Fan Edit of Kelvin Trek
- Thread starter SonOfUncleSam
- Start date
Op cares, or they wouldn't ask what others think and make a poll..
Generally speaking, when I read some trek fans claim that the kelvin movies aren't "trek", while their revisionism apparently is "something that feels more like Trek" , it comes across as that not being just a personal headcanon, but more like a statement of a fact that takes for granted other trek fans recognize too, in spite of that assertion alone being very up to debate for a million of reasons.
For instance, I see nothing in the ideas presented in this thread that is more "trek" than what canon provides; I only see a fanfiction made according to the personal taste of one person who doesn't like these movies (or likes very little of them) . It's fine, just call it with its name.
From what I observed in this fandom in, like, years, some people may misrepresent a bit what is just their personal taste as another thing and this so called "trek ideal" they constantly preach about. It seems like if you claim that something isn't "trek" your opinion that the movies aren't good has more validity than that of the ones who like them. In fact, it's not rare to read this argument being followed by an implicit or explicit questioning of someone's knowledge of "what is trek" on the basis of them enjoying a trek that doesn't fit with the idea of trek that those people like.
There are many styles, visions and types of Trek, and to each their own. Anyone can feel a special connection to a certain place in canon. Its all subjective. This project may give someone who currently (for whatever mental subjective reason) can not enjoy the newest movies a new perspective through which to find some viewing enjoyment in the material. I can't fault that ideal at all. I would never say there is something wrong with a current form of something, that many people enjoy, but I also can completely understand the reasons others may desire a "fix." I've been looking for the fan edit of "Man of Steel" that restores the Williams theme and bright colors to a movie I had a lot of problems with. I have a fan edit of TFF that removes most of the most disliked material. I think projects like this are creative, innovative and talented ways to show various visions through the recorded materials. I have a great edit of The Menagerie that removes the flashbacks, so when watching from the beginning, you're not watching the Cage twice during Season 1, for instance.
It doesn't seem to me that someone said it's "wrong" or, worse, they are not allowed to have preferences.
When people make certain arguments and ask for opinions, it seems a contradiction to get defensive when they do exactly that.
Honestly, a lot of criticism the reboot gets for not being "trek" seems to boil down to some people being like: let's keep things the same in perpetuity according to what a trek iteration from the 60s was allowed and not allowed to do..
but then, it begs the question what's the purpose of a modern reboot if you don't allow the narrative to explore different things too and ADD something new to the canon?
This kind of ideology doesn’t even seem to help this franchise stay relevant and thus give it a future. The last movie seemed, at the expense of this trek's integrity, tailored more on the desires of the fans who didn't like the first movies because of some things not being like tos. Result? Sure those people loved it but it's the least successful movie of the 3 and seems to have basically alienated that very audience, that includes trek fans, who liked the first movies for the differences too, and its being a bit more contemporany to our time rather than ostensibly keeping everything the same just because in the 60s certain character dynamics where everything we were allowed to get.
As much as some people may want to ignore it, this trek is now part of canon as well and it doesn't deserve less respect than tos and its fans; its integrity does matter too. After 3 movies, several comics and a video game, acting as if its purpose is just serving a tos fanfiction with different actors and better special effects - and thus its failure is not being one still - is annoying.
One thing is sure: people aren't forced to like any trek iteration. If there is so little someone likes in one particular iteration, so much that their "fix" essentially means changing the whole thing and delete its purpose until very little of its soul remains, I honestly don't see the point of calling it a "fix" when it's more like original fiction.
My experience is that the reboot movies are strongly disliked by hardcore TNG fans who don't like TOS.
As a TOS fan first and foremost, these movies took me back to the colorful, swashbuckling fun and adventure that I enjoyed in the original Trek, and away from the long-winded, sanctimonious talkyness of later Trek.
Kor
Feeling is subjective. When I said "Feels more Trek" it wasn't to go as far as saying "this is trek and this is not trek" but rather on the feelings of familiarity. Some of that is narrative choices and characterization, some of what I meant was as simple as runtime. For example, most of Trek is in the form of episodes. It isn't that there aren't movies, but they weren't the norm.
I think inter-subjectively, there are at least three core elements to Trek that most fans come to a consensus on: 1) the setting of "strange new worlds" (even DS9 had this) to 2) tell interesting stories with characters and any corresponding archetypes/philosophies to explore the conflict in the story to 3) show that there is optimism in trying to work out our difference and take the high road, whether that leads to success or not. Now, that is just my take away, I claim no orthodoxy, authority or officialdom in expressing that. In other words, that is my opinion, but one I think many would share who are fans.
Now the Kelvin movies unaltered will always be there for fans of those movies. Nothing I do takes that away. I get when people are fans of something, they can get a bit protective and possessive. I just want to say, I'm not trashing the Kelvin movies just because I have a critique of them.
Just like when I opened the OP to dissenting views, I don't see the need for it to be trolling or a flame war. I welcome all CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. I am uninterested in any other type of criticism, although there is always the "no" vote on the poll.
So far, the vast majority of the response has been valid in my view, and I welcome to hearing people's thoughts, provided my one condition, which is why I created the thread.
As far as to what to call this project, I have no idea, hence why I have been asking people for their suggestions. Is it a fanedit? Is it Retcon? Is it an AU fan fiction That is all up in the air because I am making this as we speak, and it is not completed. So there is no duplicity in calling it one thing or another, more like an open-questionmark.
At this point, I would say it is an edit that retcons Kirk's backstory but otherwise would/could fit into the Prime continuity, thus changing it from a full reboot into a prequel with a retcon.
that might interests some, annoy others, but no one is forcing anybody to watch it at the same time.
Again, just interested in people's thoughts. Not trying to cause any insults or injury. I happen to like Star Trek (2009) as a movie. Beyond was above average, but Into Darkness ran into problems, and for me it mostly had to do with the whole Space Seed/Wrath of Khan angel felts unnatural, forced and shoehorned, and ultimately un-needed and kinda pointless. Into Darkness lacks what Wrath of Khan had, so it just pales in comparison, and so instead of standing on its own two feet, it tries to hold a candle to a much brighter flame.
I had high hopes for Kelvin Trek after the first movie, but they have largely been let down, although I still love certain elements of Kelvin Trek.
I like Uhura and Spock's relationship in the first movie, and it became a good addition to/vehicle for the plot for that first movie, but less so for the second. In and of itself, it was ok as a plot in the second, but overall I think a distraction rather than a plus. I don't have problems with Spock being a sexual being, (even if for once every seven years!) but the question to me is what is the main story about, and the plot. Greek philosophy broke what in English what is called love into three subtypes: eros (erotic love), philia (brotherly love/camaraderie) and agape (godly love or grace). I see the original Wrath of Khan, and by extension dealing mostly around the question of philia with the axiom "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one." And the sacrifice makes Spock in the Wrath of Khan and also the opening from Into Darkness, as a sort of Christ-figure, in a sort of state of grace, sacrificing himself for the needs of his comrades or entire race of people. That theme appears in its reversal In Star Trek III the Search of Spock, and when Kirk risks the Enterprise crew to save Spock (something for which he receives a reprimand from Starfleet in Star Trek IV and the early part of Into Darkness), and is also mirrored in the agent for John Harrison who commits an act of terrorism to save his daughter, again with this familial philia love. Harrison himself is also motivated by his love for his people.
So by introducing the erotic relationship between Uhura and Spock it is another layer to this theme, but one that I don't think adds to the narrative positively, which I think is at best a neutral addition. Why? Well, this is about how the narrative makes one feel, so I am force to reveal some subjectivity in answering that, but it is plainly that the stakes and motivations drastically colors the characters and how they are viewed. Because this is a subjective opinion and take-away, I don't aim to convince yourself of anyone, just to elaborate on my take. The feeling of the "all for one and one for all" I felt was the core message which works for the crew and philia, and so my edit/cut focuses on that over the love interest angle. The eros love doesn't really go with the "all for one, one for all" story, plus the whole Spock and Kirk let Nero die, also felt off to me, as did the rampage in the manhunt of "Khan" in Into Darkness.
I think JJ Abrams improved on certain aspects of Trek lore, but I think he didn't understand others or introduced others that didn't jive well. Like I said, I love his Kirk and Spock origins, I love his vision of Christopher Pike. But a lot of his plots and character development don't go anywhere as interesting as I had hoped fat the end of the first film. Like Uhura and Spock's relationship arch is uninteresting to me by Beyond, and as I was saying, I think it's presence in Into Darkness further characterized those two characters but I think do not make the overall plot better, or even their whole arch culminating in Beyond.
