BINGO!!
Where did Spock go?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
BINGO!!
Char Aznable
Lieutenant Commander
Spock came from the Prime universe. I've never heard a valid reason to suggest otherwise. I'll take the opinions of Nimoy, the writers, the director, and my own fucking eyes over . . .well . . . someone on the internet going, "HERP DERP I DUN LIEK THIS MOVIE SO IT' WUN FIT INTO MY TEIMLINE 'CUZ I SAW SO HERP DERP!"
Two early episodes when the series was just getting started. Big crime. And in TMP he is strongly affected by his experience with Vger so he sheds a tear. Big crime.
Two early episodes when the series was just getting started. Big crime. And in TMP he is strongly affected by his experience with Vger so he sheds a tear. Big crime.
But that's not what you said. You said "The writers and the actor were smart enough to keep him consistent." You're inferring that he was consistent throughout the entire series, and he wasn't. His character changed from the beginning of the series to the end because of character development. His character changed throughout the TOS movies as well. His character changed yet again in "Unification," and finally changed again in Star Trek '09. The only consistent thing about Spock's character is its inconsistency
But you know what? I'm not interested in arguing with you. I'm much more interested in why you have so much hate for everything that isn't 1960's Star Trek.
That's what we're doing! The difference in this case is that these glitches are too big and too numerous to just chalk up to somebody misspeaking. It's clear that something a lot more has happened than a disgruntled Romulan miner fell through a wormhole and started blowing shit up. Things are just too different, even before the Narada fires a single shot.
And Spock, as we know him, has far too much experience with time travel, and its ramifications, to behave as we see him behave in this movie. Even if he was suffering from full blown Bendaii's Syndrome, he'd still be inclined to solve the problem by going back in time and preventing Nero's incursion in the first place, if that was, in fact, the true source of the timeline disruption; the only difference would be he'd need a computer to make the calculations instead of doing them in his head, like he was shown to do previously in TIY and TVH (and you want to talk memory problems?).
Occam's Razor applies here. Simplest solution is that it's not our Spock. He came from another parallel universe, where he never had those time travel adventures (and thus no experience in resolving problems like this), and either time-traveled back along his own timeline, or was shifted into yet another alternate universe.
Either way, the mainline Star Trek timeline never comes into play.
I say push the divergence point further back, to the Temporal Cold War, and blame the whole thing on Archer.
Char Aznable
Lieutenant Commander
No, it's pretty much the same as many of the continuity errors that exist through out Trek. Nice try picking and choosing which errors are acceptable for you though.
Really? I would think that Occam's Razor would say that the simplest solution is what the people who made the movie intended (and what Leonard Nimoy himself would undoubtedly agree with): That this was the Spock from the TOS universe, not that convoluted mess you just wrote.
Jesus cocking Christ, how is that the simplest solution?
You asked for it...
Typo/inside joke on Mitchell's part. You never heard Kirk identify himself as "James R. Kirk", did you?
Uniforms and equipment change all the time in the real world, why should Star Trek be exempt?
Just because they weren't referenced doesn't mean they weren't there (besides the fact that those big honking hangar doors have always been there). This can be chalked up to the atmospheric conditions and the terrain making the use of the shuttlecraft impractical.
We saw an ounce of antimatter rip away half the atmosphere of a Class M planet. Imagine what two hundred pounds would do, particularly within close proximity of a dimensional portal.
Some things you just have to squint at as you go by, especially if they have no real impact on the story being told, like those two examples.
Terminology changes even more often than technology and uniforms.
Again, just because they didn't mention them doesn't mean they didn't have them. And it's cited in the Writer's Guide that phasers can be set to emit bursts and pulses.
The above examples don't detract from the credibility of the story. ST09's problems undermine the whole plot.
Box office returns are in no wise an indicator of integral quality. Britney Spears concerts sell out, while high opera goes starving. The term "caviar to the general" was coined for a reason (though, of course, the general are in fact ignorant of it).
Because you refuse to listen.
Because to try and fit this self-contradicting pile of crap into TOS would make the IRS tax code look like "Dick and Jane."
You're comparing Britney Spears to opera. Other than that they're both a form of music, they're two totally different things that have nothing to do with each other. I'm comparing Star Trek '09 with the other Star Trek movies and TV shows that had come before it in the last ten-plus years.
And yet there are many people out there that can do this just fine. Just because you can't (or more likely, refuse to), doesn't mean you speak for anyone else other than yourself.
And this is different from yourself, how?
