The Spock and Uhura relationship

As a person who liked the romance in star trek 09, hated it in STID and liked it again in Star Trek Beyond. I think Beyond is the best written version of the romance and a huge improvement from star trek into darkness. who else agrees with me.

 

I liked both, but preferred ID. The "car ride squabble" in ID was funny and realistic, and I loved the bit at the end where Spock looks to Uhura for her go-ahead before beaming down to whup Khan.

Beyond had the brilliant tracking device gag, but was otherwise a bit of a rehash of ST'09's "I have to resign and repopulate Vulcan" ending which was already dealt with during the convo between Spocks.

I did love the idea that Spock envied the life of Ambassador Spock, and his realisation at the end that Ambassador Spock envied his on the Enterprise (hence the photo)

 

It depends on who you are asking. There is a difference between the preference of people who like their relationship and want to see it more developed, and those who don't and are likely to essentially like a movie more if it does less with this aspect they don't like and don't want to see more of.

I'm one of the people who LOVE their relationship but I honestly can't say which movie of the sequels I prefer. I can only say that the first one is my favorite. Then there are aspects I like in both the sequels, and aspects I don't like.
I find Beyond toned down their relationship as a result of them also ignoring the new trio with Uhura trying to restore the tos trio with Bones. I understand Urban wanted more and I'm not against more McCoy or even paying homage to tos dynamics, but I'm against them making it mutually exclusive with the new dynamics.
The toned down aspect is mainly from Uhura's side: in that one, I prefer stid because she had more agency in the relationship and was more allowed to express her feelings, while in Beyond it's more the scenes that mention her than the scenes where she lives the relationship herself and is allowed to talk with Spock.
Also, I don't judge romance according to the 'conventionally romantic' scenes the pair gets and, in fact, I like this couple for the depth I find in their dynamic and how interesting it's to me (and also my love for both characters), but still, I have to note that to some it may come across as if this team got a bit 'self conscious' about their interactions in this movie (see the lack of touches and kisses between them), almost as if they were trying to not hurt the feelings of the conservative fans that go 'eww' about any tiny hint of kissing and romance (or that neither Spock or Uhura are asexuate being). I find it amusing that the trailers' editors had to use a different angle of the cheek kiss to get a hint of romance. This team didn't make it easy for the marketing people to 'promote' this dynamic and try to attract back the people who liked it in the first movies.

Honestly, regardless how it was done in Beyond and regardless the good stuff, I didn't get the feeling Lin's heart, so to speak, was into any of the characters as characters of this trek (rather than an imitation of the old characters he knew and liked). There is something 'off' about all the interpersonal dynamics for me, and the movie went backwards (about some things the first movie did) in the name of nostalgia.
But then again, stid wasn't a perfect movie either. In both, I feel they didn't use the potential created by the first movie nearly enough. Also, Spock's conflict in Beyond might have been a more natural sequel to the first movie than stid was. In a way, they used it too late because stid had already seemingly resolved some things (see his PTSD, even if not adeguately for me because he got too little screentime about that aspect in stid) so, in a way, it seems the characters make no real progress.

In general, I think they could do a bit more with this new dynamic unique to the reboot that adds different layers to these characters. Everything is so dominated by bromance (of course it's because most of the characters are male too) that it's all the more noticeable for me when the only dynamics that include a woman too are the only ones progressively getting less screentime.
For a franchise that is paraded around by both fans and writers as one of the most progressive and inclusive ones, I have my doubts that is really giving to a nowadays audience anything they can't already find in other franchises. Honestly, I think that trek might, ironically, end up still being the most conservative for nowadays standards.
Beyond going backwards with the fact that Uhura was elevated at the original trio level, and the fact that a white dude (Urban) replaced a woman (and a woman of color ) as the third top billed cast member is strangely symbolic of trek still failing to really follow what it keeps preaching about.

 

I like the relationship in all three films - it's one of the great improvements of nuTrek over the original.

 

I preferred how the romance was handled in Beyond more than Into Darkness. I felt the depiction of the relationship in Into Darkness was too bratty and immature.

 

This poll is missing the option "They both did the romance equally well."

 

Indeed.

 

I wasn't a fan of the relationship at all; it didn't feel organic to the characters (at least not the TOS versions) or the story. It seemed like it was just there, since all action movies must have a love story somewhere (although I think Rogue One busted that myth).