For me, eliminating the destruction of Vulcan (another brave move that wasn't explored enough and didn't pan out in my view) and the willful negligence in the death of Nero means the cause for Spock and Uhura's relationship is largely removed. While there were interesting dynamics lost in the characterization and relationship between those two characters, its removal doesn't change I think the dramatic core of the story, just streamlines it.
The result is thus far, episode one gives us the origins, the famous first confrontation at the Academy hearings, Kirk and Spock debate about fear in certain death, no win scenarios, and ends with Kirk and the Enterprise saving Spock, allowing Kirk to fulfill Pike's challenge about how George Kirk was Captain for 18 minutes and saves lives, now Jim Kirk by becoming a captain and refusing the no-win scenario saves his man Spock. Episode two deals with the dilemma of how to respond to a figure like John Harrison, to kill him for vengeance, or to capture him alive and take the high road.
Maybe those stories aren't as deep as what one can get into a movie, but for 50 minute episodes, I think each tells enough to have a complete story in there. Yes, it does sacrifice other plot elements to the cutting-room, but that is motivated by three reasons: 1) taking out those elements which deviate too far from Prime timeline, 2) taking out plot elements that seem to digress from the core values/characterizations of Trek 3) streamlining the story so that there is a clearer/faster plot in the shorter allotted time slot.
If there was a way to keep Spock and Uhura's relationship without the destruction of Vulcan, then I might have kept it, but its removal I don't think hallows out the power of the story, which I think hinges on that dilemma of "capture or kill" and what is risked/gained in saving a live versus taking one.
But I think you go overboard in inferring racism. Those are the reasons I edited that stuff about their relationship out. It still works with those references gone as a story, it is just much more streamlined. It is not coming from a desire to make Uhura a cardboard cut out of a character. In fact, in this second episode she still shines as a competent member of the crew when she goes out solo to speak Klingon to the Klingons.
If you don't like the changes, then the project is not for you. My point is only to say that there is still plenty of story and narrative even when whole scenes and plots are removed on the chopping block.
Last edited:
Enough so far for two 50 minute episodes, each with a distinctive plot and a clear story arch and resolution by the end, although certain plot elements are unresolved and cliffhangered.
I initially liked those things too. But I feel there is a balance between paying the proper respects and homage to the original while also updating, making relevant and modernizing the franchise. I think as a whole the Kelvin Trek surprised me by the revitalization of Trek, and the positives of the new take on it. In a way, it did seem to revive the true spirit of the original. I grew up in the 1980s, so for me TNG was the standard bearer of Trek. But I don't mind the different takes on it. So far I am liking Discovery (although it is far from perfect).
But I get when people say Discovery doesn't feel like Trek because of the characters being at odds, lying, having different agendas, some one in Starfleet being called by another Starfleet officer a "warmonger", etc. Deep Space Nine was also a big departure, having non-federation, non-Staflet characters, the Dominion War and Section 31, etc. In the end, DS9's difference were an asset and made it great show. I hope the same would be true of Discovery. With Kelvin however, it was a mixed bag, and what they got right with their shake up, they proceeded to squander throughout the three movies, in my view.
There are ways to have a dilemma without too many conference meeting exposition scenes. And my edits I feel preserves that action from the films above the old talking heads. Part of that sexiness and vibrancy is why I wanted to make this project in the first place.
And yet, it's only through their relationship that Spock is allowed, in stid, to at least hint his ptsd as she is the only one who noticed he was being suicidal and challenged him about it.
His friend didn't. Because him and Kirk are strangers who barely know each other at this point. Plus, there is a certain level of intimacy and purpose in discussing some things with someone you are in a relationship with, versus people you barely know. The threat of losing her because of a misuranderstanding made Spock open to talk about something personal he wouldn't talk about otherwise.
It could be argued that their relationship is more pivotal to this Spock than bromance because it ties directly into what makes him a different Spock with its own integrity. It also ties back into the parallel it creates with his parents (not casual that this dynamic was Nimoy's fav thing about this Spock)
Of course, in order to appreciate Spock having a private life outside of his friend, one gotta care about Spock as an individual too and not just as Kirk's friend or part of the triad.
Your reasoning seems to suggest that Uhura is a threat to bromance, thus making different relationships mutually exclusive basically. I guess it's in true Greek ideal spirit too since - contextually - that, for the most part, boils down to 'women aint s*it' as well, but I'm not sure this is the kind of 'ideal' trek should be about, regardless that being an 'ideology' that no doubt colored certain choices made in a show from the 60s.
I'm not sure nowadays people can relate to a narrative that supports the "bros" as the only relationship that is based on a profound bond while women are just sexual objects. I only know that Uhura wasn't presented as being that, and if people only see her as the girl Spock has sex with in his spare time, it says more about people's double standards than the characters and how they are written.
Are we still at the "vulcans only mate every 7 years" fanon? I hoped people were over that. Even poor Dc Fontana still can't understand why fans are convinced that idea is canon in spite of them never saying that.
Let them vulcans have fun outside of pon farr!
Except, you are eliminating a core element of Spock's arc (that influenced even his dynamic with kirk) in all 3 movies. Not to mention eliminating the narrative element that makes him more equal to kirk as a protagonist (eg kirk is allowed to have a connection with bones, spock would have no connection outside of kirk thus become the hero sidekick again totally defined by him. You could make him and uhura friends but it would be pointless then to not keep the romantic aspect especially when their actions make more sense with such context)
You seem to be under the assumption that the spock/uhura relationship happened after and because of the vulcan diaspora, which is completely misuranderstanding basic narrative elements here.
They were already a couple before that event. That was the intention of the writers. That's why she acts that way in the turbolif, and why it's totally appropriate and welcomed by Spock. A friend would never kiss him that way, especially not a xenolinguist who knows about Vulcan culture. She did that because it wasn't the first time he embraced her and kissed her, she was familiar and comforting like only a significant other can be.
If you remove the death of his mother and the vulcan diaspora you simply remove the reason for the angst between them in the movies (his ptsd), but not the reason why they are together and were together before all of that happened. That reason remains. Just like, I suppose, changing an event in your life won't magically stop to make you love your significant other.
Ironically, you'd just make their relationship happier and easier by removing the only obstacle they faced in the movies.
Further, one could actually argue that if this Spock is open to friendships with the dudes way before he did in tos (where it took him ages to even admit friendship) it's because of the relationship with Uhura too, and how it changes this Spock making him embrace his human side more and making him more open to his feelings and less on denial, thus more open to relationships. Even his dynamic with Bones is different.
You can't have the cake and eat it too by keeping the accelerated emotional development for Spock because it makes the bromances easier, but on the flip side remove all the elements that give context, and are the reason why this Spock is more open about his feelings and open to friendship sooner than he was in tos.
Yeah, but you are dehumanizing her, and Spock, erasing her personal life and Spock's for the sake of, basically, make it all about Kirk and make bromance, again, the be all end all of interpersonal dynamics like in sexist and racist 60s. I fail to perceive it as being more positive than what canon did.
Besides, even that scene with the Klingons has a subtextual narrative element in terms of her private life arc: it's a switch of roles where Spock is the one, in that instance, who has to see her put herself in danger for "the many" and she can't think about how worried he's for her...which in turns makes her understand his perspective better when he couldn't think about her in the volcano in that other scene.
The 'go get him' bit in the end when he sorta looks at her for permission to go after Khan is also the culmination of their narrative arc and what they both learn in the movie. Thank to her, he understands how to be accountable to those he loves and who care about him (a continuation of this character development is him stating, in beyond, that he had intended to discuss his conflicts about vulcan more with her. And later when she's worried about his injury, he says he asknoveledges and respects her concerns)
Relationships are foundamental, no matter the kind. There are human layers you simply can't add to characters who are only defined by their job.
-----
Tl dr: you seem to insist saying that your changes essentially are no big deal and don't really alter this trek in a foundamental way, but they totally do that lol^ that's my issue.
You believe that some things are useless just because you don't like them, but it's an easy debunkable argument by itself, especially in light of this trek's canon providing no reason why what you don't like has no purpose in the plot or is less important than what you are more interested about. In fact, what you deem as unimportant actually helps, in some aspects, even the stuff you like.
