• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?

It just occured to me that Vulcan didn't have any major offworld colonies. The planet is destroyed and now there's only 10,000 Vulcans left. Humans are all over the place but Vulcans apparently never colonied any planets in any meaningful way.

Of course, Romulans are close enough that it really doesn't matter but that supernova's still in the future in the Nu-Universe.
 
And what I find the most stupid about it is that little Vulcan children and adult Council members are full blown racists. Vulcans live the IDIC. Spock is the representation of what they believe in.

Their behavior was very much in line with what we saw of Vulcans in TOS and later, ENT. The children were trying to elicit an emotional response, so I'm guessing it was all fair game and the council wasn't racist so much as logically stating that the Vulcan mind is superior to the human mind - a sentiment shared by many Vulcans many times previously again in both TOS and ENT. If you have a problem with that, fine - but at least be consistent and realize that it's been around for a LONG time prior to Trek 09.
 
And what I find the most stupid about it is that little Vulcan children and adult Council members are full blown racists. Vulcans live the IDIC.

And humans don't, so that's why Vulcans are better than them.

Hypocrisy is really, really easy to fall in to.

It just occured to me that Vulcan didn't have any major offworld colonies. The planet is destroyed and now there's only 10,000 Vulcans left. Humans are all over the place but Vulcans apparently never colonied any planets in any meaningful way.

Word of God says that the 10,000 figure refers to people who escaped Vulcan during Nero's attack. There are colonists and emigrants on foreign worlds, as well, but still nowhere near the the population of homeworld.
 
"We have had no word from Captain Pike. I therefore classified him as a hostage of the war criminal known as Nero. Nero, who has destroyed my home planet and most of its six billion inhabitants. While the essence of our culture has been saved in the elders who now reside upon this ship, I estimate that only about 10,000 Vulcans have survived. I am now a member of an endangered species."

It sounds like he's saying there are only 10,000 Vulcans left all together. If there were millions on various colonies I doubt he'd refer to the Vulcan species as endangered.
 
And what I find the most stupid about it is that little Vulcan children and adult Council members are full blown racists. Vulcans live the IDIC. Spock is the representation of what they believe in.

You never saw "Yesteryear," did you? D. C. Fontana's own script had young Spock's contemporaries taunting him thusly:
Earther! Barbarian! Emotional Earther! You're a Terran, Spock. You could never be a true Vulcan... Your father brought shame to Vulcan. He married a human.

Compare the taunts in the movie:
You're neither Human nor Vulcan and therefore have no place in this universe.
Look at his Human eyes. They look sad, don't they?
He's a traitor you know, your father. For marrying her, that Human whore.

They could be the exact same bullies. And Fontana's influence on Kurtzman & Orci is obvious.

And you want racist adult Vulcans, look at Solok from DS9's "Take Me Out to the Holosuite." Look at the entire Vulcan society in ENT. Heck, look at Spock, who always acted insulted when anyone commented on any humanlike attributes in him.

Yes, Vulcans believe in IDIC, but how often do people actually live up to their ideals? How many professed Christians actually obey the Ten Commandments?
 
Last edited:
And what I find the most stupid about it is that little Vulcan children and adult Council members are full blown racists. Vulcans live the IDIC. Spock is the representation of what they believe in.

I often encounter fans who have an entirely too idealised vision of vulcans.

Yes, they preach IDIC, but they don't practice it - they believe (Spock included - see TOS) that vulcan culture is, according to any criteria that matters, better than human (or any other) culture.

So yes, they are racists - and their IDIC speeches make them hypocrites.
 
Going slightly back to the original topic, I wouldn't mind seeing a book at some stage about Pike and Spock. In the film the Enterprise was on it's maiden voyage but it seemed Spock and Pike had spent time together. Granted that was probably in preparing the ship for it's launch but maybe there was an adventure or two together, possibly on another vessel.
 