Still, if it must be there, I like that Beyond didn't put it in the viewer's face (and gave both Spock and Uhura the chance to branch out and interact with more characters then they did in the previous two movies). It also gave us the immortal line: "You know Spock, when an Earth girl says 'it's me, not you,' it's definitely you," which is an automatic win in my book.

 

Spock was basically stuck with McCoy, and secondarily Kirk, for most of the movie (even when they finally reunite with the crew and Spock could have then finally teamed and interacted with others more) so I'm unsure about who are all these different characters he interacted with that he had never interacted before (and him interacting with McCoy surely isn't new to trek either). He didn't even interact with the villain in this movie. How is Beyond any better in this aspect than the previous movies?
Some even thought that, compared to the first two, Spock got sidelined as a co-protagonist (that he effectively is in the first movies). Lin&Co seemingly ignoring Spock's personal arc in their interviews, and them only focusing on the fanservice spock/mccoy stuff and Kirk's personal conflict, might have also exacerbated some people's impression that there seemed to be a downgrade from a co-protagonist level for Spock. It could be just an impression in terms of how the movie really is, sure, but not one without basis or completely unfounded, IMO.

as for Uhura, she interacts mostly with the bad dude but she basically has no dynamic with Sulu or any other character she didn't interact with in the other movies. It's not significantly better than in the other movies where she interacts with her boyfriend more, and she interacts with Kirk or the villain(s) or some other character too. I don't see what makes it better for her in this aspect when she essentially isn't allowed to the narrative elements, in terms of relationships, the primary and secondary male characters are allowed to.

The only character who benefited any from sidelining Uhura and S/U is McCoy who, however, has the very issue you are vaguely concern trolling and projecting on Spock and Uhura here: 3 movies in (50 years), and he still has no meaningful interaction with any of the other characters who aren't Kirk or Spock.
If there is anyone who needs to interact with different characters maybe it's McCoy, but it doesn't seem to be a concern of the actor or the fans, right?

based on the fact that the romance takes less than 5 minutes of screentime in all the movies, it seems a tad over the top for someone to state that it's 'put in the viewer's face'.
and whatever that means, a dynamic either exists or not in the narrative and you can't tone this one down even more without essentially not having this dynamic at all.
It makes more sense for me (not to mention more honest and less disingenuos) if you just say that you don't want to see it at all, than pretend that it's good writing and it's better developed if, basically, it doesn't get developed.

In either case, it's not this particular dynamic that is showed down people's throat so if that is your argument, perhaps you should direct this kind of criticism at the male dynamics, even if those are your favorite.
It's also ironic to make it seems that old tos dynamics like the original trio are anything refreshingly 'new' to trek. If anything, the romance is the very example of that 'characters interacting more with others' thing mentioned above precisely because it's a pretext for this trek to have other interpersonal relationships OUTSIDE of the old trio dynamic box.

the same could be said about intercheacheable dudebro dynamics TOO. I hate to break it to you, but the kind of dynamic that you prefer too relies on its own old clichè tropes and lack of originality. So what? We should stop to have relationships, of any kind, in movies?
If you recognize the merits of having interpersonal relationships in movies in form of the male friendships, for the reason that it's a way the writers make the characters more real, it shouldn't be that hard to understand that romantic relationships are developed for the same reason.

and maybe 'all action movies must have a love story somewhere', but one can't really say that this is the trope that TREK movies should subvert. If anything, for our fandom subverting the trope actually means to have a love story and have our own 'Han/Leia' (and something more meaningful than Kirk's flings). Making platonic relationships the be all and end all of interpersonal relationships representation is NOTHING new or original for trek, even less erasing women for the sake of making bromances more important.

Besides, I really wouldn't say that Spock/Uhura was the most predictable romance that these movies could have created. In more than one aspect, giving the romantic subplot to these two specific characters was more gutsy from their part than, say, give the romantic subplot to Kirk.


tl dr: If you or anyone believes that stuff like Kirk/Bones or Spock/Bones is more useful for the story and character development than Spock/Uhura, it's more a matter of your personal preference for the male dynamics, and/or platonic relationships, than a 'fact' making the 'bros' more necessary for the narrative than the romance. To to be succinct here: there is nothing that automatically makes hollywood's cliché bromances more important or 'original' than the romance cliché.
In many cases, this ongoing concern trolling about romance might be just systemic sexism and blatant double standards about the dynamics that include women (or that are exclusively considered the female's flavour e.g., guys not considered 'manly' by some if they happen to like the romance genre too), regardless if they are really developed as just a cliché romantic subplot put there for the sake of having romance only. The fact that some people arbitrarily establish that romance must be an 'inferior' narrative element is a problem.

