So why doesn't Spock save Vulcan?

^
^^ It all comes down to the idea that rationalizing the inconsistencies in Star Trek used to be fun -- it's what we fans did in the 1970s thru 1990s. It was fun; it was a game...

...e.g., "How can Khan know Chekov?" -- Answer: "Chekov was on the Enterprise during Space Seed, but below decks."

Today the opposite is true -- people try to make a game out of nailing those inconsistencies to the wall and framing them for all to see, and screaming "Aha! This proves Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman don't care". Some fans today are taking the fun out of trying to rationalize the inevitable inconsistencies.

 

Spock used highly sensitive chronomatric sensors aboard the Jellyfish just as he emerged from the black hole and realized that there was a slight difference in the readings informing him that he was not in his Universe.

He didn't know exactly what, where, when he was until he met Kirk in the ice cave.

That's why he seems so cool with Vulcan being gone when he is talking to Kirk because he knows his place is safe and sound. In fact I would assume Spock is more upset that Romulus PRIME is gone since in the Countdown comics it is revealed that is where he now lives.

 

He wasn't "cool" with Vulcan's destruction at all. Kirk was crying his eyes out at the end of the mind meld - to which Spock said, "emotional transferrence is an effect of the mind meld." Those were Spock's tears. He also choked up a little when telling Kirk "I just lost my planet. I can tell you, I am emotionally compromised."

He'd be a total dick if he just went, "Meh, not my history."

 

I'd start a temporal cold war too if random jerks just started screwing with the whole timeline every time they got a bloody nose.

 

That's the only good reason I have heard from the opposition so far (i.e., 130 to 1).

1. Spock is from the future too. There are no secrets that a mining ship from his time would make it undefeatable.

2. He has time to plan and can appear at the time of his choosing.

3. There is the mere possibility of 130 vs. the certainty of the loss of Vulcan.

4. Does Nero state in the film that he will destroy ALL UFP planets?

So what? Inconsistencies in one story do not cover inconsistencies in another.

The fact issling-shot time-travel is canonical Trek, where warp speeds vary.

We have positive instances of this method.

It is a major plot device (i.e., the story is predicated on sling-shot time travel working).

There are no in-universe defeaters of sling-shot time-travel (we never hear a Trek character in DS9 announce that slingshot time travel does not work anymore).

 

But we have no instance of them wiping out 25 years of new "history" with the slingshot manuever. So we don't even know if its possible.

 

What? The Enterprise traveled all the way back to the 1960s just to observe stuff. In Star Trek IV they came back to the 1980s to get whales. Both missions had causal effects on the timeline. In the latter case, for example, they brought back a 20th century woman, left behind the formula for transparent aluminum, harassed whalers, and stole uranium from an air craft carrier. We know that it is possible.

Also, why are you assuming that Spock has to change 25 years of history. He only needs to prevent the destruction of Vulcan.

 

How about because, for once, the dramatic impact of an event is not undermined by the oh so tiresome "reset button" that gets used all too often in sci-fi in general (and Trek in particular)? Good enough for me (and I suspect for a lot of people).

This is exactly why, as I noted somewhere earlier, I don't bother contemplating the implications of time travel stories anymore and simply judge them on how entertaining I find them. Of course, others are free to view things differently, but they cannot expect to be satisfied as to their personal views on things like time travel stories (or by entertainment in general).

 

It's even more daft 80 years later in DS9. Despite everything that's occured in that time - the fall of the Terran empire, everyone has still been born - except Jake Sisko, and Mirror Jadzia even dies at the same time as the normal one.

Perhaps when Pine and co hand over to the next team they could end their last movie going back to save Kirk's father and everyone else. Leave the universe how they found it.

I just find it odd Spock sounds so different, and Sulu so much older as result of the messed up timeline.

 

What age is Sulu supposed to be? (Not John Cho, Sulu)

 

Why doesn't Spock just go back more than 25 years, and then go back to the future, since Nero wouldn't have arrived at that point, and then just prevent the supernova/convince the Romulans to evacuate/pick up Nero's wife in the Jellyfish so Nero doesn't go all crazy?

 

Because that's not the story being told.

 

What kind of mind finds such questions interesting?

 

This is really what it comes down to.

We can ask this question every single time something bad happens. Doomsday Machine? Why not use the slingshot to save the Constellation crew? Space Amoeba? Why not use the slingshot to save the Intrepid crew. V'ger? Why not use the slingshot to save Epsilon IX? And on and on and on and on and on...

 

The kinds of minds that come to certain web fora dedicated to something that was old years ago.

 

Our responses are now down to

"It's just a movie!" (genre pleading)

"The same question applies to other Trek stories!" (Tu Quoque)

"Only weirdos who like old Trek would care" (Ad Hominem).

Strange that one is shamed for getting one's geek on at a geek board.

 

Huh?

 

I just think its hypocritical to apply a standard to one Trek story that you're not willing to apply to all Trek stories.