One thing is for you to say that you don't like 90% of the movies and want to do your own completely different thing inspired by some elements of this (which is totally fine), another is you making the argument that by completely altering foundamental narrative elements of this trek you are actually "fixing" and "their removal doesn't change the dramatic core of the story, just streamlines it".
Last edited:
But in this version, as a prequel to TOS, there is no PTSD, there is no destruction of vulcan, there is no reason for animosity between the characters; the whole point is to make them act more like their original versions and bring this in line with the original timeline and not the reimagining. We've seen Spock emotional pre-TOS before. You obviously are a big fan of these movies, the different narrative, and the alterations in characterization and history. Others, not so much. To each, their own vision - and if one can make that vision a subjective reality for oneself... why not? Its just fiction, after all....
Is "fix" the word that is triggering you here? My use of it is casual. Obviously such an edit is by definition derivative, and by saying "fix" I wasn't trying to imply I am somehow greater or of greater vision than the folks who made this movie. I think you are misinterpreting me here, using the idea of editing and streamlining narrative elements as somehow getting myself all gassed-up and acting smug as if this is the real true Trek I am creating, but that is not the case. This is just a fan edit, a fun what-if. Not some nerdy claim of orthodoxy or something. I just get the impression that you assume I am taking this way more seriously than in fact I am. I have no pretensions about this, it is purely for fun.
I don't really think of it as bromance, I see it as camaraderie, which are both philia but different context. The way the edit stands now, it is clear the whole crew cares for Spock, Uhura, Kirk and Bones in particular. Because there really is no way around certain narrative elements as we advance in the plot, it currently stands at two episodes and ends with Harrison's arrest. There are a number of dangling plot and subplot threads, so the whole project should be viewed as sort of an un-picked up pilot, as a what-if in the Prime universe with a Kirk-origin retcon.
I didn't read the story as Uhura and Spock being involved before the destruction of Vulcan, but rather that Uhura was a star pupil that Spock definitely took notice of, and perhaps even a special liking to, and thus didn't want to show favoritism. My interpretation was that there were vibes between the two characters but nothing really happened between them until Vulcan was destroyed.
I just feel that there are so many stories out there where personally stakes are risked because of a romantic attachment, but not nearly as many stories where the stakes are not romance but friendship or the greater good. I think its easier, and almost cliche to see a hero risk danger to save that significant other. There are still good stories to tell with that arc, but it is fairly common. But these days, with the exception of "saving the world", which reads more like enlightened self-interest since most characters are part of the world and saving the world saves themselves, I don't think the angle of risking one's self for the love (non-romantic) of others is a super common theme in movies anymore. There are of course exceptions. To a degree the superhero genre plays with that (although many origin stories take from the tragic origins/revenge plot, something I am deleting from nu-Trek here), war movies do as well (but I haven't seen a good new war movie in a long time). But I think that speaks to the increasingly alienated and cynical world and times we are emerging in. I mean, I just was talking about war movies, and it is easy to look back to the 20th century and see soldiers fighting for big concepts like "democracy", "socialism" and "supremacy" but with the politics of 2017 I feel people are far less into the big ideals and more into their own personal lives, viewing such grand ideas cynically or even having a grand vision as being dangerous.
I am draw to the idea of Starfleet and the Federation because I still like the cause, the big idea, something modern society is losing I feel. It isn't because I want to focus on the "big three" of Trek and their bromance. My motivation is more about showing Star Trek as a cause, and the crew as a type of family, as comrades.
The way it is edited now, there is one hint of that "bromance" where Kirk tells Spock he is going to miss him, but Spock is speechless causing Kirk to scoff. I would say the relationship that actually takes the most space in this edit is actually the father/son relationship of Kirk and Pike. I think in this edit that plays the biggest role in the plot. I totally love the Kelvin version of Pike and his dynamic with Kirk, and I consider that to be one of the best changes in the series.
As I said before, I didn't mind the relationship between Spock and Uhura, although as I also said, it felt played out by Beyond, but that is just my opinion. Again, it is just too heavily, in my view, reliant on the destruction of Vulcan, which I edited out. Such moves were risky by JJ Abrams, and provided for an interesting story, than I feel was underwhelmed by the sequels. There was so much more potential from where things were left off at the end of the first movie. I would have loved to further explore what the Vulcans were like and doing post-destruction of Vulcan. That idea reminds me a little of BSG even. But instead all we get is a rather lame cameo from Leonard Nimoy, and again references to TWOK that just felt forced and shoehorned in. I don't really HATE Into Darkness. I don't think I hate any Star Trek movie, even the bad ones. But it is no TWOK.
I was half joking with he Pon Farr. I really don't care either way about Spock's sexuality.
I think that is also another thing, is the front-and-center of sex in new media. I am not a prude, but it is so very prevalent in shows like Game of Thrones, and so many of the HBO, Netflix cable TV route, that I feel the pendulum has swung all the way to that side now to the point where I am experiencing a bit of fatigue with the whole trope. Granted, it was tasteful and not graphic in Kelvin Trek, but I can see why certain fans call Kelvin Trek, Trek 90210. I personally do not need my characters to be sexualized. In a show like Game of Thrones, there are important plot points that happen because of the sexuality, I get that. I am not AGAINST sex as a plot point or whatever, I am just at this point, take it or leave it on it.
You make a lot of good points, but they highlight a lot of why Kelvin Trek deviates from the original series. Don't get upset because I said deviate, I don't men it is unpure, just different. And essentially I am making this edit to be more like Discovery, in other words in the Prime universe, so changes no longer fit.
Also, I don't really view Spock as being suicidal. I think this is kind of the dynamic that we are dealing with here around issues of love. For Uhura, Spock was risking his life while being careless of how that would effect his loved ones, and even the notion of suicidal carried the connotations of selfishness and being self-involved in one's own pain that one is completely unfocused on the effect on others.
Spock's actions carry more of Christ-figure in them. Which is interesting, because there are many who call the passion of Christ also a suicide, which I also think misses the point. It is not a suicide, but a sacrifice for the bid idea and the greater good, for the love of the masses. And this is what I am getting with, and this is probably why it is hard to reconcile even the Christ figure with the idea of an erotic relationship (hence most portray Christ as celibate). The romantic connection and relationships form such a strong bond that to devote one's self and life to any cause outside that bond seems like not taking such a vow/bond/relationship seriously. And yet this happens where prophets, civil rights leaders, revolutionaries, do have families and still get martyred. And that is a real contention, leaving behind the loved ones you are cultural expected to care first and foremost for as a protector or what have you. Being a hero might simultaneously mean not following through as a partner, a parent or a child. It means sacrificing all personal stakes for the greater stakes.
So what I am saying is on one level, Christ looks suicidal and a jerk to his mother making her go through that ordeal. Malcolm X seems like a crappy father and husband for putting himself in danger by speaking the truth to power. Or take you pick of figure, the point is basically the same. But in my view, that doesn't make them suicidal at all, but rather heroic and self-less because the love of the cause and the love of all, the masses, the greater good is embraced EVEN when it means personal ruin and sacrifice.
See, and here is where I think you are missing my point, and even that of Spock when he and Uhura have that heart-to-heart before running into the Klingons. (which is now sadly edited out). Spock's actions are motivated by love, a great level of love, a love that extends beyond himself and his personal relationships, a love that extends to lives of beings he does not even know and who do not know him. That goes waaaay beyond bromance.
I read this calling of Spock's universalism over parochialism/nationalism as why he rejected his admission to the Vulcan Science Academy. He saw the Vulcans as being narrow and particular to their own people. With Starfleet Spock can embrace and live out his universalist views in actual action and praxis.
You are painting it as if I have a racist or misogynist intent, but that isn't my MO at all. I get that you like the Uhura and Spock romance, I enjoyed it initially as well (just disappointed with where it ends up in Beyond). But as I have said before, its out because it doesn't fit with where TOS Prime picks up, and doesn't fit without Vulcan's destruction in the narrative, as I see it. So Spock being more vengeance driven, more human, etc, don't fit with Prime timeline Spock. So this version is trying to get it to fit more with the TOS depictions creating a type of continuity with Prime versions.