In which case, Spock/Uhura isn't that since it's important for their character development.
Frankly, one could argue that Spock's relationship with Uhura is a tad more relevant to his character development HERE than whatever interactions he has with Mccoy in this movie, no matter how funny or interesting they can be.
In fact, most of their memorable interactions from the last movie, including the one you liked the most, end up being based on the relationship Spock has with Uhura. So, it seems conveniently disingenuos, and hypocritical in a funny way, that someone would essentially deem the romance useless and want to see less development for that dynamic but then, at the same time, want it to exist when it benefits the male dynamics by giving them pretexts to interact and have funny memorable scenes that they otherwise wouldn't have without the romance.

And while the bromances existed in tos too, and they are in fact put here mostly for the sake of nostalgia rather than some inspiration for new creative elements, you can't honestly tell me that tos Spock was as 'open' about his feelings and personal matters with either Kirk or Bones as this Spock is in Beyond. I can't imagine tos Spock having with McCoy the scene they have in Beyond where he talks about Spock Prime and Uhura. Original Spock was just too closed off and private. He also was more on denial about his human side and his feelings in ways this Spock isn't (in fact, this made the banter with McCoy here mostly one sided). Tos Spock wouldn't even admit that he considered Kirk and McCoy his friends, he wouldn't admit to feel care.. and there are way more aspects about his personal life that his friends knew nothing about (including the fact he had a brother).

So, it's interesting that someone would criticize the romance because it doesn't feel organic to them in terms of the tos characters, and yet ...and yet, they are appreciating the equally (sometimes even more) 'out of character' version of Spock's 'bromances' with Kirk or Mccoy that we probably wouldn't have in the tos context, and without a Spock whose interpersonal relationships are no doubt informed by him already having an ongoing romantic relationship with Uhura (along other life experiences making this Spock different).

 

In this movie series, both of Uhura and Spock's scenes were mostly with each other and Kirk. So, even if we had seem them doing things with other characters in the TV shows and older movies, it was a fresh take from all of them to move outside that circle and interact with other characters that they haven't had much to do with in this movie series.

Since Spock got about as many scenes as Kirk did in regards to his crossroads in life, I don't see that.

A.) We get to see Uhura do a lot more than be the girlfriend. B.) Uhura was always a supporting character not a lead, and C.) She played her part in saving the day.

McCoy was criminally underused in the first two movies. Secondly, the McCoy and Spock dynamic is a key part of TOS and one that had not been capitalized on before. Finally, Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto did really good work together, so I think that proves that putting them on the set and letting them have it was a a good call.

It really seemed to dominate those characters (esp. Uhura). That could be subjective on my part, but there it is.

Yeah, I don't really care for it. However, as far as movie love stories go, I'm not sure it's even that well constructed. It's not in keeping with either character as the franchise has established them and we know next to nothing about why they're together. It's just there.

As I've mentioned before, I'm talking about new to this series, not new to Trek overall. Also, the old TOS dynamics fit the characters, the love story does not (IMHO).

No, I didn't say that. I'm just questioning if it's a little overused in general and if it belongs in this specific movie.

Yeah?

As I mentioned before, it doesn't make sense with these characters. Putting Kirk and say, Carol Marcus, would.

WTH? You're really reading a lot into this, and not getting any accurate picture of my assessment.

My points boiled down to that I'm not sure the relationship works between Uhura and Spock, and I feel it was forced because of the belief that there needed to be one and at the expense of the core characterizations of the TOS franchise.

I don't have a problem with a love story element in and of itself (case in point, my fondness for the original Spider-Man trilogy does have a lot to do with the Peter Parker/Mary Jane Watson dynamic). However, I don't need it in every thing I see, and I've seen stuff where it's been pretty poorly integrated.

Since McCoy is the one he talks to about his uncertainty about what he should do, I have to disagree. In fact, McCoy and old Spock play the biggest roles in young Spock making his decision, and Uhura has next to nothing in that regard.

