As opposed to smooth-headed humans on every planet. With hats.That would be the TNG-DS9-VOY universe.
Where did Spock go?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
As opposed to smooth-headed humans on every planet. With hats.That would be the TNG-DS9-VOY universe.
And black turtlenecks.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Except he meets CADET Kirk, and a Kirk younger than when he started captaining the enterprise by a staggering 8-9 years. Old Spock would never assume that a very young Cadet Kirk is the captain of the Enterprise and then be surprised when he isn't.
Once again: We don't know when Kirk Prime became Enterprise captain, or captain of another ship. It's generally assumed (assumption = not canon) that Kirk became a captain to when he was 30, and I can forgive Spock for mistaking a 25 year old for a 30 year old. Easily.
There you're wrong. Because as many people have done you can extrapolate from the background references in TOS. I've done it. Lots of others have as well.
- when you consider how long Spock served with Pike.
- when you consider "The Cage" happening 13 years before "The Menagerie" two-parter.
- when you consider that Kirk says he met Pike once when he accepted command of the Enterprise.
- when you consider Kirk's references to the Academy, the Republic, the Farragut, Tarsus IV, his experience on Neural.
- the details of Kirk's background given the Writer's Guide.
- that TOS tried to depict Starfleet in a credible manner (and thus wouldn't give command of one of its frontline ships to an untested, inexperienced and unworthy person like was done in ST09)
When you put all that together you conclude he can't have gotten the Enterprise before he was thirty and arguably later if you interpret the references sprinkled throughout the series a bit differently.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Of course, forget about all the other on screen events, delete them, try to make it look like they didn't happen.
TOS can't even decide if there was a nuclear war on Earth or not.
Stuff from the writer's guide doesn't count.
You don't know how different a 25 year old and 30 year old Kirk looks. Comparing photos of a young William Shatner doesn't count since they're not canon, he looks different in this film anyway, and if TOS did a flashback with Shatner he would have looked whatever age he was when they filmed it.
This is true. As noted in passing uptopic, TOS even contradicted itself by a matter of three centuries or so as to when it took place - so an argument about Kirk's age as asserted (rather than shown on TOS) is meaningless as a matter of fidelity to continuity.
Trek canon is rife with internal contradictions. "Canon" is not a word that means "consistent."
The Writer's Guide matters if it's not contradicted onscreen since it's the next best authoritative source because it shows the intent unless it's later contradicted.
Kirk's first command is a destroyer equivalent class ship. Check as there's reference to Kirk's first command in WNMHGB. The onscreen reference validates the intent of what is in the Writer's Guide bio. That tidbit tells us something important. Kirk has command experience before he commands the Enterprise. And that makes sense that Starfleet would only give command of a capital ship to someone who is tested and proven. It's credible.
What it comes down to is you want it to be TOS Spock in the film portrayal. Fair enough. But don't get pissed with us if the evidence mounts that it can't be the TOS Spock. It certainly doesn't invalidate your enjoyment of the film. But it does establish that Abrams and his crew didn't do their homework if they really wanted to maintain a tenuous link to previously established continuity.
Intent matters when it's corroborated with what gets onscreen. TOS (in regards to Kirk) corroborates GR's intent with what is in the Writer's Guide. ST09 fails to corroborate whatever intent Abrams and even Nimoy may have intended because someone didn't do their homework.
Kirk's first command is a destroyer equivalent class ship. Check as there's reference to Kirk's first command in WNMHGB. The onscreen reference validates the intent of what is in the Writer's Guide bio. That tidbit tells us something important. Kirk has command experience before he commands the Enterprise. And that makes sense that Starfleet would only give command of a capital ship to someone who is tested and proven. It's credible.
What it comes down to is you want it to be TOS Spock in the film portrayal. Fair enough. But don't get pissed with us if the evidence mounts that it can't be the TOS Spock. It certainly doesn't invalidate your enjoyment of the film. But it does establish that Abrams and his crew didn't do their homework if they really wanted to maintain a tenuous link to previously established continuity.