What drew me to Trek, and informed my ideological development, was that idea of the higher-minded cause and forming a society around that. Star Trek was a very spiritual thing for me. I took from the series the types of attraction people have to religion or to the big ideas "democracy" or "socialism" etc. Its characters, stories, message and teachings left me with that imprint. That is what I wanted to focus on and that I hope future iterations of Trek bring to the forefront.
"that your changes essentially are no big deal and don't really alter this trek in a foundamental way,"
It's not really a debate or challenge, it's just my view point. Do my changes alter the story? Of course, they are changes. But my point is there is still a story in there even with those edits. There is narrative, there are arcs. It choses to focus on certain aspects more than others, that is what happens when you trim away extra sub-plots. Some context and shades of meaning are lost, but there is still a story that you can follow scene to scene. Things still happen, still have meaning, still impact characters.
"You believe that some things are useless just because you don't like them"
I never said that. I don't think they are useless (although the cameo from Nimoy in Into Darkness I would say was gratuitous). I don't think they fit with the Prime depictions, and certain elements have been edited away and still the story and plot advances despite their absence. that's what I mean by it being streamlined.
You don't like the word "fix" but really I didn't mean much by it. Again, I think you are loading that word with a lot more than I intended by casually using it.
I still like Star Trek (2009) and think it is one of the better Trek movies. I enjoyed Beyond, and while things in Into Darkness annoyed me and brought down the film in my view, I never would go as far as to say I hated it.
But the end result of the three Kelvin films is in fact a new continuity that doesn't really connect to the Prime universe anymore. It has some good updated things, but I feel that the word I would use to describe the sequels and the many sub-plots is "muddled". There is so much going on, it is a very busy story. For me Trek is about those higher ideals and how the characters with their relationships still aspire to those ideals, rather than getting drawn into the common tropes of revenge and romance. So for me, that is the more unique and important of the story elements to focus on.
But listen, i can see you are passionate about this, and I do value the time you have taken to express your view point to me. It definitely helps reviewing these films and their narrative and characterization.
I don't however appreciate the inferences or accusations that by trying to make a fan edit that makes Kelvin-verse fit in better with Prime-verse that the agenda is misogyny or racism. I didn't create the characters, make the films, or write the dialogue. I am only editing it, and the agenda is not to make a racist, sexist bromance out of Trek.
Last edited:
It took Spock years in tos to even admit friendship and embrace his feelings so no, I don't think you can keep the more emotional Spock these movies show in order to have the bromance sooner and better, all the while erasing every single reason canon provides why his emotional development is accelerated here, and why he isn't on denial about his feelings and human side like tos Spock was for reasons related to HIS own back story and journey - that possibly was different in the alternate reality (for instance, by the time he met Uhura here, tos Spock was already in space working with Pike. You have around 10 years of life experiences, for a start, that went differently for these characters. When he met Kik he was a different person than the Spock you see in the first pilot)
If you want to turn this Spock into a character that looks more like prime Spock, you'll have to lose more than the romance. That will affect all his relationships, not just the one with Uhura. His dynamic with Kirk couldn't even be friendship at this point and he wouldn't act the way this revisionited version of kelvin Spock makes him act. You'd have to wait for the motion picture, basically.
For all people's criticism on the creative team, their choices were all mostly motivated and every change has, for the most part, a reason. Their narrative is made of pieces that make sense together and the more you remove, the more you paint yourself into a corner.
your bias is maybe clouding your judgment, then.
In the movie it's clear that they were in love and in a relationship before the vulcan diaspora. Delete that, and their body language and actions make no sense and the characters lose their integrity. In your interpretation, the characters would be even more OOC than you seem to believe the writers made them, frankly.
I get that it's maybe more convenient for you to imagine that their connection is "just too heavily reliant on the destruction of Vulcan ", and they thus got together only because Spock was emotionally compromised, or other excuses you want to rationalize the relationship away with, and I also get that them being a couple before the event you are removing "clashes" with your plan to find an easy way out and erase both relationship and the destrouction of Vulcan with one move, but it doesn't change the fact they were a couple already and, like I said, your view is inconsistent with canon because removing his ptsd just makes their relationship easier and sans drama, but it doesn't delete their feelings for one another.
In short, even in your edited version there is no reason why they can't still have the relationship they have. You already altered the origin of tos k/s too. Heck, you are even keeping the father/son relationship between Kirk and Pike that is too unique to the alternate reality and in spite of THAT being a dynamic that relies on the events that happened in the movie way more than the s/u one does! (in prime reality, Pike was more Spock's mentor than Kirk's. By the time, Kirk was at the Academy or on another ship he barely knew Pike, if he even knew him )
Honestly, I'm amazed that someone would rather make Spock ooc by pretending he'd act that way for someone he just "likes", than asknoweledge the most simple thing giving sense to his actions: he's in love.
It's not just the sex thing (when is that relantioship ever sexualized, anyway? They are barely even allowed to touch each other to the point of, frankly, the movies almost looking too conservative. Are you seriously comparing these movies to got? ) , it seems you have a hard time reconciling with the fact that he may be in love with the woman and this isn't a "detail" you can erase from his narrative by simply deleting a moment that happened when that fact was already established.
**FYI, what I'm saying is written in the script (you can google it, it's online), official comics and word from the creative team itself. For all intents and purposes, they created them as a couple and they actually were one since a year before the vulcan diaspora.
You can interpret it differently but I think most of the audience may know that they were a couple and would find your "fix" forced because the vulcan diaspora wasn't the reason why their relationship exists in the narrative, and quite frankly I find the whole idea silly.
You mean that the reboot essentially isn't like tos was.
Because what you described is no innovation for trek. The innovation would actually be if we were allowed to see different kinds of relationships besides male friendship motivating the characters TOO.
I'm also unsure why you think bromance being front and center is so rare in hollywood when it basically is everything you get in a lot of franchises that have no romance, of if they have it the female characters are only treated as love interests and sexual objects.
He had realistic survivor guilt after what happened to him and his actions reflected that, which uhura noticed. JJ even described his efforts to save nibiru as an irrational obsessive desire to save that race at the cost of his life, and going against the prime directive, because he couldn't save his people. It has nothing to do with issues of love outside of his love for her simply being a vehicle the narrative uses to give him a realistic context where he could talk about his feelings and his loss with a person he'd feel more motivated doing that. Kirk isn't that person and couldn't realistically be in that moment.
Again, it seems you are more or less just erasing Spock's personal arc or bits of it for the sake of making Kirk the only real connection he has. Everything that doesn't advance that dynamuc is deleted, including important characters motivations and feelings.
You said it, not me.
However, I think even if I wouldn't accuse you of doing that it's still undeniable that most of your revisionism boils down to deleting everything that clashes with the bromance having to be the singlest most important thing of the narrative, and pretty much go backwards in terms of the few more contemporary and "trek" stuff jj&Co did. You want to go backwards to the lovely 60s where the writers weren't allowed to have other dynamics outside the bromance not because they didn't want to, but because the context of racism and sexism still influenced their narrative no matter how progressive the show was at the time.
If JJ hadn't already changed some things, and you weren't specifically using his trek to do your thing, people wouldn't notice you going backwards in your version by erasing certain elements. We wouldn't notice you essentially erasing a woc from the emotional narrative of the main guys just to make it all about bromance again. We wouldn't notice your double standard in that - regardless what this canon says - you consider the relationship with the woc unimportant compared to the by-default-superior white dudes bros stuff.
The result is a kirk/spock fanfiction where Spock loses most of his personal arc in the movies, and most of his integrity, just because you are unable to deal with some narrative elements unless they are only directly useful to advance the bros.
Just because you can't reconcile with a narrative where spock can have both a best friend and girlfriend.
If you don't like the term bromance it's OK but calling it differently and "decorating it" with pretentious meta about the greek ideal of love and other stuff doesn't change the point. Doesn't make it, honestly, less the cliché of the fanboy who seems to perceive the woman and a relationship with her as a threat and wants it to be a "guys only" party. Who doesn't want to see the white dudes status quo getting challenged.
You have 50 years of trek canon and fanon that does fit with your "ideal" already, but you still need to "appropriate of" and change the one and only iteration of these characters that made an attempt to be a tad different and a tad more inclusive and contemporary.
And to reiterate, you are absolutely allowed to do that and absolutely allowed to make your own fanfiction according to your own wishes, desires and bias. No one is trying to tell you that you shouldn't do that.