And what I find the most stupid about it is that little Vulcan children and adult Council members are full blown racists. Vulcans live the IDIC.

The racist Vulcan children scene is lifted directly from "Yesteryear" (TAS), and some dialogue between Sarek and Spock is word for word. "Yesteryear" was written by DC Fontana herself, the acknowledged queen of what is Vulcan and what isn't.

T'Pau in "Amok Time" (TOS) speaks of Earthers as if they were pond scum. Seems to me she set a template for racist adult Vulcans way back in the 1960s.
 
And what I find the most stupid about it is that little Vulcan children and adult Council members are full blown racists. Vulcans live the IDIC. Spock is the representation of what they believe in.

You never saw "Yesteryear," did you? D. C. Fontana's own script had young Spock's contemporaries taunting him thusly:
Earther! Barbarian! Emotional Earther! You're a Terran, Spock. You could never be a true Vulcan... Your father brought shame to Vulcan. He married a human.

And why would that change my opinion that it was a stupid idea? If they next time copy VOY: Threshold it's suddenly good? :confused: I didn't like it in TAS and I don't like it now.


I also don't agree with this half-human/half-Vulcan side battle. That's racial bullshit from the 60s, and it should have stayed in the 60s. From TMP onward, Spock found that there is more to existence than what Vulcan philosophy told him. It had never anything to do with his Human side revolting. And in TNG we learned Vulcan emotions are much more intense than Human emotions. So actually he would have had much less problems with repressing his emotions.


I often encounter fans who have an entirely too idealised vision of vulcans.

Some pages before people always argued that they changed Kirk's character to fit the impression the public has of him and that this was the right thing to do. So if you often encounter fans who have an idealized vision of Vulcans...


And you want racist adult Vulcans, look at Solok from DS9's "Take Me Out to the Holosuite." Look at the entire Vulcan society in ENT. Heck, look at Spock, who always acted insulted when anyone commented on any humanlike attributes in him.

Solok was one man who was intrigued by Sisko's behavior. He was so logical that he studied him permanently, and that was what made Sisko angry beyond belief. He was arrogant, but not racist. In the end it also became clear that by "human" he actually meant to say "emotional". So he put logic over emotions. That's about philosophies, but not about race. Sisko was totally illogical and only emotional when he wanted to win a game against physically superior Vulcans.

ENT had Vulcans that didn't even perform mind-melds. Those are hadly comparable to the Vulcans of TOS, TNG and later on. And they tried to change the Vulcan anyway in season 4.

Spock said so, but he didn't really feel insulted. In TMP he found that there is more to existence than pure logic, and after his death he also again found that he should combine logic and emotion to a certain degree. And in TUC he did say once that he found Kirk's remark that everybody is human insulting (just like the Klingons), but in the end, he made his "If I were human, [...] go to hell" joke. The is a difference between pride in yourself and racism. If I told you that you are just like me, you'd probably have some resentment against that, too.
 
Last edited:
^ You live in a very black and white world in your head, don't you? Not a lot of room for shades of gray in there, are there?
 
And why would that change my opinion that it was a stupid idea [to make the vulcans racists from the beginning]?

Good idea, stupid idea - It has no relevance.
It's what the vulcans ARE. It's how they were depicted from Ent and TOS to DS9 and the movies.

I often encounter fans who have an entirely too idealised vision of vulcans.
Some pages before people always argued that they changed Kirk's character to fit the impression the public has of him and that this was the right thing to do. So if you often encounter fans who have an idealized vision of Vulcans...
Kirk was somewhat changed, the vulcans, not in this respect.
Creative decisions - and both are justified.

In the case of the vulcans, the justification is that their society and culture were presented as they were in the other trek incarnations.

Kirk's change is justified by the different events that shaped him (which can not be said about the vulcan culture).
 
And that, to me, is the strangest thing you've said yet. People think differently from each other. That's the way they are. What's so bewildering about it? I think it would be bewildering if people didn't think differently, especially in matters of taste.

