Do fans want the prime timeline back?

[Nerys Myk]

Can't say I've ever heard of or thought of Spock as having a disability because he was raised for the most part in the Vulcan tradition.

 

[thumbtack]

Personally, I think the next Trek series will either be set in its own continuity or will have a continuity vague enough that it'll be hard to tell if its Prime, Abrams, or a mixture of both.

Yet your use of the term "keys" suggests you may have been one of those fans who chose to deliberately misinterpret a remark made by Seth MacFarlane two years ago. I'll hold to my ridiculous prediction that, in the unlikely event of live action tv, whoever gets those keys will answer to logic and profitability first and artistic prerogative second.

some of us have invested nearly a half-century of interest

Which makes you demographically undesirable. But Mr. Moonves would like you to know it's not personal. It's just business.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Personally, I think the next Trek series will either be set in its own continuity or will have a continuity vague enough that it'll be hard to tell if its Prime, Abrams, or a mixture of both.

Yet your use of the term "keys" suggests you may have been one of those fans who chose to deliberately misinterpret a remark made by Seth MacFarlane two years ago.

Um, wrong.

I couldn't care less about what Seth MacFarlane or anyone else said (especially since I don't even know what MacFarlane said anyway--and don't even want to know, really). So you're way off the mark there.

I'll hold to my ridiculous prediction that, in the unlikely event of live action tv, whoever gets those keys will answer to logic and profitability first and artistic prerogative second.

Um, whoever will get those keys will do so because they were CBS' choice and had a pitch for a series that appealed to them. That pitch could be set in any continuity, including the original, the current, or an all-new one.

 

[Belz...]

How so ?

You explain that without loosing the remaining old fans and confusing the new ones.

How does that answer my question ?

But was that Star Trek, really, or just a sign of the times ?

Yes.

Again. I give two choices, and you answer "yes".

 

[Timewalker]

You mean their ONE public kiss on the transporter pad that came AFTER Spock's breakdown and admission to his father that he has emotions and cannot control them?

By Vulcan standards (not Sarek's standards or Amanda's or Spock's, Vulcan in general) that IS a very noticeable, unacceptable breach of decorum and manners. Any regular Vulcan would be correct in wondering if nuSpock were mentally ill, for engaging in such behavior.

No "normal Vulcans" were present. The Spock in this timeframe is the same one who smiled after touching a vibrating leaf and shouts "the women!!!!" when two female crewmates disappear. I don't think Spock at this point in his lives was overly bothered by Vulcan "decorum and manners". Even Spock later in his life in the PrimeUniverse was known to break decorum. Some of his best scenes are when he does. He does the strict Vulcan thing to get on humans' nerves.

Just because no normal Vulcans were present, that doesn't change Vulcan custom.

Romance isn't prohibited. But there are regulations and social conventions about how that romance is expressed. Torres and Paris were reprimanded for their blatant PDAs in Voyager. They weren't told they couldn't have a relationship. They were told to keep it off-duty and in the privacy of their quarters or the holodeck.

SHAW: Do you think it would cause a complete breakdown of discipline if a lowly lieutenant kissed a Starship Captain on the bridge of his ship?
KIRK: Let's try. (a gentle but lingering kiss) See? No change. Discipline goes on.
SHAW: And so must the Enterprise. Goodbye, Jim.

If it's good enough for TOS, then it's good enough for the Abramsverse.

You're missing a very important point. Kirk was the Captain. If he decided it was okay for him to kiss a lieutenant on his bridge, it was okay because it's his ship.

Tom and B'Elanna weren't Captains, or anything close. It was Janeway who got to decide if they could engage in public displays of affection, and she decided they couldn't.

 

[Nerys Myk]

By Vulcan standards (not Sarek's standards or Amanda's or Spock's, Vulcan in general) that IS a very noticeable, unacceptable breach of decorum and manners. Any regular Vulcan would be correct in wondering if nuSpock were mentally ill, for engaging in such behavior.

No "normal Vulcans" were present. The Spock in this timeframe is the same one who smiled after touching a vibrating leaf and shouts "the women!!!!" when two female crewmates disappear. I don't think Spock at this point in his lives was overly bothered by Vulcan "decorum and manners". Even Spock later in his life in the PrimeUniverse was known to break decorum. Some of his best scenes are when he does. He does the strict Vulcan thing to get on humans' nerves.

Just because no normal Vulcans were present, that doesn't change Vulcan custom.

.

Spock has never been one to follow Vulcan "custom".His story in TMP is pretty much about the pure Vulcan way not being for him.

 

[F. King Daniel]

King Daniel and Greg, I think I understand your points, and correct me if I'm misstating them: You're happy for a character who appears to have overcome a severe handicap, and now he can move on and be a more well-rounded person. He no longer has to be defined by a disability.

I never saw Spock's Vulcanness as a disability. That's an interesting take.

I suppose, speaking on behalf of actual people who have ever had even a slight disability and then overcame it, that does make some sense.