What is happening here is that you motivated your changes using certain arguments and asked for opinions - and that's what you are getting, even if maybe my opinions don't make you as happy as I'd make you if I were saying that I liked your idea way more than the actual movies, or you made them better.
Sorry about that. I'm sure there are others who feel that way though and share your interests, just like there are others who will vote for the negative options in the poll without bothering giving you a motivation.
If you want to turn this Spock into a character that looks more like prime Spock, you'll have to lose more than the romance. That will affect all his relationships, not just the one with Uhura. His dynamic with Kirk couldn't even be friendship at this point and he wouldn't act the way this revisionited version of kelvin Spock makes him act. You'd have to wait for the motion picture, basically.
For all people's criticism on the creative team, their choices were all mostly motivated and every change has, for the most part, a reason. Their narrative is made of pieces that make sense together and the more you remove, the more you paint yourself into a corner.
your bias is maybe clouding your judgment, then.
In the movie it's clear that they were in love and in a relationship before the vulcan diaspora. Delete that, and their body language and actions make no sense and the characters lose their integrity. In your interpretation, the characters would be even more OOC than you seem to believe the writers made them, frankly.
I get that it's maybe more convenient for you to imagine that their connection is "just too heavily reliant on the destruction of Vulcan ", and they thus got together only because Spock was emotionally compromised, or other excuses you want to rationalize the relationship away with, and I also get that them being a couple before the event you are removing "clashes" with your plan to find an easy way out and erase both relationship and the destrouction of Vulcan with one move, but it doesn't change the fact they were a couple already and, like I said, your view is inconsistent with canon because removing his ptsd just makes their relationship easier and sans drama, but it doesn't delete their feelings for one another.
In short, even in your edited version there is no reason why they can't still have the relationship they have. You already altered the origin of tos k/s too. Heck, you are even keeping the father/son relationship between Kirk and Pike that is too unique to the alternate reality and in spite of THAT being a dynamic that relies on the events that happened in the movie way more than the s/u one does! (in prime reality, Pike was more Spock's mentor than Kirk's. By the time, Kirk was at the Academy or on another ship he barely knew Pike, if he even knew him )
Honestly, I'm amazed that someone would rather make Spock ooc by pretending he'd act that way for someone he just "likes", than asknoweledge the most simple thing giving sense to his actions: he's in love.
It's not just the sex thing (when is that relantioship ever sexualized, anyway? They are barely even allowed to touch each other to the point of, frankly, the movies almost looking too conservative. Are you seriously comparing these movies to got? ) , it seems you have a hard time reconciling with the fact that he may be in love with the woman and this isn't a "detail" you can erase from his narrative by simply deleting a moment that happened when that fact was already established.
**FYI, what I'm saying is written in the script (you can google it, it's online), official comics and word from the creative team itself. For all intents and purposes, they created them as a couple and they actually were one since a year before the vulcan diaspora.
You can interpret it differently but I think most of the audience may know that they were a couple and would find your "fix" forced because the vulcan diaspora wasn't the reason why their relationship exists in the narrative, and quite frankly I find the whole idea silly.
You mean that the reboot essentially isn't like tos was.
Because what you described is no innovation for trek. The innovation would actually be if we were allowed to see different kinds of relationships besides male friendship motivating the characters TOO.
I'm also unsure why you think bromance being front and center is so rare in hollywood when it basically is everything you get in a lot of franchises that have no romance, of if they have it the female characters are only treated as love interests and sexual objects.
He had realistic survivor guilt after what happened to him and his actions reflected that, which uhura noticed. JJ even described his efforts to save nibiru as an irrational obsessive desire to save that race at the cost of his life, and going against the prime directive, because he couldn't save his people. It has nothing to do with issues of love outside of his love for her simply being a vehicle the narrative uses to give him a realistic context where he could talk about his feelings and his loss with a person he'd feel more motivated doing that. Kirk isn't that person and couldn't realistically be in that moment.
Again, it seems you are more or less just erasing Spock's personal arc or bits of it for the sake of making Kirk the only real connection he has. Everything that doesn't advance that dynamuc is deleted, including important characters motivations and feelings.
You said it, not me.
However, I think even if I wouldn't accuse you of doing that it's still undeniable that most of your revisionism boils down to deleting everything that clashes with the bromance having to be the singlest most important thing of the narrative, and pretty much go backwards in terms of the few more contemporary and "trek" stuff jj&Co did. You want to go backwards to the lovely 60s where the writers weren't allowed to have other dynamics outside the bromance not because they didn't want to, but because the context of racism and sexism still influenced their narrative no matter how progressive the show was at the time.
If JJ hadn't already changed some things, and you weren't specifically using his trek to do your thing, people wouldn't notice you going backwards in your version by erasing certain elements. We wouldn't notice you essentially erasing a woc from the emotional narrative of the main guys just to make it all about bromance again. We wouldn't notice your double standard in that - regardless what this canon says - you consider the relationship with the woc unimportant compared to the by-default-superior white dudes bros stuff.
The result is a kirk/spock fanfiction where Spock loses most of his personal arc in the movies, and most of his integrity, just because you are unable to deal with some narrative elements unless they are only directly useful to advance the bros.
Just because you can't reconcile with a narrative where spock can have both a best friend and girlfriend.
If you don't like the term bromance it's OK but calling it differently and "decorating it" with pretentious meta about the greek ideal of love and other stuff doesn't change the point. Doesn't make it, honestly, less the cliché of the fanboy who seems to perceive the woman and a relationship with her as a threat and wants it to be a "guys only" party. Who doesn't want to see the white dudes status quo getting challenged.
You have 50 years of trek canon and fanon that does fit with your "ideal" already, but you still need to "appropriate of" and change the one and only iteration of these characters that made an attempt to be a tad different and a tad more inclusive and contemporary.
And to reiterate, you are absolutely allowed to do that and absolutely allowed to make your own fanfiction according to your own wishes, desires and bias. No one is trying to tell you that you shouldn't do that.
What is happening here is that you motivated your changes using certain arguments and asked for opinions - and that's what you are getting, even if maybe my opinions don't make you as happy as I'd make you if I were saying that I liked your idea way more than the actual movies, or you made them better.
Sorry about that. I'm sure there are others who feel that way though and share your interests, just like there are others who will vote for the negative options in the poll without bothering giving you a motivation.
Last edited:
[CITATION NEEDED]
If you look at the box office trends of the entire summer season where Beyond came out, grosses were down almost across the board for anything that wasn't a Marvel production. Your inherent bias for the JJ-verse movies, however good they may be, is showing here, which doesn't do much to support the reams of critical responses against other members of this board you churn out any time someone has a differing opinion on this film series. Having a creative team behind Beyond that managed to effectively ride a the line between the new and old iterations of Trek does not, in any way shape or form, mean that it "basically alienated an audience" or that it affected the box-office receipts.
TL;DR - just let it go, and let this dude do his project - it's not doing anything to harm or change the movies you like in any way, shape, or form.
Yes, which is why those elements are removed so it fits more with their Prime incarnations so this feels more like a prequel/retcon than a reboot.
The way it the edit stands now is that Kirk meets Spock because he cheats the test. Then there is a six year gap when we resume at Nibiru in 2264, a year before the five year mission. The audience, as with the previous jumps in the back story, is asked one more time to fill in the gap. Not everything is spelled out, how they came to be a crew, but now that they are. In an of itself, the Nibiru mission isn't out of the realm of possibility as a prequel Prime adventure of the Enterprise. It is mostly self-contained, although it is used to further the other plots. Kirk and company save Spock. It is clear based on Spock's reaction to Kirk that Spock still doesn't express that he has friendship for them yet, so it still falls with the Prime depictions.
True. But also the more they changed, the more they also seemed to place themselves in corner as well. That was my frustration for the series was how it seemed to open up so many possibilities but quickly abandoned them do to certain other narrative choices.
You don't have bais then? I don't see why my interpretation is invalid. I don't see the interaction of Uhura and Spock in the shuttle bay as proof positive of a full romantic relationship. And if it is, I actually have serious ethical problems with that because a teacher and a student should not be involved with each other romantically. I am a teacher who teaches young adult college students, and even though I am also still young, I would never be in a romantic relationship with a student. A former student is another question, but an active student, that is ethically wrong.