Don't get me wrong; it's not just that I disagree with some people about some things, some of the time. It's the frequency and severity of those disagreements.
Like, if I didn't like the movie, and some other people did, that's one thing. But if I hated it (not trying to be inflammatory, just making a point), and it got a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, that's something else. Or, if I kinda liked X-Men 3, and a few of my friends kinda like X2 better, that's one thing. But I think that X-Men 3 was fantastic, and X2 was just kinda boring. Most of the people I've heard express an opinion think that X2 was by far the best X-Men movie, and X-Men 3 was categorically the worst. That's what I find bewildering. Or how about the Bruce Timm example I already mentioned? It's not just that some people think it's pretty good, and I think it's kinda bad. I can't find anyone who doesn't think it's amazing, and I think it's revolting. You see what I'm saying (maybe a little)? I don't know, it's kinda hard to explain. But basically, it's not just that I have different viewpoints from other people, but that I seem to drastically disagree with a lot of the people about a lot of things, a lot of the time.

And I think that gives far too little credit to Amanda. As I said, it's likely that Spock spent far more time growing up with Amanda than he did with Sarek or any other individual Vulcan. It makes no sense to assume that she had no influence on his socialization, especially when we know that she introduced him to a lot of Earth culture and literature.
No, he is just being realistic. I don't know about you, but the average kid spends more time in school with classmates and teachers than with his parents, his lifestyle is dictated more by the cultural mainstream than by his parents.

And as long as Amanda didn't go wacko and put Spock out of the schools that taught Surak's teachings of repressing emotions, then he shouldn't have had any problems actually. Did Spock and Family live in "Little Earth" or why was he constantly confused by Human and Vulcan traditions? He should have actually received the full package of Vulcan culture and therefore shouldn't have had any problems.

This is essentially what I would've tried to say, I think. By Christopher's logic, I'd have to assume that Amanda was practically his only influence, since I perceived him as acting basically human. That doesn't seem to fit with him growing up in a culture that, as demonstrated in the movie itself, has a fairly rigid cultural structure, and a fair amount of anti-human bias.
 
Don't get me wrong; it's not just that I disagree with some people about some things, some of the time. It's the frequency and severity of those disagreements.
Like, if I didn't like the movie, and some other people did, that's one thing. But if I hated it (not trying to be inflammatory, just making a point), and it got a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, that's something else. Or, if I kinda liked X-Men 3, and a few of my friends kinda like X2 better, that's one thing. But I think that X-Men 3 was fantastic, and X2 was just kinda boring. Most of the people I've heard express an opinion think that X2 was by far the best X-Men movie, and X-Men 3 was categorically the worst. That's what I find bewildering. Or how about the Bruce Timm example I already mentioned? It's not just that some people think it's pretty good, and I think it's kinda bad. I can't find anyone who doesn't think it's amazing, and I think it's revolting. You see what I'm saying (maybe a little)? I don't know, it's kinda hard to explain. But basically, it's not just that I have different viewpoints from other people, but that I seem to drastically disagree with a lot of the people about a lot of things, a lot of the time.

Well, somebody has to be a statistical outlier.


And I think that gives far too little credit to Amanda. As I said, it's likely that Spock spent far more time growing up with Amanda than he did with Sarek or any other individual Vulcan. It makes no sense to assume that she had no influence on his socialization, especially when we know that she introduced him to a lot of Earth culture and literature.
No, he is just being realistic. I don't know about you, but the average kid spends more time in school with classmates and teachers than with his parents, his lifestyle is dictated more by the cultural mainstream than by his parents.

But Spock was constantly bullied and treated as an outcast by his peers. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that's not necessarily an incentive for trying to fit in with said peers. For me, it was an incentive to try to be as little like them as possible, because the last people I wanted to fit in with were mean-spirited, small-minded jerks like those. Instead, I gravitated more toward the people who showed me kindness. In Spock's case, Amanda would've been one of the few who fit that description.

