So why doesn't Spock save Vulcan?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by YARN, Jan 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RPJOB

    RPJOB Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    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.

    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.

    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.


     
  2. YARN

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    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.

    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.
     
  3. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    *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.
     
  4. YARN

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    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.

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

    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.

    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.
     
  5. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    We will simply have to agree to disagree...
     
  6. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia, Kelvin timeline
    But I asked no question.

    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?

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

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Thank you for a very enjoyable game, Bill. I enjoy posting with people.

    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?

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  8. Awesome Possum

    Awesome Possum Rated Awesome By 9 out of 10 Awesome Experts Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    Somewhere
    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.
     
  9. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  10. Awesome Possum

    Awesome Possum Rated Awesome By 9 out of 10 Awesome Experts Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    Somewhere
    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.
     
  11. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    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.
     
  12. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia, Kelvin timeline
    Instruct? I have but suggested a couple of possible modifications in approach.

    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.)
     
  13. Mr. Laser Beam

    Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    The visitor's bullpen
    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.
     
  14. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    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.
     
  15. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    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.
     
  16. YARN

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    You are using bad reasons in a discussion with me. Reasons are designed to compel agreement. They are parts of proofs, things to which a reasonable person of goodwill must respond honestly. If the proof is good, I should say "Yes!" If the proof is bad, I am obligated to show how it does not command assent before saying "No."

    I did not register to be presented with, for example, the intentional fallacy as a proof. When I am presented with it, I have every right, and am obligated to provide reason why such reasons are not compelling.

    In that case I would be dishonest and indirect in reasoning with you.

    When you pronounce, "Orci says it's branching timelines only. Period. The End. Final Word. Full Stop. The End.," for example, I would either have to submit to the intentional fallacy or disengage from directly reasoning with you.

    The most direct way to show what is wrong with reasoning is to show the argument type of which the reasoning is an example.

    Your reasons (like all reasons) make a demand upon me (assent!), to which I must respond by so doing, or showing a flaw in the proof. You signed up for the diagnosis when you presented me with the proof. If you don't want flaws in reasoning pointed out, then use better reasons or stop making demands for assent (i.e., offering me proofs in this thread).

    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    This is the best reason offered by the opposition so far.

    The uncertainty is whether you can defeat Nero a few hours (or 25 years) earlier. We know Nero can be defeated (a boarding party of two accomplishes this). We know the Narada, however large and powerful she is, is just a ship. You can beam aboard her (and Spock knows the secret of transwarp beaming) and she has a small crew. You could easily beam a bomb onto her or board her with a overwhelming boarding party. If you fail other planets are at risk, but you have good reason to believe that you can defeat the Narada. Skip the broadsides with capital ships and go directly aboard her. And Spock has a lot of technological tricks from the future.

    The certainty is that Vulcan, the whole planet, is destroyed if you do nothing and, as a result, Vulcans become an endangered species.

    Is it worth the risk? Risk is our business gentlemen.

    So what? Spock has no reason to expect that intervening will cause anything remotely like this. He has just as much reason to suspect that not acting will result in the same effects another 25 years down the road.

    Nero has already stepped on the butterfly. Spock's decision is whether to save it.

    1. He doesn't have to alter 25 years to save Vulcan.

    2. Even if he did, he would be restoring damage to a timeline. I have already provided reasons why this is preferable. See upthread where I talk about "City on the Edge of Forever."

    In "City on the Edge of Forever" they successfully intervene to undo damage, so this example counts in my favor. Indeed, in TOS they always manged to fix the timeline. And something has already gone wrong. Vulcan has been destroyed.

    We should note that other civilizations independently learn how to manipulate time and this is what causes the war in Enterprise.

    Directives and rules, even habeas corpus, can get suspended in exigent circumstances. Doing so saved Earth in Star Trek IV. If the crew listened to a temporally precious King Daniels, they would've let the whale probe destroy Earth for fear that they'd create a Borg incursion 150 years later.

    Spock, a paragon of rationality, has demonstrated on more than on occasion that he is more than willing to fix alterations to timelines even with the risks, when the situation is serious enough. The destruction of Vulcan is certainly an exigent circumstance.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  17. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    ^
    ^^ Even if there is a flaw (plot hole, inconsistency of logic, or whatever you want to call it) in this film concerning this subject, it seems that most people aren't really that concerned with it.

    It all comes back to what I said before about the way we fans are so used to rationalizing away the many plot holes that have arisen in Star Trek over the past 45+ years. Rationalizing the inconsistencies and plot holes is what we do...

    ...We adjust the canon to make it fit what is presented to us on screen.
     
  18. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    Perhaps Spock follows the ideas of the philosopher John Bigboote, who said:

    "It's not my goddamn planet. Understand, monkeyboy?"
     
  19. marksound

    marksound Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Location:
    Planet Carcazed
    I don't have anything to contribute here ... just wanted to say that I'm enjoying the hell out of this. :lol:
     
  20. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001

    The Dark Knight is far more realistic than Batman starring Adam West.

    The Dark Knight is not terribly realistic.

    If gaping flaws in plot logic were show-stoppers for me I'd have abandoned Trek somewhere around 1968.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.