Spock & Uhura romance
- Thread starter jtkirk
- Start date
I'll take TOS' Season 3 over Abrams' shit anytime.
We already know what TOS would have been like if it had been made in 1969 - the drivel and banality that was Season Three. So it doesn't seem as if such things are time-bound at all...
Season 3 gave us episodes with nothing to be embarrassed about:
“Elaan Of Troyius”
“Spectre Of The Gun”
“The Enterprise Incident”
“The Empath”
“For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky”
“Is There In Truth No Beauty?”
“The Tholian Web”
“Day Of The Dove”
“Plato’s Stepchildren”
“That Which Survives”
“The Savage Curtain”
Some episodes with flawed execution yet still redeeming aspects:
“Spock’s Brain”
“The Paradise Syndrome”
“The Mark Of Gideon”
“Wink Of An Eye”
“Whom Gods Destroy”
“The Lights Of Zetar”
“Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”
“The Cloud Minders”
“The Way To Eden”
“Requiem For Methuselah”
“Turnabout Intruder”
“All Our Yesterdays”
And one cringe inducing embarrassment:
“And The Children Shall Lead”
Naturally this is all a matter of personal preference, but I find the following either cringe-inducing, flat, or just plain poorly-executed:
“Spectre Of The Gun”
“The Empath”
“Plato’s Stepchildren”
“That Which Survives”
“The Savage Curtain”
Then again, I like "Spock's Brain" and "Whom Gods Destroy" for their complete lack of self-importance, so go figure.
There's a lot that I personally find interesting in season three, but I wouldn't turn that into a sweeping statement about its artistic merit.
At the end of the day, there was no season four. Like it or not, there will be a sequel to Abrams' film. Again, that's not necessarily a reflection of their relative merit, but it says something, doesn't it?
More, if you view each episode multiple times.
What is missing is the reason Vulcans don't emote. Spock doesn't simply repress the emotions he has from his human half because he wants to be like his father or something, but Spock REALLY does believe emotions are wrong and evil - as do all Vulcans. TOS is heavily laced with Spock looking down on and rejecting human emotions. He isn't just pretending to not have emotions - he really doesn't want to have them, thinks they are the root of evil, a sign a weakness, and that they causes lots of bad things to happen.
A Byronic hero had some bad experience in the past, or has a tragic flaw, weakness or vice that makes him the way he is. Spock is not like that. He has made a conscience decision to reject emotion because he really does think it is bad. An example would be like the way a Socialist would look down upon and reject Capitalism and hate himself if he felt greed (or vice-versa). Spock is dedicated to the Vulcan philosophy because he thinks it is the right, best and most beneficial way, and he thinks the universe would be better if everyone did the same.
From Journey to Babel:
"SPOCK: It means to adopt a philosophy, a way of life, which is logical and beneficial. We cannot disregard that philosophy merely for personal gain, no matter how important that gain might be. "
If Spock felt desire for a woman he would repress it, fight it, deny it (even if he couldn't help the physiological response). He would do all that he could to eliminate feeling anything. Yes, sometimes he slips up, but that is by accident, or when he is caught off guard etc. He would never knowingly let himself behave in an emotional fashion - which romance necessitates. Vulcans and Spock get the same kind of satisfaction from logic that we might get from feelings of love or romance.
We actually did get to see Spock react to a spoiled princess in "Elan of Troyius". He seemed to have a WTF reaction to her and looked down upon her race as "most irrational".
If "Inception" is any guide, it was most likely one way.
Oooooh I dunno. That doesn't sound like Spock.
But this comment did make me realize something: that Spock would go for a woman who helped negate the thing that troubles him in the back of his mind, which he rarely if ever allows to percolate into conscious thought, namely the fear that all the bigots and bullies might be right, and his human side might actually make him inferior to pure-blooded Vulcans.
So, he'd go for a human female, not Vulcan, but a human female who was smart, rational (ie, logical in a human way) and could kick his half-Vulcan ass any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
In short: the Abramsverse Uhura - fierce, competent, unafraid, unconflicted about emotions but firmly in control of her emotions - is his ideal woman. Now it all makes sense! (Not that it didn't before...)
That's why Uhura is perfect for him. She has emotions but will never be bedeviled by them. She gives Spock hope that there's a way out of his inner conflict (which of course is created by his Vulcan, not his human, half - Vulcans having more violent emotions than humans, apparently to a dysfunctional extent.)
Perhaps there is one more factor to the kind of female Spock would be personally attracted to, body type.