Besides, that doesn't refute my more important point. The idea that Spock's "human half" is genetic is absurd for the reasons I explained. If a fully human child had been raised from birth by two Vulcan parents, that child would probably be entirely Vulcan in behavior, because innate human emotion is less powerful than innate Vulcan emotion. Similarly, if a Vulcan child were raised by two human parents (or if a half-Vulcan child were raised by a single human parent, like T'Ryssa Chen), that child would act entirely human, probably even more emotional than most. Logic and control are not genetic traits of Vulcans but socially conditioned behaviors. So it's nothing more than illogical racism to assume that Spock's occasional lapses into human behavior were the result of his genetics. The only plausible explanation for the "human side" of his behavior is socialization by his human mother. Spock's entire portrayal throughout TOS only makes sense if his mother was a significant influence on his behavioral development.


This is essentially what I would've tried to say, I think. By Christopher's logic, I'd have to assume that Amanda was practically his only influence, since I perceived him as acting basically human.

And I disagree that's how he was acting. Look at the way Spock behaved in the pilots and the early first season of TOS. He was looser, less reserved than he eventually became. And keep in mind that the time frame of this film is only four years after "The Cage," seven years before "Where No Man," eight years before the first season of TOS. I think the movie's characterization of Spock at that stage of his life is very faithful.

What I see in the movie is the same Spock I've always seen: a man torn between Vulcan and human influences, trying to favor the Vulcan but unable to expunge the human and gradually learning to accept that side of himself. Yes, it was a younger, looser Spock, less successful at self-restraint, but that is entirely consistent with how Spock Prime was portrayed around that age. To me, the film's portrayal of Spock is the most authentic recreation of the original that it achieved.

That doesn't seem to fit with him growing up in a culture that, as demonstrated in the movie itself, has a fairly rigid cultural structure, and a fair amount of anti-human bias.

Again, I cite my own experience as a bullied child: being the victim of intolerance doesn't necessarily drive one to conform. It can have just the opposite effect. I came to take pride in being an outsider. And if there's one attribute Spock has always had, it's stubborn pride. Living among humans, he goes out of his way to play up his Vulcan side, to take pride in his alienness. So I would imagine that, living among Vulcans, he might be just as prideful about his human side, about the things that set him apart from other Vulcans.

Although there's a simpler way of looking at the way Spock behaved in the movie. Insults toward his human nature didn't bother him. What set him off every time, in the schoolroom, in the Science Academy, and with Kirk on the bridge, was people trash-talking his mother. He could absorb anything else, but he wouldn't tolerate anyone insulting his mother or questioning her value to him. So is it really so hard to believe that his mother had a major formative influence on him?
 
Take Spock in the opposite direction the the movies. Have him embrace his human half and reject the Vulcan side. Pon Farr would be interesting as he rejects it, even as Uhura tries to help him. He'd see it as a sign of weakness. After all, what did he get from the Vulcans? A childhood of bullying and insults and the Science Academy wasn't any better. If Sarek were trying to rebuild Vulcan society this would also bring them into conflict.
 
Well, somebody has to be a statistical outlier.

True. I just wished somebody would've asked me first.


As for the Spock debate, I think the only way I can conclusively settle this is to say that I need to go watch the movie again, with more of an eye to those nuances you've described. I think, when I saw the movie, I was paying much more attention to Kirk (I've always liked him better than Spock, which is another minority opinion), so maybe I just caught the broad strokes of Spock's character (make-out sessions, etc). Next time I watch it, I'll try to look a little closer at the whole picture (and try not to get distracted by the voice ;) ).
 
