restrains Kirk from saving Edith Keeler, he does his part to sacrifice her life to restore the timeline.

In doing so, they changed 200 years of history which followed McCoy's intevention. Remember, the crew was informed that the Enterprise no longer existed, those changes happened, those 200 years were real. There are, no doubt, many nice people who lived in the Keeler timeline who no longer exist because the Enterprise crew insisted on fixing things. What right did they have to prefer their timeline to that of Keeler's pacifist timeline? Well, (1) the Keeler timeline was the result of a temporal intervention and can be regarded as a mistake and (2) in the Keeler timeline the Nazis win WWII, so theirs is a world with presumably more loss of life and pain than the original timeline.

Compare this to your question. Yes, those people who lived during those 25 years were awfully nice, but they only existed as an anomaly caused by a temporal intervention and a universe with Vulcan still in it is a world with BILLIONS more people still alive and contributing to the noble cause of the federation. The original timeline is a better possible world. Finally, this story shows us that Spock feels it is logical and right to intervene so as to repair timelines.

Moreover, most of the people who lived during that timeline would still be alive, they're only 25 years older. Kirk is older than Checkov and Sulu, which means they were conceived after Nero's intervention, which means they were going to be born anyway! Logically, Spock know his intervention will not be ending live, but merely changing lives.

And even if a few people would not be born because of restoring the timeline, these lives divide out by the comparable children born in their stead, and is overwhelmed by billions of Vulcans saved by saving Vulcan.

BillJ wrote:

---

If he goes back to just before the destruction of Vulcan, Jim Kirk never makes it to the captains chair.

You don't know that. Neither would Spock.

Kirk was willing risk his career for Spock (Amok Time). Spock was willing to risk the death penalty for Pike (Menagerie). Kirk was willing to risk Spock's life for the greater good (Operation: Annihilate, Galileo 7). Why wouldn't Spock risk Kirk's seat to save the entire planet?

Moreover, Spock can intervene in a way that does not risk Kirk's captaincy. He could go back in time and even enlist Kirk's help, or send him off on an errand that kept him out of risk.

[BillJ]

*sigh*

Kirk went back and fixed the corrupt timeline because it was his fault in the first place. Doesn't really make it right, but I wouldn't expect Kirk not to take responsibility for it.

In the movie, right before the Vulcan crisis, Kirk is getting ready to get drummed out of the service. Without the crisis, Kirk is a civilian and not there to stop the Doomsday Machine, the Space Amoeba and V'ger among others.

[YARN]

BillJ wrote:

---

Kirk went back and fixed the corrupt timeline because it was his fault in the first place.

How was it his fault? McCoy accidentally injects himself with cordrazine and has a freak out. Not Kirk's fault.

He is no more at fault than Spock is for the nu-Trek timeline. On the other hand, Spock blames himself for failing to save Romulus, so if he is right, we could say that he also had a personal responsibility to fix it. What matters more, however, is fixing the problem not the blame. Problem: Vulcan has been destroyed.

BillJ wrote:

---

Doesn't really make it right, but I wouldn't expect Kirk not to take responsibility for it.

Kirk initially tries to save Keeler and Spock stops him. Spock took responsibility there and would here too.

BillJ wrote:

---

In the movie, right before the Vulcan crisis, Kirk is getting ready to get drummed out of the service.

How do you know he is about to be drummed out of the service? He cheated on the simulation the prime universe too. Eventually he got a commendation for original thinking. It is only when the Narada attacks Vulcan that Kirk gets really insubordinate.

BillJ wrote:

---

Without the crisis, Kirk is a civilian and not there to stop the Doomsday Machine, the Space Amoeba and V'ger among others.

Again, this is not an either/or situation. He can intervene to preserve Kirk's career if it matters that much.

Or he can simply warn starfleet of major threats like the Doomsday Machine and V'Ger and save even more lives than the Enterprise crew did in the prime universe. What matters is not that Kirk is there to meet the threat, but that someone is there to meet the threat. You know there are other good, even great, captains in the universe.

[BillJ]

We will simply have to agree to disagree...

[M'Sharak]

YARN wrote:

---

I'd rather not repeat answers and analysis that are already freely available in this thread. If you really did not catch the response, ask the question again, and I'll cut-and-paste the response.

But I asked no question.

YARN wrote:

---

<sniiiiip>

It's not that I object to an Ad Hominem because I'd rather hear agreement, but because an Ad Hominem is so often a weak argument.

If you'd prefer to approve or disapprove of the quality (or lack thereof) which you perceive in those answers, perhaps you ought to consider posting a journal entry instead, over the Comment thread of which you might then preside, dismissing from your place in the Very Important Chair that which does not meet with your approval. This is a discussion forum, not a formal or academic debate; the answers you get are the answers you get, and no one is obligated to satisfy any particular criteria of yours in giving those answers, especially when none were stipulated up front. The insistence on issuing "fallacy report cards" is simply boring and a bit pompous. Why would I wish to put up with that for very long? Why would anyone?

JarodRussell wrote:

---

So if it turns out warp speed and beaming is impossible...

No, those still work just fine, thanks, but good of you to stop by.

[YARN]

BillJ wrote:

---

We will simply have to agree to disagree...

Thank you for a very enjoyable game, Bill. I enjoy posting with people.

M'Sharak wrote:

---

If you'd prefer to approve or disapprove of the quality (or lack thereof) which you perceive in those answers, perhaps you ought to consider posting a journal entry instead, over the Comment thread of which you might then preside, dismissing from your place in the Very Important Chair that which does not meet with your approval.