Compare Zoe Saldana's Uhura to Diana Ewing's Droxine. Willowy, slim and slender, flat tummy, small breasted, toned but not muscled. Saldana is 5' 7", Ewing about the same.
Compare Zoe Saldana's Uhura to Diana Ewing's Droxine. Willowy, slim and slender, flat tummy, small breasted, toned but not muscled. Saldana is 5' 7", Ewing about the same.
I'm not at all surprised, nor am I in the least impressed by the fiftieth rendition of this one note which is apparently supposed to pass for a tune. Even most fans who have TOS confused somehow with high art don't think all that much of the third season of the show, and certainly no one who isn't a hard core fan is ever going to point to it as an example of something that any creative person should aspire to. There are better reasons for that than you show any inclination to understand.
Too damned bad for you. If you can rave over Abrams' crap then I can just as easily call it as I see it.
I never called TOS' 3rd season high art. But general mediocrity is still preferable to Abrams' mindlessness.
And the overall tone of your posts doesn't fool anyone in regards to what you really are.
OK guys.
On one thing I can agree with Dennis, you call it too often. Every time I see a post from you regarding the new Star Trek, I don't even have to read it to know what it is. Why bother at this point? Everyone knows you hate new Trek. Why not just talk about old Trek and avoid the new stuff threads?
I can't stand 7 of 9 and you will almost never see me in a thread about her. I'm here to talk about Trek I like, not bitch about Trek that doesn't come up to snuff.
It's a free BBS, but really, it gets old after a while. Spoken as Bon the poster, BTW, not T'Bonz the manager.
On one thing I can agree with Dennis, you call it too often. Every time I see a post from you regarding the new Star Trek, I don't even have to read it to know what it is. Why bother at this point? Everyone knows you hate new Trek. Why not just talk about old Trek and avoid the new stuff threads?
I can't stand 7 of 9 and you will almost never see me in a thread about her. I'm here to talk about Trek I like, not bitch about Trek that doesn't come up to snuff.
It's a free BBS, but really, it gets old after a while. Spoken as Bon the poster, BTW, not T'Bonz the manager.
This isn't even remotely true. When was the last time I was in the Trek XI forum? And even if it was then so what? I get ever so tired of people dragging nuTrek into the TOS forum, but what can I do about it?
The simple fact is that if you generally don't buy into the newest thing, be it nuTrek, TOS-R or whatever then the vibe comes across that you're not really welcome.
And I and others are constantly tired of Dennis' (and others) condescending attitude because we don't follow the majority opinion. He and others like to posture that those who disagree with them are ignorant, ill informed and lacking in perspective and taste.
I've been pretty vocal at times because I let myself get suckered into pointless arguments, but generally speaking I've been pretty damned restrained. I see a lot of things posted that I can take issue with, but most times I just let them pass because arguing them won't get anywhere.
I like what I like and will say so. And in kind I will express my dissenting opinion when I see something I don't like.
I make no apologies.
People don't like my opinion? Too bad. You don't hear me (and others) always calling out those repeatedly expressing how they think Abrams' work was pure gold.
Last edited:
I must agree here. This is the TOS forum. When threads pop up to discuss the reinterpretation of TOS to comport with the new movie, it's entirely valid for those of us who do not accept such interpretations to again voice our opinions.
Indeed; I've been happily oblivious to Dennis until he recently started taking unwarranted and unprovoked personal pot-shots and insulting those he disagrees with. He's the Perez Hilton of the BBS.
I think everyone has to agree to disagree on this one. I like to read a Spock/Uhura romance into TOS because that's my ship. I like to think there was something going on between those two at some point. But if you don't want to, that's fine too. Everything is open to interpretation, and that's the beauty of Trek.
Pretty much.
Whether it should be discussed here, comparisons between TOS and the JJ version seem to be unavoidable.
Well, this isn't even a comparison so much as it's a question raised in some people's mind about TOS because of the Abrams version.
Viewers are going to keep finding new stuff and reinterpreting what's on the screen in TOS for as long as people watch it - and people will bring their own social and pop culture context to it. The notion that any kind of art continues to work generation after generation based on the proposition that people will see it and appreciate it exactly in the sense and context that the creators intended or in the same way that the first generation audience did is always a non-starter.
Viewers are going to keep finding new stuff and reinterpreting what's on the screen in TOS for as long as people watch it - and people will bring their own social and pop culture context to it. The notion that any kind of art continues to work generation after generation based on the proposition that people will see it and appreciate it exactly in the sense and context that the creators intended or in the same way that the first generation audience did is always a non-starter.