Honestly, my favorite scenes with Spock in this movie are when he's taking about his future with McCoy in the cave and when Kirk is asking him how they're going to get out their predicament. Also, while I may not like the setup in and of itself, I can appreciate some things about it if I accept it as a given (like how I dislike the Kelvin timeline premise, but liked Beyond as a Star Trek movie).

I agree this Spock has the most differences from his original characterization. However, given the importance of the three-way friendship to the source material, I'd argue that it's something that was missing before and is good to see it being capitalized on here.

I appreciate the the friend dynamics between Spock and McCoy (and Kirk), since they're closer to the spirit of TOS than the idea of Spock and Uhura being a couple is. Also, on a storytelling and acting ground, I'd argue that Spock's friendships are better presented, make more sense, and have better acting than the ones involving his love life do.

I'm a little surprised how sensitive you're being about this. My point was that I'm not fond of the Spock/Uhura relationship (as I've outlined above), but didn't mind it that much in Beyond. That's all.

 

I'm not a fan of the relationship at all. One of the things I like the least about the movies, especially the 2nd one is how Uhura ended up being portrayed in that regard. She became the whiny girlfriend...blah blah you didn't consider my feelings before you did something dangerous.

 

It's whiny to be upset at your boyfriend for not considering your feelings before doing something dangerous?

Wow, no wonder I'm single.

 

It wasn't just some random dangerous thing, it was part of a mission he was performing as part of his Starfleet duty.

 

I will firmly disagree on this point, even if it wasn't directed at me. Uhura was among the first people to accept Spock for who he was, and be sensitive to his needs. She gave him the freedom to be himself, and when he wasn't being open with her, she called him on it.

Except, he wasn't being open his decision under any other circumstances and refused any options for them to help him. He wanted to die. When my wife thought I was suicidal she called me on it.

 

remove the 'girl' in your phrase and you basically described how Kirk acted with Spock in stid, not to mention McCoy's constant complains about Spock being a weird alien..and they aren't even his girlfriend. Funny how things magically are just character development or conflict (or my favourite 'they are challenging Spock!') if you are a dude.

I stand by my opinion that JJ gave more agency to Uhura than Lin's trek did.

..which actually makes her calling him out on his death wish her duty as an officer too since if he really was suicidal and didn't care about dying, he could've put everyone involved in the mission in danger and jeopardise it. It's funny how no one mentions that in spite of the first movie already explaining why officers can be removed from command if they are emotionally compromised. Not to mention that in the scene Kirk himself is visibly irritated by Spock's behaviour there.

except, you aren't asking for or getting something like a Spock/Sulu bromance, thus something truly new for the trek franchise as a whole. You just got Spock/Bones and the old trio dynamic, basically going backwards in terms of the few new character dynamics this trek already had. How can you even call it fresh and new, lol ^
and the Kirk/Uhura/Spock dynamic already IS by default more 'moving outside of the circle' for trek compared to the old dynamics that pretty much dominated the franchise for 50 years!
I don't even know how you can try to have this argument here: we are talking about two movies with something never done before (Spock/Uhura, which hardly got the same screentime the old tos dynamics got in tos anyway) vs the whole tos series and old movies you have about the old dynamics already.
Not so hard to see which character dynamics are more 'been there done that, let's try something different for a change'.
I doubt it makes any sense to consider the new stuff more 'overdone' than the old dynamics you want to get even more of.


and it's not lost on me, btw, that through your whole reply you are selectively judging this trek from the perspective of it being another trek series ONLY when you want to pretend that pushing for the old tos dudebro stuff at any cost is 'fresh' for this trek but then, on the flip side, you judge this 'different' series from a tos perspective explaining its dynamics using tos and whatever happened in that.
I swear, no one tries to have the cake and eat it too better than the trek fans.

all points that are valid for all these movies, not just Beyond.

and since we are at it, while Uhura is more than just the girlfriend and she saves the day in every movie and has her competence and skills recognized over and over by the narrative, the same can't be said about McCoy who is just the friend and completely defined by his interactions with Kirk and Spock, which is something you have no problem with and actually consider a foundamental requirement for his character and this trek to be successful (and I just won't mention that it doesn't seem to me that going backwards with the dynamics made Beyond the most successful movie of this trek. nope. not going to talk about that )
So what were you saying..?

