Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

No. It makes his character arc an interesting allegory for "coming out" (like many other allegorical moments in Trek). Is it the most intelligent and moving such moment in film history (or even in Trek history)? No. But it was an interesting take on a character that I thought would prove the most difficult to do differently from the original.

I also think (my own speculation--no rumours or any other sources to back this up) that a lot of the flaws of the story (I have no complaints about the technical choices and effects used in the film--even the lens flares don't bother me a bit ) come from the writer's strike and the restrictions on re-writes, coupled with the late change in release date. If re-writes had been permitted, some of the things I found clunky might have been smoothed over pretty easily and had the later release date been known sooner, it would have been easier to do some of those changes. As it is, it wasn't perfect but it was quite fun and enjoyable nonetheless--and that's all I've EVER expected from Trek. Any "thoughtfulness" and "serious themes" that ever cropped up (and they were a lot more impressive when I was 12 than they are now) were and remain a bonus. If I want "deep and thought-provoking cinema", I look elsewhere. Given Trek's overall track-record, so should everyone else.

 

As opposed to Spock shagging Leila Kalomi, Zarabeth, and Saavik back in the old timeline?

And Spock has always been about the angst: a creature of two worlds, entirely at home in neither. Just look at some of his monologues in "The Naked Time" and "This Side of Paradise." Hell, he described his own existence as "a self-imposed purgatory" as far back as Season One of TOS.

You don't get more angsty than that!

 

Strongly disagree. He is popular for being a man of logic and science. Not a stud. Spock is the TOS character I most relate to (To be fair it only even had 3 proper characters!) so it's weird seeing him act significantly more human and boring.

 

The logic and the science is just part of it. If he was just an emotionless logic machine, they could replace him with a robot. What makes Spock (and Sarek and Saavik) a source of endless fascination is that they are constantly repressing the powerful emotions inside them. Vulcans, on one level, are all about repressed emotion.

What did Kirk say at his funeral? "Of all the souls I've encountered in my voyages, his was the most . . . human."

It's that deeply buried humanity (and, yes, angst) that makes Spock such a memorable character. Not that he can spew out statistics to the tenth decimal place.

 

I didn't realize my level was dumb.

And no, why would he be less interesting? For the first time in a movie, we see Spock having a real emotional, romantic relationship with somebody other than Kirk or McCoy. It's a side of him we've never really seen explored. If anything, I think it makes him more interesting.

The best thing about Spock's character has always been finding a balance between his emotional human side and his logical Vulcan side. Even the sturdiest Vulcan would be shaken by the sudden death of their parent and the destruction of their homeworld.

 

That is his caricature, not his character. Greg is entirely correct in pointing out "a creature of two worlds, entirely at home in neither" as the fundamental characteristics of Spock. Science and logic are what he wants to be known for--his friends (and, at least in the Abrams version, his family) know differently.

When I first observed Spock in TOS, what stood out (from 7-12 years old) was his "logic and science" (and his pointy ears). He became a lot more interesting when I noticed what Greg has described. The latest film took that idea further into a nicely done allegory about "coming out" (making it a lot like TOS). It's not overly sophisticated, but then again the film didn't call for such (nor was TOS ever especially sophisticated with its allegorical storytelling).

 

It makes him less interesting because we have romantic heroes in TV and film all the time. Spock was interesting and unique as a man of logic who didn't care for touchy-feely shit. Making him a more traditional leading man is a really boring route to take.

I have never once watched Star Trek and wondered what would happen if Spock and Uhura went for a fumble in the transport room. Couldn't care less. I want Spock to act more alien because that's why he's interesting to me. Everybody else on the bridge is a human so have them fuck eachother. But leave Spock alone.

 

Love and companionship counts as "touchy-feely shit?"

I am personally thrilled to see more of this aspect of his character and how he manages to balance it with his more logical Vulcan side.

One of my absolute favorite lines from the movie is Sarek telling Spock, "I married her because I loved her," something we would not have expected Prime Sarek to ever say. Prime Sarek also didn't have a grieving son whose mother and planet had just been destroyed. Circumstances allowed those emotions to surface in a completely logical way.

