Where did Spock go?

Discussion in 'Star Trek - Original Series' started by Warped9, May 16, 2010.

  1. Brutal Strudel

    Brutal Strudel Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    I see it like this: the Batman of Nolan's movies or The X-Men of Singer's movies or the Spider-Man of Raimi's films do not destroy or wipe away or have any bearing at all on the way those characters are handled by Marvel and DC in continuity. The new Trek movie is the same thing for me. I say this as a guy who loved Trek '09, saw it three times I the theater and own the DVD: the movie has no more bearing on TOS than the old Gold Key Comics do. The Gold Key Comics were dumb fun. So was this movie.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2010
  2. Temis the Vorta

    Temis the Vorta Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1999
    Location:
    Tatoinne
    Then I'm glad it's undead! :D If this is Zombie Trek, allow me to be the first to say: ARRRRRRRR.
    But but but...that violates the established canon of characters who learn how to time travel and then promptly forget all about it!

    He can't do that anyway! He'd be replacing people from one universe with people from another universe! He isn't in that universe anymore and doesn't seem to know how to get back to it.

    Nah, I wouldn't have liked that as much. I'm happy with the way they decided to go.
     
  3. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    ( giggle .giggle . giggle . giggle .giggle . giggle . giggle .giggle . giggle )
     
  4. TOS Purist

    TOS Purist Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Location:
    TOS Era
    Sorry about the joining the party late...but Warped9 makes some great points.

    In ST09, if nuChekov and Original Chekov share the same birthyear, then Chekov should have been 15 in ST09...and obviously he wasn't. The "alternate dimension" can't explain why Chekov would have been born two years before he should have been.

    Also, in ST09, Pike is clearly older than Kirk - old enough to be shoehorned into the cliched "father figure" role. In the TOS timeline, he's not much older than Kirk; even in "The Menagerie," Commodore Mendez clearly says that Pike is "about your (meaning Kirk's) age." If anything, Kirk and Pike should have been graduating around the same time, and Pike certainly shouldn't have been that much older than Kirk. How Pike was old enough to be Kirk's "father-figure" in the 2009 movie is beyond me.

    One last thing - the alleged "original" Spock claimed that Kirk's father was present when alleged "original" Kirk took command of the Enterprise, but "Conscience of the King" strongly suggests (but doesn't actually say) that Kirk's parents died at Tarsus IV, like Kevin Riley. At least that's what I always concluded from watching that (excellent) TOS episode.

    These facts, added to the ones that Warped9 pointed out, make it pretty clear that even the "original" timeline from which the "alternate reality" supposedly branches from is NOT actually the TOS timeline. And that's not even getting into the whole "Kelvin" fiasco...
     
  5. StarryEyed

    StarryEyed Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Location:
    Florida Keys
    It sounds like you're confusing undead with pirates - just as you are confusing this nuTrek with real Star Trek.
     
  6. TOS Purist

    TOS Purist Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Location:
    TOS Era
    I'm quoting that awesome statement, if you don't mind. :techman:
     
  7. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    I still don't hear anyone "proving" to me that TOS is all set in the same universe. The same circumstancial evidence used against STXI works the other way too.

    Kirk's middle initial, Spock's uniform colour, the uniforms in general, the bridge crew and the Enterprise interior and exterior design are wrong in the "Where No Man..." universe.

    Shuttles clearly don't exist in "The Enemy Within" universe.

    Antimatter, in other Treks known as starship fuel, threatened to destroy the universe in "The Alternative Factor" universe.

    TOS is 200 years ahead of today in the "Space Seed" universe, and 900 in "The Squire of Gothos" universe.

    Lasers and Time Warp drive are on the Enterprise in "The Cage" universe.

    Photon Torpedoes don't exist and phasers act like torpedoes in the "Balance of Terror" universe.

    If all these obvious contradictions and altered premises can co-exist in the same universe, then it can easily be that universe's Spock who falls though a black hole and watches Vulcan die in STXI.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2010
  8. THE_FETT

    THE_FETT Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Location:
    LOCATOR JAMMED
    There are many problems with the conclusions of the original post. For one, I don't think we would know the full effects that ENT's Temporal Cold War had on the timeline. That concept really makes it impossible to come to any conclusions of any substantial worth regarding anything happening in the new movie.