frankly, I'm sick of the concern trolling about Uhura being the obligatory tattict used by every fan who dislikes this pair for getting in the way of the old dynamics, but tries to disguise it behind the current internet trend of feminism done wrong.
I can't for the life of me understand how you all seriously don't see how ridiculous it gets when you are projecting on Uhura and the romance flaws that not only your fav character dynamics have, but it actually is things you praise when it comes to them. It just doesn't compute.

even if that were the case, it shouldn't be a problem for you when you seem to like other dynamics that dominate characters and their screentime.

no offense, but if the writers wanted to be realistic and truly respect the integrity of these characters, McCoy and Kirk would be the least guys on that ship (and the whole galaxy) that Spock would even want to interact with, let alone be friends with. There is no reason the narrative provides why he must be friends with them more than, say, Sulu, Chekov, Scotty or .. Gaila. No reason beyond the fact that those dynamics existed in tos and must be forced in another trek series by default just because the characters have these names.

and yet, here you are asking for explanations why two otherwise compatible personalities like Spock and Uhura found love in each other and are in a relationship since years.
IMO it's the least interpersonal relationship for Spock you should have much trouble understanding, even by just watching these movies.
and it's not just there, it's an integral part of their character development. There are many scenes, such as the one between Spock and his father where the latter admits he loved Amanda, that wouldn't have the same double meaning and depth they have with this added later that is their relationship. Tos Spock possibly understood some things about his dual heritage only much later in his life, I bet that it took him ages to discover that, actually, not only he's capable of feeling love, not only that is totally fine..but it actually doesn't make him less his father son and a Vulcan . This Spock is a much more realistic depiction of a mixed person and their conflicts.

There are are so many aspects about his emotional development that he just could never get only through the role of the friend when he could still keep his distance in a way you can't with someone you are in love with.

like I was saying...

you mentioned it but provided no convincing argument or facts why it doesn't make sense for them, beyond just your own opinion.

Kirk and Carol had a seemigly brief, never really developed in canon, failed relationship in tos resulting in a son that was kept away from his father for, basically, his whole life (and because his parents were essentially selfish). I dunno how it would make more sense for them to be in love and work in a relationship in an alternate reality than two different characters who were possibly attracted to each other in tos, but never explored it beyond that (never read the behind the scenes stuff about how Roddenberry had tried to set s/u up from the get go but it was impossible for them to do it in the 60s?)

Unless you are saying that it makes more sense, in trek, for humans to be the only ones allowed to fall in love and have relationships..which would be a tad ironical in context of this franchise and a character like Spock who is himself the result of a vulcan/human couple (that alone is a decent inspiration for the romance in this trek and why it's important for Spock's character).

It would also be ironical in context of you talking about cliché romances if you consider a romance more logical for Kirk than Spock just because he's the kind of character that gets the romance by default in this kind of movies. In which case, it seems you are criticizing Spock/Uhura for not being cliché or predictable enough.

but on the other hand, forcing the old tos dynamics because of the belief they must be there no matter how this story is and at the expense of the core characterizations and dynamics of the THIS TREK franchise is totally logical.

except, Spock's uncertainty was the very reason of the initial break up between him and Uhura. SHE actually was the first person whom Spock had talked about his concerns and conflict with since the beginning (possibly months or even years), and not just because he was stuck with her on a planet and she was the only living being he could interact with because everyone he cared about was maybe dead. I'm sorry but yeah..
I doubt that, in different circumstances, McCoy would have been even his second choice as someone whose advice he'd actively seek. Let's be real, he didn't even tell Kirk. In either case, McCoy just listened to him but didn't really make Spock see the light or something like that.
Honestly, I doubt that even after this movie McCoy truly gets Spock as a person now.
In the commentaries, Jung said that their intent with McCoy and his reactions to s/u is that he kinds of symbolises how shallow the other characters' perception of Spock, and consequently his relationship with her, can be. How little they know about this guy beyond their prejudices. In this instance, McCoy wrongly thought that s/u was a 'boy meets girl. boy loses girl' situation where everything is Spock's fault because he's the weird alien who doesn't get human lads, but it's more complex than that. The fact he reduced everything to Spock wanting to go off and make Vulcan babies tells me he still didn't fully get it all.