 

This has nothing to do with people "fucking each other." It's about exploring an emotional side of the character that we haven't really delved into before.

 

This happens all the time these days. The identical thing happened with Doctor Who; yes, we had a granddaughter and yes, he cared about his companions greatly, but from Hartnell (Aztecs flirting aside) to McCoy, we got a hero figure who, if not actually asexual, didn't focus on sex and romance and did other things. Then it got brought back in the 90s and he's kissing to fireworks and nine years later, we got a fucking love story for the first companion of the new series.

You're absolutely right; it's an attempt to make these people more "normal." It has nothing to do (because I know some of you are out there in the dark with knives waiting) with being sexually repressed or virgins who can't handle seeing sex in their precious Star Trek/Doctor Who/whatever. I don't give two fucks if Kirk gets a romance cause it's in his character. But they've ALSO got to take the detached alien and do the same, making them all the same generic hero.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote it. The Doctor going from this alien being with a different psychology to us humans to.... David Tennant crying every third episode about his love problems.

In order to make them more "relate-able". Why make the fucking alien character less alien to the point he's just some slightly nerdy guy in a weird haircut? Because then there's no way he'll turn off the casuals. IT'S OK GUYS HE'S NOT WEIRD. OR QUEER. HE HAS SEX WITH CHICKS. LOOK!

I like weird characters. I watch Star Trek to escape.

 

Therein lies the rub. Spock is interesting to a lot of people (I suspect a majority who give this any thought at all) because of his struggles to reconcile his two halves--and it is his human half that makes him relatable to the vast majority of audiences. Truly alien characters appeal to very few readers, viewers or listeners--if there isn't something there to grab onto that's remotely familiar, the chances of a character gaining audience sympathy becomes vanishingly small. Being half-Vulcan makes him stand out. Struggling with his repressed emotions is what makes him sympathetic.

You are, of course, free to dislike the direction Abrams et al. took with Spock's character, but it's no great mystery why they chose to explore his human side more fully. Even TOS did so, at considerable length. It simply had the luxury of 80 or so hours to do so, rather than the 6-8 hours available to the current production crew. Or had you not noticed that almost all films (as realistic as they might be celebrated for being) compress events and character development far more than television shows (let alone real life)?

 

You're entitled to your disappointment. You're not entitled to have it assuaged because your likes/dislikes do not concord with the producers (in the broadest sense) of any form of entertainment--Trek and Who included. The undercurrent of entitlement (implicit or explicit) expressed in so much criticism of different takes on long-established franchises is what makes it difficult to take the criticism seriously.

 

OK, you win. Aliens are only interesting when they act exactly like humans. And Star Trek is only interesting when it's set on Earth. These elements in no way betray a lack of imagination and are bold ways of making Trek interesting.

 

Nor is this inconsistent with the original timeline. The Vulcans have never been as unemotional as they pretend to be. Why else would Sarek not speak to his son for eighteen years, or T'pring try to replace Spock with Stonn? And Sarek admitted (in the third movie) that his logic faltered where his son was concerned.

Look at it this way: the original show usually gave Spock a love scene once or twice a season. So that he finally gets one in a movie (excepting that pon farr business on the Genesis Planet) is pretty much par for the course.

And, you know, I've sometimes wondered about him and Valeris . . . .

 

Sarek has always been my favorite Vulcan specifically because of how emotional he was. It was always subtle, but you knew it was there.

 

This is true. If they were completely logical then they wouldn't really be against murder or whatever. Vulcans have supressed their emotions through psychological means, their brains haven't evolved to naturally remove them.

I have no problem if Spock wants to get his dick wet in the name of scientific curiosity in to the realm of experience. I do think though that reducing Uhura in to being the token love interest in this saga means it even cornier. It's especially laughable as they're trying to make her some kinda post-modern feminist character... even though she's now there to just be Spock's girlfriend.

 

For his station in life and dedication to his people, Sarek was as close to openly emotional as any elder Vulcan ever came, he loved his family and showed it. No matter how stubbornly at times.