My Gripes with STID!

[Franklin]

This, from The Making of Star Trek (1968):

Because of his mother's origin, however, Spock does have a human side to his personality. A human side with emotions. The result is a continual struggle within himself to suppress his feelings. But the Vulcan half is normally in control. Conditioned since childhood not only to deny but also to be ashamed of emotion, Spock thrusts feelings aside and finds a "logical" rationalization to explain it.

That's from the author, Stephen E. Whitfield. Here's a quote about Spock from Roddenberry, who contributed to the book:

Which is one of the reasons why Spock is an interesting character. The turmoil and conflict within. As half-human and half-Vulcan, he is continually at war with himself.

Here's Nimoy in the same book:

Spock is fun to portray, because underneath, he really does have emotions. ... Actually, Spock has a considerable amount of compassion...."

Seems nothing about Spock occasionally showing emotion (delighted by a plant, upset at the disappearance of THE WOMEN) is really out of character. It may be unusual, but not out of character.

Because of who he was, Spock in TOS was also the "uber-Vulcan," who believed he had to be more Vulcan than a Vulcan. There's very little reason for Spock in the new universe to feel that way, any more. He's becoming at peace with his emotional side differently, and more quickly, than Spock Prime did.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yeah, I agree. Kirk also appears to have a much stronger friendship with Dr. "Buckle up" McCoy than Mr. Spock, plus having only known Spock only a fraction of the time that they Knew each other in TWOK. I didn't buy Spock's reaction in that crappy rip-off death scene at all.

One thing you're forgetting is that Spock did a mindmeld with Pike as he died not long before this. Spock got to FEEL what Pike was going through as he died. He even discusses this with Uhura in the Kronos scene and says he wishes never to have that feeling again. However, in Kirk's death scene he asks Spock how he chooses not to feel and he replies is "I'm failing." It is likely that this was an influence on him at the time still.

Wait, are you saying it was all set up by the writers in previous scenes???? But...but... that's unpossible!!!!!

 

[fireproof78]

Here's my thing, and I'll try to make it short but it is something that bothers me. Spock's arc in the Abrams film works for me, because it is self-contained and there is enough information about Vulcans, about Sarek and Spock's history, as well as how emotions play a part in Spock's life. I've quoted it multiple times but Sarek's quote serves as the foundational moment for Spock's arc.

"Emotions run deep within our race. In many ways more deeply than in humans. Logic offers a serenity humans seldom experience. The control of feelings so that they do not control you."

That is the conflict in Spock-one of deep emotions that require constant control, only to be put to the test of the attack by Nero, the loss of his mother, and the devastation of his entire species. In 09, Sarek offers him the condolence that he is pleased that Spock is the child of two worlds. A fan gave his own psychological interpretation of Spock's mindset, though it does bridge all series and films. However, it is quite interesting to discuss the nature of Spock.

Spock's emotional state reflects one of deep turmoil, but not supported by experience to deal with those emotions. He is trying to find the balance in a universe that really has not given him a break. The idea that he some how has an emotional break after Kirk's death does not strike me as odd or out of character at all, based purely upon the content of the two films. I don't need to anything about Spock beyond what is told to me in the films.

Now, obviously there can be information regarding Spock from TOS and TNG, but I see no problem in taking Spock's arc from face value of the films. I think that it paints a more interesting perspective of Spock than perhaps was presented in TOS.

But, that is just me.

 

[Franklin]

Here's my thing, and I'll try to make it short but it is something that bothers me. Spock's arc in the Abrams film works for me, because it is self-contained and there is enough information about Vulcans, about Sarek and Spock's history, as well as how emotions play a part in Spock's life. I've quoted it multiple times but Sarek's quote serves as the foundational moment for Spock's arc.

"Emotions run deep within our race. In many ways more deeply than in humans. Logic offers a serenity humans seldom experience. The control of feelings so that they do not control you."

That is the conflict in Spock-one of deep emotions that require constant control, only to be put to the test of the attack by Nero, the loss of his mother, and the devastation of his entire species. In 09, Sarek offers him the condolence that he is pleased that Spock is the child of two worlds. A fan gave his own psychological interpretation of Spock's mindset, though it does bridge all series and films. However, it is quite interesting to discuss the nature of Spock.