Intent matters when it's corroborated with what gets onscreen. TOS (in regards to Kirk) corroborates GR's intent with what is in the Writer's Guide. ST09 fails to corroborate whatever intent Abrams and even Nimoy may have intended because someone didn't do their homework.
In 40-some-odd years of Trek, I have never seen anything to suggest that Spock would let the inhabitants of Vulcan die at the hands of a psychotic time-traveler and not try to undo that tragedy. There's no way that "Spock Prime" is the same person that Roddenberry created all those years ago. The only logical explanation, barring brainwashing of Spock Prime to make him a callous asshole, is that he is from an alternate 24th century, and he traveled back to an alternate 23rd. There you go......mischief managed! That way, dumbass engineers can build a gigantic non-aerodynamic spaceship on the ground, Chekov can be born any old time he wants, and cadets can be given permanent command of starships. 
Undo it? How?
You make it sound like he's some sort of wizard who can undo anything that happened. If he is, why didn't he, in some 40-some-odd years of Trek, undo the destruction of numerous other planets - say, those destroyed in the Doomsday Machine?Imagine what a fun show would that be, Spock constantly undoing anything bad that happened to anyone...
I'm going with that answer, too.
You can have the whole thing any way you want. The arguments and theories (which tend to make me very, very sleepy) can go either way.
As much as I hate the new ship, calling it non-aerodynamic doesn't really make any sense. In fact, calling it aerodynamic would be the insult because why would aerodynamics matter in space?
James R. Kirk's fist command could have been a shuttle mission at the academy for all we know.
We know very little about how Starfleet appoints it's captains. More than a few nut cases, incompetents, cowards, bigots and idiots have been put in charge of front-line vessels before. Don't think putting a genius third-year cadet who's proven himself capable is the worst they've ever come up with (although it is pretty implausible).
But yeah, believe what you want. It's a mythology, not a right-or-wrong thing. If it really were then the film would have been a remake of some old prequel novel or comic book.
3DMaster: Kirk wasn't wearing a uniform shirt for most of the movie. It's the coloured shirt that has the ranks. When he met Spock he was wearing generic survival gear from the escape pod.
We know very little about how Starfleet appoints it's captains. More than a few nut cases, incompetents, cowards, bigots and idiots have been put in charge of front-line vessels before. Don't think putting a genius third-year cadet who's proven himself capable is the worst they've ever come up with (although it is pretty implausible).
But yeah, believe what you want. It's a mythology, not a right-or-wrong thing. If it really were then the film would have been a remake of some old prequel novel or comic book.
3DMaster: Kirk wasn't wearing a uniform shirt for most of the movie. It's the coloured shirt that has the ranks. When he met Spock he was wearing generic survival gear from the escape pod.
Actually we know quite a bit because except for Kirk every command officer we've seen has been in his forties or fifties. That strongly suggests Starfleet tends to go with proven and tested officers.
TOS made mistakes and to some extent it gets a pass because much of it was being done on-the-fly and it wasn't trying to fit into a previously established continuity. But TOS often strived for a sense of credibility. And this is in direct contrast with ST09 and the Abramsverse which has no sense of credibility whatsoever. TOS was telling stories. ST09 is nothing but an amusement park ride.
How do you know that some of them didn't join the service as a second career? or maybe they were just really slow learners? or that they were political appointments?
Or maybe some of them were aliens who aged at a different rate and just had human sounding names.
You have to have evidence to support that.
We've been citing evidence to support our view. The counterpoint position doesn't have anything on it's side other than "that's not what they meant." Too bad because "that's not what they meant" doesn't mean squat if "that's not what they put on the screen."
Wrong. Spock mentions a World War III and McCoy adds that it's the Eugenics War. No mention of nuclear holocaust. Then later in "Return To Tomorrow" Kirk references that Earth avoided a nuclear holocaust.
Then TNG asserts there was a nuclear holocaust. So TOS isn't inconsistent within itself on this point, but rather TNG is inconsistent with TOS.
Similar threads