Again, that whole plot is out, but even as a fan of the original movie, I still don't see any inclination of romance between the characters until Vulcan. Before that what I see at most is friendship, or healthy respect, with some vibes if you read into it or choose to see it as foreshadowing.
It is just viewed in a different context. I have platonic female friends who are very affectionate and it is not romantic. So those body language and actions are not nonsensical for me with he alterations.
If that is the case, then I think its creepy personally. The Spock character that I know from Prime would have more class than to let his emotions take over with a student. But I honestly don't think that is the case, and what you call obvious is in fact your own bias.
It isn't graphic, but Hollywood like to up the sex and violence in narrative, even if they don't go R-rated with it. Kelvin Trek has sex and violence/revenge way more in the plot that tv Trek. I think the motivation is because that is what sells most of the time. As an idea Trek isn't like most stories or concepts though.
I already told you why it is out. Can't have the destruction of Vulcan and have the story work as a retcon in Prime continuity. What ever other motivations you author, please don't project them onto me.
But it isn't in the movie. Just like Khan being genetically altered to become a Brit isn't in the movie either. So if it isn't there, then how is the audience supposed to come to such a conclusion? By deleting scenes and omitting parts of the script, the narrative changes. A movie stands on its own two legs. You are arguing that I need to keep your favorite storyline because it was in a comic book? It is not relevant to this fan edit because I am not using comic books. It also is irrelevant to the movie audience.
I had some of the essential elements, it had a lot of deviations.
There were a number of romantic relationships in Trek. Worf and Jadzia. Torres and Paris. Even Picard and Crusher. So Kelvin Trek didn't invent having main characters have romantic relationships.
I don't think you have understood what I wrote. Having a character sacrifice themselves for people they have never met doesn't qualify as bromance. It seems that you keep trying to put down the love of a cause and of all people as being inferior to erotic love.
Well that is contradictory, because Spock's whole speech in Mudd's ship on Kronos to Uhura is basically a lie then. So not only is Spock is creepy unethical teacher but he is also a suicidal liar in that interpretation.
I simply disagree with your interpretation. I take Spock at his word in that speech, that he is motivated by love, a love beyond personal interest. If JJ said that about Spock, then he is contradicting the dialogue he wrote for Spock. Frankly, if that is actually what he thought, then he doesn't understand the motivations of Starfleet's ideals or understand the established Spock character and I would be happy to get as far away from such depiction as possible.
Spock says in that scene "Nyota, you mistake my choice not feel as not caring, while I assure you it precisely the opposite." Spock does care, understands he is moral and understands the danger, but lives by the axiom "the needs of the many".
Only if they glaringly contradict where things end up in Prime-TOS. That is the only reason things are taken out. It is a shame that so much of Kelvin Spock's characterization is forward by plot elements that are out of continuity with Prime-TOS, but that wasn't my choice, that was the director's choice. I don't have an anti-Spock agenda.
Except you did say it, bring it up and author that idea/accusation. So its yours, not mine.
Or because they aren't actual fans of Star Trek who saw an opportunity to make more money by dumbing the franchise down for explosions and sex and gritty revenge stories.
You keep trying to for the racism and sexism charge at me. I have already explained what I am doing, and instead of asking me what my motivations are, you keep trying to assign motivations to me, as if you are in the position to know my mind and heart more than I myself know them. It seems rather arrogant that you would take such a position.
Quite simply, I don't understand how you can be so convinced when you don't even know me. I've already told you to drop it, because its a straw man. But never the less, you continue to insult me. I don't have an agenda, but it does seem like you have one, and no matter how many times I explain, you will not be deviated from your agenda to smear me. This is projection, plain and simple, because I have already explained that the motivation is to create a fan edit that serves as a type of retcon-prequel that works with the larger established Trek universe. It loses some plot element to do that, and other plot elements are taken out because I never viewed Starfleet and Star Trek as a place where revenge and sex are front and center of people's motivations in the 23rd century. Star Trek tried to show that we could be more spiritually advanced as people and with motivations. There are plenty of stories out for consumption that focus on romance and revenge.
The civilization and race of Nibiru are chalky white, but they aren't Caucasian. There are no scenes that really show the friendship of Kirk and Spock left in the cut. The crew rescues him, but it isn't shown as just Kirk, when Uhura and Bones all show concern for him. Spock does not return the verbal notions of friendship to Kirk in this cut. There is some friendship shown between Kirk and Bones, when they first meet and I also am adding the scene of Kirk's birthday with Bones from Beyond. But that's it in terms of the friendship storyline. The only real friendship that gets developed is the Pike/Kirk relationship, and that is more akin to a father/son relationship. To be honest, there is very little of the personal relationships left in this cut. It mostly streamlines the story to focus on the crew and their mission.
Again no. Seriously, you tell me how to have Uhura and Spock be romantically involved while deleting the destruction of Vulcan. I am all ears. Tell me where to edit around. Because I already looked at it, and the whole story can not be dissected, it must be removed all together or the story is too disjointed. But at this point, go ahead and provide me with he road map to include that plot and not have it contradiction Prime in a universe alternating way with Vulcan. If you can't, then please drop it already because it is not constructive at this point, its trolling.
If Spock has all the characterization you describe, then the whole Kelvin universe Spock seems more like a an unethical brooding emo fanboy incarnation than Spock that Gene Roddenberry created.
Maybe to you it seems pretentious, but millions of people have fought and died for big ideas. They were much larger than bromance. To you, perhaps that is wholly unimportant, but I maintain it is not unheard of, even if cynics hate to be reminded of its existence as a motivation for people.
Yeah, it was so inclusive to take the one of if not the smartest villain of Trek, a person of color and make him a white dude. It was so progressive to have Carol Marcus strip down to her undies so Kirk can sneak a peak. Nu-Trek is not a radical bastion of progressivism, please stop pretending that it is.
I don't mind hearing your opinion, I even value it. What I don't like is when you author up motivations that I am not the author of and then assign them to me. You are not a psychic, so please stop doing that.
I love that you go all 'citation needed' and 'you are just biased!' on me, all the while you are making claims yourself that you don't backup with citations or facts. Seems legit.
Beyond was the least successful movie of the 3 both among critics and the general audience that, obvioustly, doesn't seem to share your opinion. You can look at boxoffice results and rotten tomatoes yourself and make the comparision. Even the dvds sales got worse.
The fact that Beyond was almost flop (or a flop for the studio anyway because they lost money) isn't a biased idea, it's the reason why a fourth movie that was announced before Beyond came out, and seemed to be a sure thing, is now maybe cancelled (and so may be the reboot) because Beyond wasn't even as successful as the first two movies were!
The 'trend' of the summer maybe made things worse, but being the movie a sequel of something that had been already successful, and the audience already was interested about and its fans were maybe anticipating, the trend obvioustly wasn't the sole reason why it failed - so your argument is disingenuos and inherently biased by itself too because you are, seemingly, just making excuses to defend and justify the new creative team.
It's not like the response from critics and kelvin trek fans was obvioustly equal or superior to the response the other movies got either. There are a lot of fans of the first movies who obvioustly didn't like Beyond as much, or they weren't interested about it enough and they made their opinion heard by not paying to watch it.
This--> "Having a creative team behind Beyond that managed to effectively ride a the line between the new and old iterations of Trek does not, in any way shape or form, mean that it "basically alienated an audience" or that it affected the box-office receipts" is more YOUR opinion, contradicted by what the facts actually suggest. Contradicted by the opinion of many fans of this trek (who had made it successful before Beyond) that lamented the last movie was nothing special, that it was just a tos fanfiction that wanted to placate reboot haters, that it didn't feel like a sequel or continuation of the first two because it ignored most of it, and went backwards with the dynamics and characters too for the sake of nostalgia. Maybe you don't care about people who genuinely liked the first movies and were disappointed by Beyond, but it remains that the movie failed to give this trek a future and not only it couldn't capture the interest of new fans, it failed to capture the interest of most of the kelvin trek fans they already had.
I can only hope that if a fourth movie is still a possibility, the people behind this trek will have the sense, professionality and integrity to look 'beyond' your excuse why the last movie failed, and thus take the responsibility of their actions and look at all the facts to get a wider. and more complex perspective, than what both of us are writing here. Otherwise, we may as well get another movie that flops harder than Beyond.
that's childish. He made a thread with a poll asking people what they thought about his idea and then explained it all in detail point by point, and offered motivations why he thinks his edit makes sense etc etc, but since I don't like it (an opinion the poll allows to express twice) and I'm explaining why, and explaining what are the inconsistencies I see in his arguments, now I'm the 'mean' one who isn't letting OP do their thing? Really? To use your words, what I did is doing no harm to what OP wants to do, nor change what OP's likes in any way, shape, or form. I'm sure they aren't that fragile that my opinion will dissuade them from doing their thing.