No, I think I'll keep posting right here.

And is not your chair more important than my own that you can instruct me where to post?

M'Sharak wrote:

---

This is a discussion forum, not a formal or academic debate; the answers you get are the answers you get, and no one is obligated to satisfy any particular criteria of yours in giving those answers, especially when none were stipulated up front.

You underestimate both the potential for reasoned discussion which a message board is capable of sustaining and also the responsibilities of interlocutors in casual discussions.

The mere fact that one is having a discussion outside of a debate or formal discussion does not, therefore, give one license to perform every crime against reason imaginable.

Marital Dispute: Husband: "I can use all the fallacies I like, this is not an academic debate. Now get back in the kitchen before I smack you!" (Ad Baculum).

Sports Conversation: Fan: "So what if association does not equal causality? This ain't some fancy pants logic class! Every time we order a meat lover's pizza, the home team loses! NO MORE MEAT LOVER'S PIZZA!"

Music Conversation: Cinephile: "Oh yeah, well Hans Zimmer has one awards for his motion picture soundtracks! Why don't you win an award or two and then you can criticize his overuse of the 'danger theme.'" (Ad Verecundiam)

Book Discussion: Bookworm: "Stephen King intended Tommyknockers to be his greatest work, therefore, it is!" (Intentional Fallacy).

Moves like these are not acceptable in any discussion, save for parodies and other non-literal uses. It's not just academics who have to play by the basic rules of reason.

M'Sharak wrote:

---

The insistence on issuing "fallacy report cards" is simply boring and a bit pompous. Why would I wish to put up with that for very long? Why would anyone?

I am doing you a service, pointing out errors in reasoning and inviting you to improve your answers. At the very least, I am entitled to defend my perspective by showing how attacks against it are defective. Demonstrating the presence of fallacies is a common method of defense.

[Awesome Possum]

Wouldn't saving Vulcan just create a new universe which is similar to the JJverse but with a Vulcan? At least if we're going by the rules that were set up in the last movie.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Awesome Possum wrote:

---

Wouldn't saving Vulcan just create a new universe which is similar to the JJverse but with a Vulcan? At least if we're going by the rules that were set up in the last movie.

In fact, there probably is a universe in which Spock saves Vulcan.

However, the goings-on in that universe are for some other guy's reboot. Abrams happens to be following this particular universe where Vulcan is destroyed.

[Awesome Possum]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

In fact, there probably is a universe in which Spock saves Vulcan.

However, the goings-on in that universe is for some other guy's reboot. Abrams happens to be following this particular universe where Vulcan is destroyed.

Based on that episode of TNG with Worf seeing a bunch of different timelines, there probably is.

Personally I like the idea of seeing how the Federation handles the loss of one of their founding planets. There are just so many possible storylines that could be developed from it.

[BillJ]

I'm hoping there's a timeline out there where Spock was smart enough to destroy the Jellyfish instead of handing it over to Nero.

[M'Sharak]

YARN wrote:

---

And is not your chair more important than my own that you can instruct me where to post?

Instruct? I have but suggested a couple of possible modifications in approach.

YARN wrote:

---

I am doing you a service, pointing out errors in reasoning and inviting you to improve your answers.

But it's not a service for which I have any recollection of registering. Perhaps it might be dialed back a little, or even provided only upon direct request. (I promise: I'll remember to call, should I in the future have any requirement of such service, and I will trust others to make their own requests, on an as-needed basis.)

[Mr. Laser Beam]

BillJ wrote:

---

I'm hoping there's a timeline out there where Spock was smart enough to destroy the Jellyfish instead of handing it over to Nero.

Nero probably snagged it with a tractor beam before Spock could do anything.

As for Vulcan: A ship as small as the Jellyfish, powerful as it was, would probably not survive the stress of a slingshot effect. So Spock can't do anything to save Vulcan even if Nero hadn't captured him.

[BillJ]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Nero probably snagged it with a tractor beam before Spock could do anything.

All Spock would need to do is rupture the tank holding the Red Matter. If the Jellyfish was in a tractor beam the resultant black hole should've destroyed the Narada as well.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Going by the novelverse's interpretation of time travel (where it's the method involved that causes either an overwrite of history or a split in the timeline), slingshotting and the Guardian and whatever else are still viable options for Old Spock. BUT I say the reason he wouldn't try to save Vulcan is the extreme risk factor in essentially resurrecting Nero and the Narada and hoping to stop them a little quicker this time.

Something that happened in the novelverse that's very relevant is the cataclysmic aftermath of "Endgame" - where Admiral Janeway's shortcut home using advanced Borg-busting technology caused the Borg to upgrade the Federation from "mildly resistant nothing" to "serious threat to the collective", and brought about the Destiny war that devastated the Alpha and Beta Quadrants and cost over a hundred planets and 63 billion lives. Janeway's quick fix led to disaster. And since STXI's timeline has been changing for 25 years when Vulcan dies, who knows what could spiral from another good-intentions meddling with history? I've posted numerous other examples of what happens in Trek when time travel goes wrong, whether a stupid accident ("Shockwave", "City on the Edge of Forever"), how it's use led to Starfleet becoming some bizarre dark thing without the values it was founded upon ("Future's End", "Relativity") and eventually a war throughout time (ENT's time war)

That's why they have Temporal Prime Directives, because screwing around with time, even with the best of intentions, can go hideously wrong.