Spock's emotional state reflects one of deep turmoil, but not supported by experience to deal with those emotions. He is trying to find the balance in a universe that really has not given him a break. The idea that he some how has an emotional break after Kirk's death does not strike me as odd or out of character at all, based purely upon the content of the two films. I don't need to anything about Spock beyond what is told to me in the films.

Now, obviously there can be information regarding Spock from TOS and TNG, but I see no problem in taking Spock's arc from face value of the films. I think that it paints a more interesting perspective of Spock than perhaps was presented in TOS.

But, that is just me.

Besides Sarek's quote above (which sums up Vulcans very neatly in both universes), let's not forget that Sarek said another very important thing to Spock he never admitted to Spock Prime, Sarek married Amanda out of love. After hearing that, talk about cognitive dissonance in Spock's mind. What if Sarek had been more honest in "Journey to Babel"?

 

[doubleohfive]

secondly, when Uhura discovers they need khan and asks chekov can we beam them up and he says no they keep moving around.... hang on? didnt you beam both Kirk and Sulu when they where plumiting to their deaths on vulcan in the first one? they where going a hell of a lot faster than just moving around!??!!? Arrrrggghhhhh!!! lol

This is more an issue for the first movie than Star Trek Into Darkness, as within the span of the same action sequence in the 2009 film, Chekov both manages to beam Kirk and Sulu up to the Enterprise as they are plummeting to the ground yet is unable to maintain a solid transporter lock on Amanda Grayson as the ground gives way beneath her even though the transporter cycle has already started.

It makes for a dramatic presentation in each case, but entirely contradict the way we'd understood how transporter technology worked to that point.

That they repeat this choice in Into Darkness is neither here nor there nor does it really bother me all that much, but the fault for it lays squarely on Star Trek (2009).

 

[Timo]

The 2009 film makes a rather consistent case of the computer normally tracking the transportee throughout the process, but being unable to do so when "gravity is in flux" and things are unpredictable. That's when human flexibility and ingenuity kicks in. Pretty standard fare for scifi, although also pretty silly, as it's actually the fast-thinking computers that ought to be superior there...

The writers try hard to come up with technobabble to justify the ST:ID scene, too. Perhaps a bit too hard. Supposedly, the damaged ship cannot target mobile things very well, or it could do something more direct about Khan. But the beam-down of Spock does not involve anything mobile, and the beam-down of Uhura, while supposedly a high-risk operation compared with Spock's beam-down, only puts Uhura down on the predictably moving garbage barge. Tracking the back-and-forth movements of Spock and Khan atop that barge might be the crucial tad more difficult.

There's no real need for consistency between the two nuMovies, because both involve a damaged ship, but the damage no doubt is dissimilar, and the 2009 movie also throws in the gravitic flux thing. Is this inconsistent with how transporters worked in televised Trek, though? When transporting is successful, it usually involves a functional starship that might be laboriously tracking every movement of the transportee just as in the nuMovies.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[drt]

With the transwarp beaming exception, nuTrek seems to approach transporting as a little more as a less common and tricky means of travel, as for the most part they seem to prefer the use of shuttles. I'd assume this was an intentional "de-evolution" of the ubiquitous use on the 24th Century shows, to show things as being a bit more primitive (which also seems to apply to the use of real enviornments for the engineering spaces).

 

[fireproof78]

The new films always struck me that the transporter was a technology that was neglected far longer in Abrams verse that in the Prime. I think that it was due to a greater emphasis on weapons and starships, which led to a larger Enterprise, as well as different styles of phasers, and left transporter tech to be developed as time allowed.

That's just my own head canon, so, YMMV

 

[Timo]

Might also be that Kirk on the TOS five-year mission used transporters a lot more than the Federation Medical Board considered healthy or the Logistics Division considered affordable. A skipper on a more regular assignment closer to home would choose shuttles over transporters every time - but Kirk, stranded beyond the limits of known space for years or at least months at a time, could not wear down his few auxiliary spacecraft which supposedly were quite vulnerable to various things ranging from high winds to radiation.

Of course, transporters are also vulnerable to high winds (!) and radiation. But at least they don't wear down from use quite as much, supposedly. And if they fail, the wreckage remains onboard and can perhaps be brought back to life eventually.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[WattsNoo]

STID is actually a pretty good film if you can somehow hypnotize yourself into not seeing what Lindelof did.

LOL
So that's what happened. I am not susceptible to auto-hypnosis. Thus I did not enjoy the movie, though character interplay was nice. Story/concept not.