But let's be fair: Here's a character in whom some of us have invested nearly a half-century of interest, and one of the reasons has been being privileged to watch him overcome, by fits and starts, a personal psychological disability. He was incapable of expressing romantic love. Oh, he's certainly capable of emotion at some level, and his repression of emotion is a personal, daily choice rather than some missing circuitry. He certainly wanted to express romantic love, as he directly implied in his apology to Christine Chapel.

I think we see Spock's character very differently.
Whether he was capable of love is open to interpretation. I'll never find the link now, but years ago I read a quote from Gene Roddenberry, where he specualted that Spock may have had a romantic affair at Starfleet Academy which ended badly. It immediately came to mind when I saw that Spock and Uhura were together in the 2009 movie, although I have no idea if the writers were even aware of Roddenberry's comment.

In the 80's novel Vulcan's Glory, set when Spock is first assigned to Pike's Enterprise and written by D.C. Fontana, Spock has a rather casual affair with a Vulcan officer. He's portrayed as having emotions but keeping them hidden them as per Vulcan standards. This is quite similar to the Spock of the new movies.

Conversely, in the more recent (2010) Inception by S.D. Perry, set between "The Cage" and TOS, Spock is portrayed as being literally unable to return Leila Kolrami's affections. He's portrayed as being incapable of a full range of emotions, owing to his Vulcan upbringing. A lot like the Spock you describe.

Which version of Spock is the "real" one? I guess each to their own. I believe that Zach Quinto's Spock is a legitamate interpretation of Leonard Nimoy's original, although I can see your frustration that it differs from how you envisioned him.

But even when slightly intoxicated (or the metaphysical equivalent), he was reduced to a babbling puddle of tears. When heavily intoxicated, sure, Jill Ireland became the love of his live in three seconds. Yet the side of his character that was revealed in that episode completely and successfully repressed the part of Spock that was devoted to his duty and that was honorable as a man, in the same way that his "honor-side" had successfully repressed his sexual urges. Only through being humiliated by Kirk did he recover his memory of how to repress the feeling of being humiliated, and his honorable side return.

Now, over the years, various incidents (among them, death and rebirth) gave the man opportunities to reconcile his two halves. And it was good to watch that process happen. We appreciated the "personal growth," to borrow Daniel's phrase.

For a rewritten version of the story to rewind history and say all that personal trauma and trial and reconciliation and doubt and grief were unnecessary, and the right woman's kiss cleared everything up and things are now hunky-dory, is to devalue the previous storyline. It doesn't eliminate it from our history, but it does sorta say, "Ah, well, who cares?"

But it's not Uhura that "cures" him at all. This is something I posted in the Spock/Uhura thread over in XI+, about Spock's story arc in STXI:

This may sound a little weird, but here goes: I say Spock's story in STXI is an allegory for a closeted homosexual coming out. He has emotions, which his people see as extremely distasteful. He can't supress them as well as they do, but he TRIES to live up to his rigid society's expectations of emotionlessness. He acts like he doesn't have them in public.

Uhura, she's his secret release for his emotions. Their relationship is an improper and secret student-teacher one, surrogate for a secret gay one.

After his mother died and his world destroyed, Spock cracks, and "comes out" to his father (Amanda always knew, and didn't care, "whatever you do, you will always have a proud mother"), saying this is it, he can't bottle this shit up anymore, he has emotions and that's that. And Sarek says not to try, and that he's proud of him.

Spock and Uhura smooch on the transporter pad in front of everyone, Spock uses Uhura's "secret" first name. He's out now, being what he really is and wants to be, and not what his society expects.


...that's what me, a straight guy, saw. Am I the only one?

Put another way: At one level, hypothetically, it might be interesting to have rebooted a character named "Ironside" as a detective who, after being shot, underwent a life-saving operation, overcame paralysis, and now stands upright and jogs every morning. We'd be happy for him if we got to see the recovery process -- if someone were to tell that story and make it interesting and personal. But to presume the story is already told is to cheat the viewer, as well as to effectively declare the recovery process itself (the "personal growth") unimportant.

DF "Mark, Get Me Out of This Flamin' Chair!" Scott

There was a moment at the end of XI, when both Spocks were talking and the elder said to the younger, "Put aside logic. Do what feels right." - I thought it was HUGE. Spock's been through so much termoil over the decades trying to reconcile his human and Vulcan halves and trying to live the like a Vulcan, and here he is telling his past self that maybe the path he chose wasn't the best way.

Is the young Spock "cured"? Nope. He tried not feeling in Into Darkness because emotion = pain and people important to him kept dying. That ended in an Incredible Hulk rampage.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

The NuTrek Vulcans contradict themselves, completely forgetting about IDIC.

In the Prime Universe I never got the impression the Spock was shunned (although in his birth scene in TFF Sarek does comment on his being so human, but seeing as how that is just a crap film I think we can gloss over it).

 

[F. King Daniel]

I guess you missed "Journey to Babel", "Amok Time", "Yesteryear" and the entirety of Star Trek: Enterprise?

Name one full-blooded Vulcan that exemplifies IDIC. Even Sarek shunned his own son for eighteen years. Why? For daring to explore a little of that infinite diversity rather than stay on Vulcan.