Anyway, Uhura knew about Spock's conflict and possibly helped him offering her imput way before McCoy even heard the end of it (when Spock already decided), and Spock even said he had wanted to further discuss things with her.
I don't expect you to pay attention to anything that doesn't advance the male dynamics, but if you think that McCoy played a biggest role in changing Spock's mind or resolving his conflict than what Uhura, and almost losing her, meant to him and the things that put into perspective, I dunno what to tell you. If you believe she has nothing to do with Spock deciding to stay or his conflict, that's your right but I (and Zachary Quinto as well, it seems) respectfully disagree with you. I'll reiterate the point: his relationship with her, regardless the amount of screentime it gets, is inevitably more relevant to his character arc (and more important to Spock personally) than his banter with McCoy.


in either case, my original point still stands: most of the memorable Spock/McCoy interactions in the movie are based on the Spock/Uhura dynamic. Remove that relationship and you lose those scenes, and you also have a Spock who is less open to people than this one is thank to his relationship with Uhura too.

If you want to compare this Spock to the original character and talk about his supposed integrity and what makes sense for him according to tos canon, then this version of his bromances is as ooc from a tos perspective as his relationship with Uhura is. Simple.

eta: and the fact that the tos dynamics are the old dynamics is completely irrelevant here and doesn't make it less hypocritical for someone to nitpick about the new dynamics for everything they are giving the old ones a free pass for in the name of nostalgia. In the end, what I take from this is that that when it comes to the tos dynamics it doesn't matter how ooc Spock could be or how forced, underdeveloped and not realistic the tos dynamics might be in this trek: I must like them and consider them good just because they happened in tos. But it doesn't work like that for me. I judge this trek on its own merits and consider it a separate thing and for me, for this trek and this version of the characters and their integrity, Spock/Uhura is the least dynamic I have a hard time finding believable and authentic.

 

@Malaika ,

Whoa, calm down here. No need to blow a gasket or anything.

Because it's something that this movie series has not explored much. Yeah, we saw the Prime Spock and McCoy do it, but we've hardly seen Kelvin timeline Spock and McCoy together. It's a switch from the previous two movies and so feels like a change of pace. Does that make sense?

Since I already addressed what I meant by moving outside the circle, can I ask: if something was such an important part of the story for that long, wouldn't make sense to address it in some fashion?

I was actually talking about the new series. The old has nothing to do with that.

We got two out of three movies worth of it, that's more than half.

A.) I will concede that I did prefer the original TV show, so that's my bias in this discussion of a subjective topic.
B.) The movies are an adaptation of TOS, so it's perfectly fair to compare and judge how they stack up and if the changes are worth it (if that is what I have been doing).
C.) Finally (and here's the thing you're not getting), I'm approaching the Kelvin movies in isolation. The older movies, the older TV shows, that's not part of it. My point is, Beyond did things with the characters that the previous two movies in the series didn't do, and as part of that, they recreated a character dynamic from the source material.

I didn't see it that way, but if you did, fair enough.

True, she did try to defuse the Klingon situation in the second movie (good scene). Not sure if she saved the day completely, but I will concede that she wasn't useless. I guess I wished we got to know more about her outside of dating Spock and being good at her job, if that makes any sense?

Like I said, McCoy was criminally underused in the first two movies.

It was a notable part of his character in the TV show and did create some of the better scenes. For what it's worth, I think Kirk and Spock were the leads in Beyond, with McCoy acting as a supporting character, so it makes sense that his material would be tied to them. (Could the same be said about Uhura in the other two? I guess? I don't know, something about her role in the first two just didn't click with me.)

Huh?

I like the characterizations in Beyond better than in the preivous two?

I'm not disguising anything. I don't care for the writing of the Spock/Uhura relationship in the new movies. Plain and simple. If you feel differently, all the power to you.

Doesn't compute? I gave an example of a love story in a blockbuster movie series that I do like the dynamics and writing of, Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson in the original Spider-Man movie trilogy. Unlike the Spock/Uhura relationship, I understood why those two fell in love, the progression made sense, and the relationship changed over the course of the movies. None of that has happened in the Kelvin Star Trek movies (IMHO). That's the reason I don't care for the dynamic at the end of the day; it feels flat to me. (The fact that it seems at odds with the source material doesn't help; I'm trying to wrap my head around it as well as deal with a presentation that doesn't work for me.)