Last edited:
All Abrams and his writers had to do was a little fucking homework, but they chose not to. They pick-and-chose some familiar references and then dumped it in a mixer with steroids and when it was done they thought, "Hey, yeah! That looks good." Then they try to sell it as a reboot of the franchise AND yet still connected to the original.
Uh, no...fucking...way. A director du jour and a couple of hack writers do not a good Star Trek make. They messed it up huge and so too damned bad. It makes Enterfake look like genius.
Abramsverse is nothing like TOS even before Nero shows up. That's fine for a reboot. But then we get a Spock that doesn't act like the Spock we know. This Spock doesn't remember the same things as the original TOS Spock. This nuSpock openly speaks of things about the future or a future that the original Spock never would have done. nuSpock doesn't even consider how he might go about setting things right.
Abrams can claim it's original Spock all he wants, and so can Nimoy, till the cows come home or the Earth's sun goes nova. But old nuSpock doesn't act like original Spock did and would. Ergo: it ain't original Spock. nuSpock is from somewhere else.
They've tried to retcon TOS since TNG and through DS9, the TNG films, VOY and most particularly ENT. ST09 is the latest salvo.
Uh, no...fucking...way. A director du jour and a couple of hack writers do not a good Star Trek make. They messed it up huge and so too damned bad. It makes Enterfake look like genius.
Abramsverse is nothing like TOS even before Nero shows up. That's fine for a reboot. But then we get a Spock that doesn't act like the Spock we know. This Spock doesn't remember the same things as the original TOS Spock. This nuSpock openly speaks of things about the future or a future that the original Spock never would have done. nuSpock doesn't even consider how he might go about setting things right.
Abrams can claim it's original Spock all he wants, and so can Nimoy, till the cows come home or the Earth's sun goes nova. But old nuSpock doesn't act like original Spock did and would. Ergo: it ain't original Spock. nuSpock is from somewhere else.
They've tried to retcon TOS since TNG and through DS9, the TNG films, VOY and most particularly ENT. ST09 is the latest salvo.
Several posts have already been made in this very thread that can explain events in Star Trek (2009) that do not involve any radical assumptions like more alternate realities or additional Spocks. Most importantly, the scenes in the movie make much more dramatic sense if it is "our" Spock that travels to Pine's universe. Fans are intelligent enough to rationalize, ignore, or "squint" when things don't mesh perfectly.
Hypothetically, let's say that the next Abrams Trek movie is a masterpiece on every level, has complete internal consistency, and has a couple of minor contradictions to TOS dialogue. Would people try just as hard to disassociate that movie from TOS? What would be the point, since the movie was fun, intellectually stimulating, and everything that a great story should be?
Really, this discussion is turning into a personal continuity vs. canon debate without those exact terms being thrown about. The latter is relatively easy to define, but it is seldom accepted in its entirety by fans because of ludicrous inconsistencies or episodes/movies that individual people just don't like. The best part is that nobody can be wrong in their choice of personal continuity.
Hypothetically, let's say that the next Abrams Trek movie is a masterpiece on every level, has complete internal consistency, and has a couple of minor contradictions to TOS dialogue. Would people try just as hard to disassociate that movie from TOS? What would be the point, since the movie was fun, intellectually stimulating, and everything that a great story should be?
Really, this discussion is turning into a personal continuity vs. canon debate without those exact terms being thrown about. The latter is relatively easy to define, but it is seldom accepted in its entirety by fans because of ludicrous inconsistencies or episodes/movies that individual people just don't like. The best part is that nobody can be wrong in their choice of personal continuity.
Picard from the movies acted nothing like Picard from the TV show. Is he from an alternate universe too?
Char Aznable
Lieutenant Commander
^ Lol, I love how angry you are. Its hilarious how butthurt and out of sorts the detractors get over this movie. The funniest part is how they think they represent the majority of TOS fans.
Could be. How the hell would I know? I dumped TNG sometime during fifth season. And I don't really care enough about TNG to want to know more about it.
I never claimed that, ever. I speak only for myself. You can assume all you like.
Well then maybe you should, because then you might just see how flimsy your argument is.
To Warped9's credit, I don't think he does try to speak for all Trek fans, not like some other people who we all already know do this. But just out of curiousity: Does it bother you that the majority of Star Trek fans don't agree with your way of thinking, or do you not care? And if you don't care, then why do you let things bother you so much that you have to post such vitriol when it comes to anything post-TOS, especially this new movie? We get that you don't like it because it's a slap in the face to your "personal" view of Trek. Fine. But why all the hate?
Last edited:
Similar threads