 

[BillJ]

His story in TMP is pretty much about the pure Vulcan way not being for him.

People seem pissed that Abrams didn't take eighty-hours to get to that point in what is likely a trilogy of films that will have a total runtime of six-hours!

 

[BillJ]

The NuTrek Vulcans contradict themselves, completely forgetting about IDIC.

In the Prime Universe I never got the impression the Spock was shunned...

Huh?

All you have to do is watch Amok Time and Yesteryear to know that what you state simply isn't true.

 

[JarodRussell]

I guess you missed "Journey to Babel", "Yesteryear" and the entirety of Star Trek: Enterprise?

Name one full-blooded Vulcan that exemplifies IDIC. Even Sarek shunned his own son for eighteen years. Why? For daring to explore a little of that infinite diversity rather than stay on Vulcan.

Tuvok. He might have been annoyed when the likes of Neelix and the EMH poked him about being so logical, but he accepted and advocated diversity.

 

[anh165]

His story in TMP is pretty much about the pure Vulcan way not being for him.

People seem pissed that Abrams didn't take eighty-hours to get to that point in what is likely a trilogy of films that will have a total runtime of six-hours!

Yep this is one of the very key issues with JJ bashing. A couple of movies can never quite explore 200 years of Trek lore aswell as 40 years of TV shows can.

 

[dub]

My fear is now that they got away with re-using characters and lifting lots of dialogue/situations from previous Trek, and people are spending the money to see it, they'll keep doing that. Apparently a lot of people really love that. I find it extremely corny. No amount of special effects, suspenseful music or action can make Spock shouting "Khannnnn" anything but eye-roll-worthy for me (and all of the other dialogue lifted from TWOK falls into that category for me). A little goes a long way. A quote here or there, fine. Perhaps even cool. But they went totally overboard with it. They milked it dry and continued suckling for good measure. The thing is, I don't mind many aspects of the re-boot. The actors are great. The special effects are incredible. And even though I enjoy joking about it, I liked the lens flares! But the main thing is I just want a great story, and I think STID was almost there. I'd just rather see it without SO many "nods" to previous Trek. But that's just me, and I realize I'm in the minority and everyone loves/hates different things, and yada yada yada, so I'm bracing myself for another over-the-top quote-fest in the third installment.

But to answer the OP - I'm fine with either timeline as long as it's good!

 

[F. King Daniel]

I guess you missed "Journey to Babel", "Yesteryear" and the entirety of Star Trek: Enterprise?

Name one full-blooded Vulcan that exemplifies IDIC. Even Sarek shunned his own son for eighteen years. Why? For daring to explore a little of that infinite diversity rather than stay on Vulcan.

Tuvok. He might have been annoyed when the likes of Neelix and the EMH poked him about being so logical, but he accepted and advocated diversity.

Touché.

 

[dub]

I guess you missed "Journey to Babel", "Yesteryear" and the entirety of Star Trek: Enterprise?

Name one full-blooded Vulcan that exemplifies IDIC. Even Sarek shunned his own son for eighteen years. Why? For daring to explore a little of that infinite diversity rather than stay on Vulcan.

Tuvok. He might have been annoyed when the likes of Neelix and the EMH poked him about being so logical, but he accepted and advocated diversity.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVdH1GomPTk[/yt]

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

 

[Admiral2]

His story in TMP is pretty much about the pure Vulcan way not being for him.

People seem pissed that Abrams didn't take eighty-hours to get to that point in what is likely a trilogy of films that will have a total runtime of six-hours!

Yep this is one of the very key issues with JJ bashing. A couple of movies can never quite explore 200 years of Trek lore aswell as 40 years of TV shows can.

I don't bash JJ because he didn't include 40 years of back story.

I bash him cause his stuff is shit.

 

[ComicGuy89]

People seem pissed that Abrams didn't take eighty-hours to get to that point in what is likely a trilogy of films that will have a total runtime of six-hours!

Yep this is one of the very key issues with JJ bashing. A couple of movies can never quite explore 200 years of Trek lore aswell as 40 years of TV shows can.

I don't bash JJ because he didn't include 40 years of back story.

I bash him cause his stuff is shit.

Bashing in any form is to be frowned upon. We could discuss the topic at hand to help come to a mutual understanding instead.

 

[Admiral2]

Yep this is one of the very key issues with JJ bashing. A couple of movies can never quite explore 200 years of Trek lore aswell as 40 years of TV shows can.

I don't bash JJ because he didn't include 40 years of back story.

I bash him cause his stuff is shit.

Besides, bashing in any form is to be frowned upon. We could discuss the topic at hand to help come to a mutual understanding instead.

Okay. My main problem with new timeline is the guy who created it, because most things he's had a hand in utterly fail to entertain me. (The exception is Super 8, and only because the horror film the kids made was more enjoyable than the bulk of Abrams' repertoire.)

 

[Kemaiku]

I bash him cause his stuff is shit.

In your opinion. And you have yet to really contribute anything to back up the repeated vulgar torrent of verbal 'runs' you've had over the topic for 4 and a half obsessive years.