We do like what we like. (Anyways, I do think Beyond gave all the characters the most to do to date in the three movies, whereas, IMHO, Kirk and Spock, with Uhura and Scotty kind of dominated the the first two. So, once again, a change of pace from the the first two movies in the series.)

Like I said, it is an adaptation. Part of the point of an adaptation is to see old things remixed along with new things.

Spock doesn't seem to act all that Vulcan in this part of his life when a key part of his characterization has been that he's tries to be a Vulcan's Vulcan. Also, as I said before, the relationship feels flat in the writing department, which bugs me and makes it hard to get into and invested in the relationship, since I don't understand why they're together in the first place.

Hmm. That's an interesting way of looking at it.

I'll take your word for it.

Given that it's subjective, it's all our own opinions. Put it this way, I wish I knew the backstory of the relationship, beyond the throwaway line in the first movie that she was a student in a class he was teaching.

I was only throwing that out as a possibility of something that had precedence. Whether it would've worked out better in this iteration is anyone's guess.

I've heard that idea before, but in the TV show proper, there's nothing of that idea. I will concede that it's interesting to see a discarded idea get new life (even if I find it misguided and lacking in execution).

No, I never said that (and given that I was generally in favor of Trip Tucker and T'Pol getting together in ENT, I obviously don't think so). What I actually said was I don't think it makes much sense to put Spock and Uhura together and I found the writing lacking. That's a big difference. The human/alien nature of the relationship is irrelevant.

I'm honestly a little surprised that Kirk hasn't had anything more than one night stands (which I think make really boring story material and speak more to the pop culture cliche of Kirk more so than the actual character). But that's another conversation.

A.) It is an adaptation. Therefore, different people will have different opinions on how close and how different it should be from the source material.

B.) As I have explained before, I think one piece of the character dynamics in this franchise was botched and DOA. Ergo, I would understandably prefer something that I think worked and was successfully integrated into the series.

Huh.

Did not know that there was a commentary.

I actually thought that Spock looking though his counterparts effects was what helped in decide. Maybe I mis-remembered?

Whatever. (My idea was that talking to someone about it was what helped Spock think it through.)

There are differences, but again, that's not the point. The point is, I didn't find Spock with his girlfriend as interesting as him with his friends. Whatever was done before is not relevant. Simple.

I haven't been giving anything a free pass. I think both Kirk and Spock were shown to be more rounded characters in Beyond, and their scenes with McCoy (in part) brought that out. I didn't get the same from Spock's scenes with Uhura and the relationship was as static as ever.

Good for you. Can't say I see what you see, but whatever.

 

@WebLurker
just stating the obvious: no one questions your right to like and dislike what you want here but when you rationalize your feelings making several arguments and points about canon that might not be 'facts', as this is a message board it's only natural that someone might disagree with said arguments and points and thus provide a counter argument. I'm doing nothing that isn't done here on daily basis! It's not like you wrote your opinion on your personal private blog only those who agree with you can read.
This thread and poll was created with the purpose of asking people which movie they think did the romance better (and OP is seemingly asking that to people who like the relationship), are you honestly surprised someone could disagree with the points you made?
In this instance, I find your comments are an example of the bias, hypocrisy and incoherence that I very often read in arguments made by people who don't like this couple, or don't like the reboot being another trek series with different dynamics because they consider the tos ones sacred and untouchable.

also, you keep calling this reboot 'adaptation' which is a foundamental flaw in your argument since this trek isn't really that.
This series is a reboot but not even a remake in the classic sense because they made it part of its canon and purpose that the characters are in another reality and thus we are NOT seeing the backstory of the tos characters. It's a blank page. Honestly, it's super lame for me that you criticize the new dynamics for stuff you give to the old ones a pass for just because they are inspired by to tos. Who cares? They must make sense and get written well in this trek too no less than s/u or other new dynamics. You can't use tos to explain dynamics with characters who are different people with different experiences, or use it to give validity to certain dynamics more than others. It's silly. Both old and new dynamics are subjected to the same 'rules' here and both can be criticized for bad writing if they fail to deliver and be believable in this context. What you are doing is criticizing s/u for x reasons, but when you fav dynamics are called out on the fact that they actually have those flaws you project on s/u, you get annoyed and are like 'buuuutttt it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense and it's forced too! it's the tos dynamics so they get a free pass and are automatically good and logical because I say so!' .
Doesn't work like that.