 

[JWPlatt]

Might also be that Kirk on the TOS five-year mission used transporters a lot more than the Federation Medical Board considered healthy...

Is this in canon anywhere other than McCoy's paranoia? I don't think so. You are proposing that there is an inherent degradation in the process. I'm unaware of any such thing except outright accidents.

...could not wear down his few auxiliary spacecraft which supposedly were quite vulnerable to various things ranging from high winds to radiation.

So they would rather degrade personnel, according to the above, than wear down their shuttlecraft? How Mirror Universe of them.

 

[Timo]

Is this in canon anywhere other than McCoy's paranoia? I don't think so. You are proposing that there is an inherent degradation in the process. I'm unaware of any such thing except outright accidents.

And that would be my theory as well. A hundred beam-downs would not make you ill - but any single one of them could kill you, with the statistics well known. It would thus be statistically better to take a shuttle whenever the special abilities of the transporter are not absolutely needed, but Kirk wouldn't have that luxury.

So they would rather degrade personnel, according to the above, than wear down their shuttlecraft?

Not degrade but lose outright - but yes. Kirk could always get more people for any given task; many of his officers were complete idlers, after all, and could be handed a phaser or a welder and told to do their bit for the Federation. Shuttles would supposedly be harder to come by, and loss of those might mean death to more than just the folks now being beamed around. Perhaps Kirk learned the hard way not to press his auxiliaries too hard when all were in maintenance when the transporter failed Sulu's landing party in "The Enemy Within"?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[kirkfan]

I think it's remarkable that the split caused by Nero somehow radically changed Khan's ethnic origin.

As the doctor used to say (in the other timeline): The universe is such a strange place.

 

[Timo]

changed Khan's ethnic origin.

And name. And profession.

The latter change might well have dictated the other two...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sonak]

The transporter should've ended medical science in the 24th century.

As far as the fall goes, Kirk and Sulu were going in one direction, Chekov could predict where they were going to be at. With Khan and Spock, they couldn't predict where they would be any given moment because they were moving around in an unpredictable way.

indeed, "unnatural selection" opens up a similar can of worms with the transporter as the healing blood thing does.

 

[kirkfan]

changed Khan's ethnic origin.

And name. And profession.

The latter change might well have dictated the other two...

Timo Saloniemi

I remember the other Khan being a condottiere and a dictator.

What was this one's occupation?

 

[Timo]

Field agent for S31, supposedly (plus, even more secretly, an escalation advisor). Under the name of John Harrison, and behind the face of Benedict Cumberbatch - both very fitting falsehoods for a S31 employee!

Was Khan "Prince of Millions" Singh ever a mercenary? Somebody made him, sure, but we get no indication he would have been working for anybody when taking over most of Earth (would that be India, perhaps?).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[kirkfan]

Field agent for S31, supposedly (plus, even more secretly, an escalation advisor). Under the name of John Harrison, and behind the face of Benedict Cumberbatch - both very fitting falsehoods for a S31 employee!

Was Khan "Prince of Millions" Singh ever a mercenary? Somebody made him, sure, but we get no indication he would have been working for anybody when taking over most of Earth (would that be India, perhaps?).

Timo Saloniemi

Yes, I forgot about the John Harrison thing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

changed Khan's ethnic origin.

And name. And profession.

The latter change might well have dictated the other two...

Timo Saloniemi

I remember the other Khan being a condottiere and a dictator.

What was this one's occupation?

Khan was an "engineer of sorts" according to what he said in "Space Seed". He's developing weapons in STID. Not a major career shift . As for the "ethnic change " that's been covered in this thread and others. To recap John Harrison is a lie. Nothing about him can be taken at face value. (Literally in this case.)

 

[BillJ]

Khan was an "engineer of sorts" according to what he said in "Space Seed". He's developing weapons in STID. Not a major career shift . As for the "ethnic change " that's been covered in this thread and others. To recap John Harrison is a lie. Nothing about him can be taken at face value. (Literally in this case.)

You can reiterate these points over and over and over. But it doesn't really matter. You have some people who stick their fingers in their collective ears and scream "lalala! I can't hear you!"

Of course, Khan would have to be some type of capable engineer to take over two different Starfleet vessels from two different eras within hours of coming aboard. Might be why Kirk kept beating him and he lost the Eugenics Wars. Capable engineer, poor military strategist.