It would be more honest to just say that people are only allowed to comment if they like the idea and totally agree with it all. Next time, put a disclaimer at the beginning so there is no misuranderstanding and no one will be 'annoying', ok?
of course, we are both biased here. Still, it's funny for you to call my assertion that they were a couple before the vulcan diaspora 'baseless biased interpretation' (<--summary, not a citation) when not only my interpretation is more supported by the narrative than yours, but it's the same opinion that the people who literally created this story and version of the characters have and it's, thus, canon. So, in a sense, biased or not I still - simply - correctly understood what they wanted to convey on screen and read all their clues like they expected people to read them.
I guess you think the writers of the authorized novels and comics, including the one who did the official novelization, are biased too since they too understood the same exact thing I understood and wrote their relationship accordingly and not like YOU are interpreting it.
In either case, I think it's reasonable for me or others to use canon and the intention of the writers when explaining why I find your take is inconsistent.
as for the rest of your argument, there is no proof that they dated while she was still his student (I can already tell you that it wasn't the writers' intention anyway. If you read their bios, Uhura was already the teacher assistant of the course Spock was teaching, and he was a grad student himself), and even less there is any proof that such relationships would be unethical and forbidden in the context of the reality where the characters live that, for the record, is not your own. You are essentially projecting your personal bias on a fictional reality that might work according to completely different social rules, and where what you consider ethical or nor is completely invalid for the characters. Even in our world and reality, there are contexts where it's deemed as completely ok for an instructor to date a former student of his.
What may actually be more inappropriate and go against starfleet's principles is if they were to subject Spock to human standards and expectations, and thus assume that he can't be unbiased towards his significant other, in spite of him being part of an alien race that deems favorism as illogical.
honestly, it sounds like making concern trolling excuses too because if you wanted to be all ethical and nitpick about what is appropriate or not appropriate for the characters to do, a lot of the stuff happening in these movies AND tos wouldn't happen then.
The Kirk/Pike dynamic poses the issue of favoritism even more than S/U didand paints Pike much worse. Pike DID show favoritism for Kirk in more than one instance in these movies e.g, making him first officer (I dunno how that even worked, it's just too much) in spite of Kirk not even being allowed to be on the ship because he cheated on an academy test (let's not forget he was aboard the ship only because his friend McCoy also showed favoritism towards him by abusing his position on the ship, and sneak his buddy aboard with him. and that for no other reason than Kirk being his buddy) Or my 'favorite', when in stid Kirk loses the ship because he violated the prime directive and lied in his report but surprise? Spock gets demoted and transfered to another ship in spite of him not lying in his report, and thus him doing his job and duty correctly, while Pike gives his role as first officer on the enterprise to his 'son' Kirk so that he doesn't really lose the ship. Seems totally fair and professional!
Of course, the whole thing didn't last anyway because they kill Pike and Kirk goes back to being the captain and Spock goes back to being the first officer, but had Pike not died Spock would be a victim of some serious injustice there namely Pike having a preference for Kirk in spite of the latter being the only one who really deserved any punishment.
but I digress, if we wanted to nitpick for reals, Kirk himself - as the captain - wouldn't be allowed to work with his best friends especially when one of them happens to be his first officer. They'd have to constantly get a transfer and he wouldn't be able to truly cultivate deep relationships. For the captain to have any kind of relationship with his subordinates would pose too much conflict of interest because he can literally send people to their death, and he will favor his friends over crew members who aren't as important to him as his friends are. He's already inclined to take his friends with him in missions in spite of other officers and their skills maybe being more useful or pertinent to the mission (why did Bones go with him at the beginning of stid? Uhura speaks klingon, but why was Spock so needed in the away team too?)
you know, I'm not really here to dispute your private life and the idea that everytime you are sad, your 'friends' will french kiss you on the mouth and you kiss them back, and this is the way you show platonic affection.
The point is that you aren't Spock and you aren't half an alien race where touching someone and having feelings are a big deal, and not something you'd magically do just because you are sad. You aren't part of a race where the littlest hint of affection means a lot, let alone physical affection.
I'm talking about Spock here. And Spock's platonic friends would never act that way with him and he wouldn't act that way with them because the mere idea contradicts everything canon has established about him. Because canon has never showed Spock act that way with his 'friends', male or female.
again, it seems you prefer to make him actually very OOC than just reconcile with the fact that he was in love and in a relationship with the girl already, and in spite of this simple concept giving the most beliable context to their scenes, and the most respectful of his, and hers, integrity as a character.
(honestly having a hard time, btw, reconciling the fact that you can write their interactions out as being just platonic friendship, in the same breath you are saying you don't like the fact the movies sexualizing these characters too much.. but that's ok)
we are not talking about other trek series here, let alone series that weren't limited by the context of the 60s; we are talking about tos and its characters.
And this trek is the first and only iteration using THESE CHARACTERS that challenged the white dudes status quo by elevating a woman, and a woc, to the original trio level and allowing a different kind of relationship - that wasn't allowed in tos where everything was, pretty much, limited to bromance only and not for all pretty and 'progressive' reasons.
Hence, your idea is everything but innovative because it's just like the old thing. And again, no one would notice 'your trek' going backwards here if you weren't specifically using JJ's trek and keeping some of the new stuff unique to his reality, but also selectively erasing all the other new aspects that make it more contemporary and inclusive.
You seem to get defensive over me saying that you want to make everything about bromance again, and yet.. everything you said summarizes your edit as doing exactly that. I don't feel like I have much of a choice, honestly. You wrote it, not me.
actually, it's interesting to note that you are already retconning tos using a lot of stuff that is unique to the alternate reality, and that relies on the context of the specific events from these movies. You are keeping things that clash with tos canon already.
It's surely valid for the new dynamics as well (or new aspects of the old dynamics such as K/S, that you didn't have in tos), but it's selective to Kirk only though.
For instance, while Kirk is allowed to still keep his new dynamic with Pike in a retcon of the Prime continuity, in spite of that relationship being unique to the alternate reality and influenced by the events in the movie even more than the spock/uhura relationship, Spock apparently isn't granted the same courtesy and somehow, it seems 'impossible' to recton HIS OWN new dynamics in tos too.
aside from altering K/S already adding stuff that wasn't in tos, it's unlikely that Kirk and Pike could have had, in the prime reality, the same relationship they had in this trek. There is more than one aspect that conflicts with that retcon and makes it almost impossible for them to have that father/son relationship you want to keep for them. In some way, you are retconning tos to make it so that Spock's relationship with Pike is more or less given to Kirk instead.
However, Spock's dynamic with Uhura does have tos canon basis already and it would, honestly, be easier for someone to retcon THAT into tos than other kelvin trek changes you are keeping or borrowing for your reimagining.
Because the attraction existed in the original series or was at least hinted, however little they could do in context of the 60s, one could easily headcanon that maybe S/U dated before the five years mission started, or they kept their relationship a secret on the ship so it simply was never mentioned. It no more far fetched than retconning a relationship between characters who maybe didn't even know each other in tos at the time because they were in two completely different places.
I get the feeling maybe you just are more a Kirk fan than a Spock fan, which would explain a bit why you want to keep more stuff for him and add to his existing dynamics and personal story. You seem to respect his story more while, on the flip side, you don't seem to find much a reason to equally respect kelvin Spock's story in the same way.
Last edited:
I disagree. I see Canon as what happens on screen, and eve then there are a few exceptions (like "Threshold").
And this is my issue in conversing with you is that you want to claim orthodoxy and label divergent views not as a difference of opinion, but as a type of heresy, and that difference of opinion means that one has a misogynist and racist agenda. Good art is open to interpretation. People are free to come to their own conclusions. Nothing on screen establishes that relationship until it does. Everything else is at most a hint.
Perhaps they wanted to convey that, but it is not conveyed. What is conveyed is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
I don't consider those to be canon, I consider those to be apocrypha. Again, I will re-iterate this is a fanedit which will deviate from the movies in an attempt to curb the deviations from the Prime timeline (most of them).