    I'd also have to agree with KingDaniel. If continuity errors indicate alternate universes, then the same principle must consistently hold true throughout the ST run. One cannot rationalize continuity errors because the argument being made accepts only that information presented onscreen as being legitimate.

    So, following the logic of the original post, the ST series hops around from alternate universe to alternate universe and there is no way to tell which universe is the "real" universe without arbitrarily assigning the attribute- but this can't be done because this is just another form of rationalization which is based on evidence not presented onscreen and which is therefore insubstantial evidence.

    To me, the new movie encapsulates ST well in this regards- it is riddled with continuity errors and therefore fits in rather nicely with the rest of Star Trek.

    Speaking facetiously, I would be more open to "alternate universe reboot" theory if the were no continuity errors in the movie at all; since a ST with no continuity errors would be an alien ST !
     
  9. A beaker full of death

    A beaker full of death Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    See, this is what happens when filmmakers don't have the balls to just make something their own. Instead of just making his own version of Star Trek, Abrams bent over backwards to appease the continuity freaks (an impossible task) and shoehorn everything into a consistent multiverse. Why? An RSC production of Henry V doesn't have to explain why it isn't using the same costumes as a Joe Papp production of Henry IV part I from 20 years earlier.
    Abrams's plan was doomed to failure. All this convoluted time travel nonsense to try to explain away inconsistencies he shouldn't have worried about bogged down his film in silliness. There will always be those who (rightly, since this is how he chose to go) point out the inconsistencies in Chekov's age, in the state of the technology, in the fact that everyone in his multiverse is just plain dumber than they were in the TOS universe....
    He should have just made his own big, dumb, loud, fun movie without all this garbage.
     
  10. Joker

    Joker Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Location:
    The North
    :cool:
     
  11. Smiley

    Smiley Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ
    If it came down to having the same basic story of Star Trek XI with or without Leonard Nimoy, I know which one I would choose. That is a major reason why the universe-hopping aspect of the movie was a good choice. It also makes it clear that the original, slightly inconsistent universe of TOS-ENT is still out there, just missing Romulus and Remus.

    Besides the obvious authorial intent that Nimoy was playing the original Spock character, there is nothing he says to Kirk on Delta Vega that cannot be explained away. In fact, I'm sure Timo has done this already someplace. My simple explanation is that Spock wanted Kirk to use his leadership abilities as early as possible, and anything he told Kirk was simply a means to that end. Of course, I tend to get less hung up on the inconsistencies as time goes by and simply accept that the creators are human. Whether they just messed up or want to tell a story that requires something besides slavish devotion to 40 years of continuity is beside the point.
     
  12. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Okay, this argument is getting downright silly.

    Here we have the OP, who is a self-proclaimed TOS purist, who for one reason or another simply cannot accept any Star Trek productions past TMP as "legitimate, official" Star Trek, trying to rationalize how this new movie does not work within his own personal beliefs.

    See how silly arguing with this person is? He will never, ever accept anything that doesn't fit his own take on ST, even if it's the actual Trek producers who are calling the shots. That's why I told him that he can believe whatever he wants to believe, if it makes him happy. It's pointless to argue with him because he's already made up his mind no matter how flimsy his evidence is.

    Now I'm not putting the OP down. Warped9, I've read many of your posts, and you seem to be a pretty smart guy who knows his shit about Star Trek. But trying to have a logical, rational discussion with someone who cannot think outside the box in regards to post-TOS Trek is a meaningless endeavor, and you'll find that most people are not going to agree with your line of thinking, especially in regards to this post about the new film. So as far as I'm concerned, we'll agree to disagree.

    Excuse me? Star Trek '09 was a huge success, making the most money of any Trek film ever. How is that a "failure?"
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2010
  13. TOS Purist

    TOS Purist Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Location:
    TOS Era
    No, Warped9 would accept newer forms of Star Trek as canon, but only if they bothered to make themselves internally consistent instead of constantly ignoring or rewriting TOS. And he's not the only TOS purist around here... :techman:

    :rolleyes: He doesn't mean failing FINANCIALLY. He meant it failed in terms of adhering to what little bits of canon it should have adhered to. Read his post! I'm tired of people saying that ST09 failed for this or that reason, and then someone else barges in and yells "IT DIDN'T FAIL IT MADE A LOT OF MONEY LOL" when nobody was talking about box office returns.
     