Besides, that doesn't refute my more important point. The idea that Spock's "human half" is genetic is absurd for the reasons I explained. If a fully human child had been raised from birth by two Vulcan parents, that child would probably be entirely Vulcan in behavior, because innate human emotion is less powerful than innate Vulcan emotion. Similarly, if a Vulcan child were raised by two human parents (or if a half-Vulcan child were raised by a single human parent, like T'Ryssa Chen), that child would act entirely human, probably even more emotional than most. Logic and control are not genetic traits of Vulcans but socially conditioned behaviors. So it's nothing more than illogical racism to assume that Spock's occasional lapses into human behavior were the result of his genetics. The only plausible explanation for the "human side" of his behavior is socialization by his human mother. Spock's entire portrayal throughout TOS only makes sense if his mother was a significant influence on his behavioral development.

That's funny because that makes her look like she either intentionally tried to ruin his childhood or that she wasn't a good mother. She lived among Vulcans for a long time, so if the Vulcans are indeed racists through and through (I mean from children in school to adults in the Science Academy Council, that is a broad spectrum the movie shows us) she should have known how they would react to him.

And what did she do anyway to make Spock emotionally unstable? Encourage him to stop meditating? Every time he had homework to do about Vulcan philosophy, encourage him to watch TV? That's not very constructive of her. ;)

But Spock was constantly bullied and treated as an outcast by his peers. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that's not necessarily an incentive for trying to fit in with said peers. For me, it was an incentive to try to be as little like them as possible, because the last people I wanted to fit in with were mean-spirited, small-minded jerks like those. Instead, I gravitated more toward the people who showed me kindness. In Spock's case, Amanda would've been one of the few who fit that description.

Unless the teachers weren't also racists, they would have actually done everything they can to protect Spock. To bully someone because he is different is simply not logical. Human kids taunting a Vulcan kid in a human school, that's the right picture. Vulcan kids bullying Spock in a Vulcan school simply doesn't look right. And the whole picture also transported the message that Vulcan deserved to be destroyed by Nero. Not very well done either.
 
No, he is just being realistic. I don't know about you, but the average kid spends more time in school with classmates and teachers than with his parents, his lifestyle is dictated more by the cultural mainstream than by his parents.

But Spock was constantly bullied and treated as an outcast by his peers. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that's not necessarily an incentive for trying to fit in with said peers. For me, it was an incentive to try to be as little like them as possible, because the last people I wanted to fit in with were mean-spirited, small-minded jerks like those. Instead, I gravitated more toward the people who showed me kindness. In Spock's case, Amanda would've been one of the few who fit that description.

Besides, that doesn't refute my more important point. The idea that Spock's "human half" is genetic is absurd for the reasons I explained. If a fully human child had been raised from birth by two Vulcan parents, that child would probably be entirely Vulcan in behavior, because innate human emotion is less powerful than innate Vulcan emotion. Similarly, if a Vulcan child were raised by two human parents (or if a half-Vulcan child were raised by a single human parent, like T'Ryssa Chen), that child would act entirely human, probably even more emotional than most. Logic and control are not genetic traits of Vulcans but socially conditioned behaviors. So it's nothing more than illogical racism to assume that Spock's occasional lapses into human behavior were the result of his genetics. The only plausible explanation for the "human side" of his behavior is socialization by his human mother. Spock's entire portrayal throughout TOS only makes sense if his mother was a significant influence on his behavioral development.


This is essentially what I would've tried to say, I think. By Christopher's logic, I'd have to assume that Amanda was practically his only influence, since I perceived him as acting basically human.
And I disagree that's how he was acting. Look at the way Spock behaved in the pilots and the early first season of TOS. He was looser, less reserved than he eventually became. And keep in mind that the time frame of this film is only four years after "The Cage," seven years before "Where No Man," eight years before the first season of TOS. I think the movie's characterization of Spock at that stage of his life is very faithful.

What I see in the movie is the same Spock I've always seen: a man torn between Vulcan and human influences, trying to favor the Vulcan but unable to expunge the human and gradually learning to accept that side of himself. Yes, it was a younger, looser Spock, less successful at self-restraint, but that is entirely consistent with how Spock Prime was portrayed around that age. To me, the film's portrayal of Spock is the most authentic recreation of the original that it achieved.