I don't accept your definition of canon. If it isn't on screen, I don't think it is canon. So let's just agree to disagree rather than trying to trump me with claims of orthodoxy.
Not on screen, therefor not obvious. We see Uhura wearing a cadet uniform and operating at the Academy. We see her confront Spock as her superior objecting to her assignment because of her superior abilities and skills that Spock has assessed. Viewing them as teacher and pupil I think is valid the way thing are conveyed ON SCREEN.
Somewhat perhaps, but you do the same by saying TOS Uhura is a mammy stereotype as well as other assertions you have made.
Former student, certainly. But seeing as Uhura was still in a cadet's uniform, my interpretation is she was also still a cadet, therefor an assertion of an off-screen romance between an instructor and a cadet seems to me to raise a great deal of ethical questions which should be fairly obvious.
That seems to be a strawman. I haven't said anything like that.
Well sadly because the destruction of Vulcan is out the scene where Bones gets Kirk sick to get him on board is now gone entirely from the cut. I enjoyed that scene, much how I generally enjoyed that first movie, but while retconning Kirk's origin and Pike's relationship to Kirk is not cannon, and therefor a retcon, it doesn't alter the entire Star Trek on a universe level, just individual characters' backstories. Leave the destruction of Vulcan in, it has to be a reboot alternate reality. Changing Kirk and Pike's back stories leave it at the level of retcon. Did Pike show favoritism? He sure did. But I think most people are familiar with circumstances where some one got an opportunity because they had the favor of someone who pulled strings, maybe to get them a job or admitted into a school or program. It isn't the most fair or by the book when pulling strings because of favortism, but as a teacher, getting involved romantically with a student is wholly unethical. To me an equivalent would be a shrink sleeping with their patient, a boss with a secretary and so on. It does not sit well with me, and I think it should be fairly obvious why.
In this edit, Pike is injured, and based on what we know from the Managerie, he would then recover and go back to Starfleet sans being the captain of the Enterprise while he recovers. The end result was a temporary demotion of Kirk and Spock (while Kirk lied on the report, Spock took heat for it too because the plan to save the people of Nibiru was his idea as the context clues in Pike's exposition point to) which soon came to an end once Pike is injured.
Without the events in the film post their first meeting at the hearing, there is no obvious friendship between Kirk and Spock. Kirk goes to save Spock, but as we find out in his argument with Pike, Kirk never loses a crew member. It is clear Kirk cares about Spock, but in this cut they have more of a professional relationship, not a full friendship. Yet it is clear that Kirk likes Spock and cares about him. Those feelings have yet to be reciprocated and/or articulated by Spock at this point. I suppose Prime Spock would take until the movies to get there with Kirk and the crew
Well, based on my cut, the only friendship Kirk has pre-existing is with Bones, which by the way is in keeping with TOS's portrayal. Sure, Kirk had met Uhura before, but they weren't friends, and the same with Spock. His recruitment of them would be from his professional interactions with them rather than his personal bias and friendship for them. Spock goes down with the cold fusion device into the Volcano because he is the science officer, designed the device, and because he is a strong Vulcan (stronger than humans) who can maintain his composure in high stakes situations due to his Vulcan training, all qualities that make him most qualified for such a mission.
There is no french kiss. The only interaction like that is when Uhura give Spock a peck on his helmet before going down into the volcano. I have on numerous occasions gotten a peck on the cheek and it was not sexual. That is also an example where I have to quote back to you your own words and caution you:
"in the context of the reality where the characters live that, for the record, is not your own. You are essentially projecting your personal bias on a fictional reality that might work according to completely different social rules, and where what you consider ethical or nor is completely invalid for the characters."
Yeah, so ditto on that. I come from a Latin culture where it is perfectly normal to show physical displays of affection that are not sexual between men and women, women and women, men and men. Uhura's temperament and behavior could viewed as entirely consistent with warmer cultures than colder or more stoic ones. Uhura has her culture, Spock his. They will express themselves differently. But I don't think a friendly peck on the helmet before going on a dangerous life-threatening mission is grounds for a serious cultural offense. Spock in the Prime stories always understood that humans were the majority culture he was interacting with and he was able to tolerate cultural idiosyncrasies and respond to them without being a total jerk about it (although he was rather aloof which can come of as conceited, but that wasn't who Spock really was even if other characters took it that way).
I dunno, I see stuff like this all the time, in the sense that as I stated before, from my own Latin background these types of physical affections aren't sexualized and it can be a shock to those who come from more stoic cultures. Still, even when folks know that, it doesn't always mean that they are going to change their expressions of themselves and who they are based on another person's culture, often because it is deeply rooted in who they are. No offense is meant, and for the most part in my observations, no offense is usually taken. I imagine Spock as a very wise and enlightened character for the most part, even if he isn't fully acculturated with humans. I assume such a gesture would not be taken as an insult to Spock, because no insult was intended.
First off, I don't know what OOC is or means.
Secondly, I have already explained that movie establish their narrative on screen. Off screen is not particularly relevant, especially for a fan edit. I don't see physical affection as being necessarily sexual. I give my mom a peck on the cheek and it is not because of incest.
That still happens in the story, she plays a pivotal role. She doesn't need to be sexualized for her to be elevated.
Because you are taking the concept of philia and reducing it to bromance, which is small in scope. You seem to put down all types of love which are not in the form of personal relationships. Philia is also familial love. It is also patriotism. It is also altruism.
By saying bromance instead of recognizing non-erotic love outside a relationship you are deliberately reducing its scope and trivializing it. If I called all romantic relationships "lust" I would be similarly trivializing the complexities and scope of erotic love. Yeah, romantic relationships can have lust, but if they are to last they are built on a lot more than that.
Was the Starfleet officer who detonated the bomb in London to save his daughter showing erotic love for his daughter or bromance? Neither. Which means there is a clear example of philia which you exclude when you reduce it all to bromance, which is why you shouldn't use that term if you are trying to look at the full context. When people sacrifice their lives for the people, for altruism, for universalism, for patriotism, for benevolence, for the "greater good" it isn't as narrow as bromance, and you seem incapable of recognizing that or acknowledging that although there is plenty of real world history filled with examples of this type of sacrifice. Trek already articulated it as "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." What is so bromance about that? It isn't articulated as limited to a personal framework. One of the contentions with Spock and the rest of the crew is that he seems more to care about the big idea of "THE people" rather than caring about "HIS people". Spock is embodying universalism, something it isn't easy for us in our world to do anymore, and hard for certain characters in the story to do as well.
Because the Kirk/Pike retcon doesn't break the rest of the Trek Prime universe the way the destruction of Vulcan does. It's not that I won't allow Spock the room to develop his character, it is that his development is heavily steeped in the destruction of Vulcan which goes beyond a retcon and makes the story a reboot because it has a major break with prime continuity.
Unlikely, but not impossible. This is why it can fit with a retcon and not necessarily a must-be reboot.
Most of the key story elements are preserved. Sure we lose the story line of Pike and Kirk fighting Nero, but we still have Pike recruit Kirk, and we see him reprimand Kirk but also fight for him with Starfleet. Much is lost, but the core elements are maintained.
Sorta. But it isn't an either or. Knowing that Pike recruited Kirk, and it is implied he selected him as his successor, does not erase the continuity where Spock actually serves as Pike's science officer before Kirk is given the Enterprise.
If you can tell me how to do it without blowing up Vulcan, I am willing to listen, otherwise you make this assertion that it can be done without elaborating how it can be done. If you don't give me an alternative but keep harping on it, you are just beating a dead horse. I know what yo think about that plot element, you don't need to keep telling me, all I want at this point is to hear how you would make it work without destroying Vulcan which then take this from Retcon to reboot, and once it is a reboot then there is no point to this fan edit anymore, just watch the movies as they are.
Not really. I am a TNG fan first and foremost. Data is my favorite character in Trek. The issue is that I really like JJ Abram's Kirk origin. I think in some ways it is the origin Kirk deserves. I like aspects of his Spock origin too. Again, the issue is that in order to further develop the character of Spock, JJ Abrams blows up Vulcan (and then uses this rather predictably in character development and misses the opportunity to explore more deeply the world-building implications of this major event). That changes the Federation and its history on a large scale, thus altering the universe, versus retconning certain character's backstories which have little universal changing impacts.
Last edited:
Similar threads