  14. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    ^^ That isn't quite right. If ST09 had been a real reboot (which I still accept it as no matter what others claim) then it could stink to high heaven (which it does anyway) and I couldn't care less because it's totally divorced of TOS (which it actually is despite what others claim).

    A reboot done well that emulated the best aspects of TOS even though not in anyway connected to it could have still been enjoyable. But instead we got a loud and hectic pile of nonsense that bears barely a passing resemble to the Star Trek I care about. I can't put a finer point on it: it's a stupid film.

    But setting all that aside I'm looking at the claims this is connected to the original universe and that's where we part the ways. It bugs the film's fans somethin' ugly that I won't accept it. I'm just going by what's actually on the screen, but because I don't swallow this whole they're pissed about it. All they want to hear are the cheery little signs of glee of uncritical fans.

    So I think TOS is the real and best Star Trek. Hello? It's THE ORIGINAL SERIES. It can't help but be real Star Trek because it established everything. And if I use it as the baseline by which I assess anything that follows then what's wrong with that? What unwritten law have I broken?

    How come no one gives any grief to the fans who like only one of the other series? Are strictly ENT fans or strictly TNG or strictly DS9 or strictly VOY fans ever hassled?

    I couldn't care less how much fucking money ST09 makes or how many people like it--nowhere is it written that I have to like it as well.
     
  15. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Well, so much for me bothering to add any more to this topic...:rolleyes:
     
  16. Smiley

    Smiley Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ
    If a person doesn't like the latest movie or TV show, that's one thing. However, it should not make a difference whether or not it is viewed as an official continuation of the show. A lot of people think The Final Frontier is a mostly stupid movie, but we still accept that it is an official continuation of TOS that probably happened in some way in the fictional construct that is Star Trek. It has enough discrepancies that it must take place in a different universe by Warped9's reasoning, but for most, it is Trek enough to be counted.

    Something that hasn't been touched on in this thread is the mythic quality of Star Trek. I think that it has been around long enough that the main characters and universe have surpassed their roots in the public consciousness. The Enterprise, Kirk, Spock, warp drive, and photon torpedoes are like King Arthur, Camelot, the Round Table, Merlin, and Lancelot. If Merlin travelled to an alternate universe and found King Francis (or whomever) as ruler of Camelot instead of King Arthur, people would know that Arthur belongs in that spot and want him to fulfill his destiny. They may not know or care that he should be a servant for five more years before claiming his destiny according to a previous timeline. To me, Abrams is merely updating a myth for a new generation while still paying respect to the previous version of the story.
     
  17. Ronald Held

    Ronald Held Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Location:
    On the USS Sovereign
    Someone explain to me why Spock Prime could not, via the method of choice, go bakc in time far enough to save Vulcan and defeat Nero slightly earlier? He would not "erase" the JJverse, and probably make little global changes to the rest of the JJverse between the destuction of Vulcan to the defeat of the Narada.
     
  18. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    TOS may be "the original" and "the best" but it will never, ever be consistant with itself, let alone it's sequels and prequels.

    Thus Warped9's argument is a faliure. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

    He can't even prove it's the same Spock from episode to episode of TOS.
     
  19. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    :rolleyes:

    So many like to trot out the irreconcilable inconsistencies of TOS that are supposedly the size of asteroids. Funny, while I can see some occasional little ones I don't see anything that can't be explained within the context of the series. The only one that comes across as a bit annoying is that the stardates of two first season episodes overlap some.

    And so I don't have to prove it's the same Spock from episode to episode. The writers and the actor were smart enough to keep him consistent.
     
  20. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    But box office returns are a consideration (especially after the stinker that was Nemesis), because it proves that a lot of people still love Star Trek despite the downhill slope it had taken in recent years, if 250 million dollars worth of ticket holders was any indication.

    In one episode, Spock smiles.

    In another episode, he makes a completely tasteless remark to Yeoman Rand about Kirk's sexual prowess.

    In TMP, he cries without any external influence controlling him to do so.


    Consistent?
     

Share This Page