That doesn't seem to fit with him growing up in a culture that, as demonstrated in the movie itself, has a fairly rigid cultural structure, and a fair amount of anti-human bias.
Again, I cite my own experience as a bullied child: being the victim of intolerance doesn't necessarily drive one to conform. It can have just the opposite effect. I came to take pride in being an outsider. And if there's one attribute Spock has always had, it's stubborn pride. Living among humans, he goes out of his way to play up his Vulcan side, to take pride in his alienness. So I would imagine that, living among Vulcans, he might be just as prideful about his human side, about the things that set him apart from other Vulcans.

Although there's a simpler way of looking at the way Spock behaved in the movie. Insults toward his human nature didn't bother him. What set him off every time, in the schoolroom, in the Science Academy, and with Kirk on the bridge, was people trash-talking his mother. He could absorb anything else, but he wouldn't tolerate anyone insulting his mother or questioning her value to him. So is it really so hard to believe that his mother had a major formative influence on him?
And all of this with his mother also fits in very well with what we've seen of them in the Prime universe. Based on Journey to Babel, and Voyage Home it's seemed to me like they did have a very close relationship. Which makes sense since Sarek probably spent the majority of his time on Earth and other planets that weren't Vulcan. In fact, if you really look at Sarek's and Spock's realtionship you could easily see it as a mostly absentee father being unsure how to deal with his son, and the son still being resentful that he was never around when he was growing up.
 
Unless the teachers weren't also racists, they would have actually done everything they can to protect Spock. To bully someone because he is different is simply not logical. Human kids taunting a Vulcan kid in a human school, that's the right picture. Vulcan kids bullying Spock in a Vulcan school simply doesn't look right.
Although I don't agree with a lot of what Christopher is saying--I think there's plenty of canonical evidence that Spock is half-human in more than just a cultural sense--I do agree that the existence of Vulcan bullies is consistent with everything else we've seen of Vulcan society.

If Vulcan as a whole was willing to bully Earth as a whole in the ENT era in terms of space exploration and technological advancement (the "No, you can't have our toys!" approach), and the Vulcan Science Academy treats Spock's human half like some kind of intellectual disability, it seems like Vulcan kids get plenty of societal indicators that Humans are inferior and treating them as such is entirely logical.

Even if that weren't true, and Spock's Vulcan classmates couldn't just use their Bully Logic to justify what they're doing ("testing the hypothesis that a half-human hybrid is less capable of controlling his emotions than a full Vulcan by provoking an emotional response"), adults doing "everything they can" to prevent bullying usually amounts to very little in real life. I've never encountered a situation where adult interference hasn't either had a nil effect on a situation like that or actually made it worse. Spock's going to town on his classmate(s) might have been the best of a crappy set of options in terms of stopping his peers from picking on him.
 
Although I don't agree with a lot of what Christopher is saying--I think there's plenty of canonical evidence that Spock is half-human in more than just a cultural sense...

In what way? Whenever they've referred to Spock's "human half" onscreen, it's been in reference to his emotional side or failures of logical control. Which is nonsense, because, again, the whole reason Vulcans adopted logic in the first place is because their innate emotions are more intense than human emotions. Which is compelling proof in and of itself that Vulcans are capable of racism, because it's completely illogical to ascribe Vulcan control to genetics rather than learning.

So I'm curious to know what it is you're referring to.
 
In what way? Whenever they've referred to Spock's "human half" onscreen, it's been in reference to his emotional side or failures of logical control. Which is nonsense, because, again, the whole reason Vulcans adopted logic in the first place is because their innate emotions are more intense than human emotions. Which is compelling proof in and of itself that Vulcans are capable of racism, because it's completely illogical to ascribe Vulcan control to genetics rather than learning.

So I'm curious to know what it is you're referring to.

McCoy made mention of his human biological makeup a few times.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top