since you are getting defensive and telling me to 'calm down' in spite of the fact that no one really attacked you, I won't further reply to every point you made because it would obviously be a waste of time. This argument is already doing the most with so little and perhaps it's actually redundant at this point and leave to others the chance to reply if they want. It's not like there is that much I can add here, anyway, without repeating what I already said and all the reasons I already outlined to explain why your arguments are hypocritical and make little sense to me.
thank you for giving us a pretext to have a discussion, though
----
ETA: also thank you because you essentially proved one of the points I made at the beginning to reply to wayne39"question. The point being that OP should be careful judging some people's preference for beyond and pay attention to their motivations (since they want to gauge which movie is the best for the romance) because there is a difference between those who like the romance and want it to be well developed, and those who don't and see it as a threat for the dynamics they really care about; a difference that will inevitably affect their perception of the movies and makes it likely for the ones who don't like this couple to prefer the movie they perceive as the more 'safe' because it developed this relationship less, or they didn't see them doing the things, as a couple, they did in the other movies.
I hope that if more s/u 'haters' vote in the poll they reply to the thread too, like you did, because this is far more 'useful' for op's main point, I think, than whatever the poll says.

 

Obviously. What the heck has this got to do with anything? Nothing. I never said that, I never indicated that you were wrong to hold your opinion. I just responded to the feedback, same as I would do on any other thread.

No, of course not. I originally posed with an offhand comment, not intent on debating anything or putting peole down who dislike it. And I did answer the question. I liked it best in Beyond. I didn't care for it much in the first two, but I thought it was okay there and did factor into the plot more. (I will concede that it did pass me by that the thread may have been geared more to fans of the relationship. I may have been pretty candid in my initial post, but there's nothing in it that's offensive.)

Here's what surprised me. You clearly aren't hearing a thing I say (or are ignoring everything you don't want to hear and haven't been for some time now. I agree that I have bias and subjectivity on this topic, but I also have logical and internally consistent reasons for holding those opinions beyond my subjective preferences.

Look, I think the Kelvin series has an identity crises on whether it's a continuation or a remake, since it combines elements of both. Because of that, "adaptation" seemed to be the best way to describe it, since the idea was to introduce changes, as if it was adapting a book or something. If I am wrong about that, what do you think is the best description?

Also, how the heck have I been giving a pass on anything? All I've said is that I enjoyed the acting and character scenes in one movie, more so than the ones in the others. That is subjective, but not unfair. (I also thought the character dynamics in Beyond built on the first two movies in a way I wanted to see the Spock/Uhura relationship go. Make sense?)

Also, you're ignoring what I'm saying; taking the new movies by themselves and ignoring all the other Star Trek material, I don't like the Spock/Uhura relationship because of the way it's written. If the writing was better to me, I wouldn't have that problem. Simple, not hypocritical, and completely fair. Do you understand?

I'm not the one who called me a hypocrite or made extrapolations that I'm inherently biased against love stories, and keeps repeating the same criticisms despite me answering the questions.

That's your call.

Yeah?

Considering you missed the point, I don't know what to say to you.

You know, it's really funny, I'm the alleged bad guy here, yet I'm the one being condescended to, having the reasons I'm offering be ignored in favor of my subjective opinions (which I've stated are beside the point) falsely claimed to be the crux of my argument, and my statements to the contrary. Could you at least please address my actual points if you're going to dismiss them, rather than lumping them in with stuff that I've already said is not what what I'm building my case on?

You don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what came before. In the context of itself, I don't think it works. I don't think the relationship between the two characters is well-written or developed. I don't think the actors have that much chemistry together. While me may agree or disagree on whether that is true or not, that rests solely with the new movies. Why do you keep bringing up the old stuff? While I may subjectively enjoyed seeing those recreating in the new series more, that is not relevant to the fact that the problems that I have with the relationship are with the Kelvin movies alone and would still remain even if taken in a vacuum. The "you just prefer the old stuff and hate anything that changes it" is a red herring that needs to be gotten rid of.

And you wonder why I was feeling attacked? If you're not trying to do that, you might want to rethink your response style. I don't appreciate being called names, much less when it gets repeated without anything new I add being factored in.