Complaints about humanizing Spock

[Anticitizen]

I'm now convinced you're not being honest with us, Herbert. You've definitely got an agenda.

What the blazes is that supposed to mean?

I can't respond to your post when you break up your replies in little quoted chunks like that. It becomes a formatting nightmare. I'll keep it short by saying that in listing your examples, you're missing the point - yes, the childhood trauma scene, for instance, was lifted from TAS, but while you quoted my entire post, you omitted this line:

The primary difference is that ST09 showed us only the emotionally-driven Spock. In fact, the only indications of his TOS characterization were window-dressing: he spoke in a metered, even voice, and threw around the word 'logical' a few times

...which is convenient, because that was the primary main idea I was making. What were you saying about an agenda?

 

[Anticitizen]

the Spock we saw throughout TOS (bar "The Cage" - and look how he acts there)

People keep mentioning 'The Cage'. You do know that The Cage was made before it was decided that the character would be unemotional, right? The character of 'Number One' was the one written to have the unemotional 'computer' mind. When the character of Number One got shot down, they moved those character traits to Spock instead.

It's not some plot evidence of a 'younger, more emotional' Spock.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Yet not only is the more emotional young Spock in "The Cage", but in the flashbacks shown in "The Menagerie"

Or doesn't that count, either?

 

[Nerys Myk]

the Spock we saw throughout TOS (bar "The Cage" - and look how he acts there)

People keep mentioning 'The Cage'. You do know that The Cage was made before it was decided that the character would be unemotional, right? The character of 'Number One' was the one written to have the unemotional 'computer' mind. When the character of Number One got shot down, they moved those character traits to Spock instead.

It's not some plot evidence of a 'younger, more emotional' Spock.

As T'Pau might have said "De Canon is De Canon. What can be done?"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

the Spock we saw throughout TOS (bar "The Cage" - and look how he acts there)

People keep mentioning 'The Cage'. You do know that The Cage was made before it was decided that the character would be unemotional, right? The character of 'Number One' was the one written to have the unemotional 'computer' mind. When the character of Number One got shot down, they moved those character traits to Spock instead.

It's not some plot evidence of a 'younger, more emotional' Spock.

As T'Pau might have said "De Canon is De Canon. What can be done?"

Exactly so.

 

[Ryan8bit]

In this case, the tri-ox compound would be a retcon. It happens all the time, and I'm pretty sure that was the intent for Spock anyway.

 

[Devon]

I wonder if some of the same people who are trying to deny Spock's uninfluenced emotional sides from the early episodes on the grounds that, "This was before they decided to change his character," were also the same ones who complained that the new film didn't use the uniforms from "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

 

[Anticitizen]

I wonder if some of the same people who are trying to deny Spock's uninfluenced emotional sides from the early episodes on the grounds that, "This was before they decided to change his character," were also the same ones who complained that the new film didn't use the uniforms from "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[UFO]

My biggest gripe with many Trekkers is they fail to notice that Vulcan's aren't logical because of biology but rather its a cultural choice.

As far as I know that's right, but their heightened emotional responses, when unrestrained, is due to biology.

UFO, I'm skeptical that even Kolinahr could purge all emotion, as emotions are inherent just as they are to we human beings. Nothing short of becoming Data could effectively reach that end and this is yet another tool that bolsters the myth of "perfectly logical beings".

I don't know, but the existance of Kolinahr suggests Vulcans aren't self deluded about the degree of success of their training techniques, though they still appear to be pretty good. If Vulcans seem to be totally logical and emotionless to other races (thus the "myth") that could be because Vulcans don't like admitting weakness in that area. But right from the beginning writers have been ambiguous about Vulcan emotions or lack of them.

the Spock we saw throughout TOS (bar "The Cage" - and look how he acts there)

People keep mentioning 'The Cage'. You do know that The Cage was made before it was decided that the character would be unemotional, right?
...
It's not some plot evidence of a 'younger, more emotional' Spock.

Indeed. It may be, as I have said, that fresh out of Vulcan training, Spock should be less emotional rather than more. He appears to become more "human" as time goes on so that would fit.

Yet not only is the more emotional young Spock in "The Cage", but in the flashbacks shown in "The Menagerie"

Or doesn't that count, either?

It's poisoned fruit. It would be great if we could use a bit of judgement instead of just sticking to canon, come what may.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Damned when you do and damned when you dont.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The primary difference is that ST09 showed us only the emotionally-driven Spock. In fact, the only indications of his TOS characterization were window-dressing: he spoke in a metered, even voice, and threw around the word 'logical' a few times

...which is convenient, because that was the primary main idea I was making.

Which is a silly point, because that's exactly what Nimoy did when playing the elder version of this very same character (actually, OldSpock seemed slightly MORE emotional than his younger counterpart, but maybe that's just me). He even flat out and expresses a certain amount of pleasure at seeing Kirk again, all things considered.

That's what I mean about your agenda, Herbert. You're not really interested in looking at the characterization of Spock in this film, only with finding fault with it or inventing fault when there is none to be found.

 

[Anticitizen]

Which is a silly point, because that's exactly what Nimoy did when playing the elder version of this very same character (actually, OldSpock seemed slightly MORE emotional than his younger counterpart, but maybe that's just me). He even flat out and expresses a certain amount of pleasure at seeing Kirk again, all things considered.

Leonard Nimoy didn't write the thing.

That's what I mean about your agenda, Herbert. You're not really interested in looking at the characterization of Spock in this film, only with finding fault with it or inventing fault when there is none to be found.

The word you're looking for would be 'opinion', not 'agenda'.

 

[darkshadow0001]

The primary difference is that ST09 showed us only the emotionally-driven Spock. In fact, the only indications of his TOS characterization were window-dressing: he spoke in a metered, even voice, and threw around the word 'logical' a few times

...which is convenient, because that was the primary main idea I was making.

Which is a silly point, because that's exactly what Nimoy did when playing the elder version of this very same character (actually, OldSpock seemed slightly MORE emotional than his younger counterpart, but maybe that's just me). He even flat out and expresses a certain amount of pleasure at seeing Kirk again, all things considered.

That's what I mean about your agenda, Herbert. You're not really interested in looking at the characterization of Spock in this film, only with finding fault with it or inventing fault when there is none to be found.

Nimoy has always shown human emotion in the previous films. Of course he would show more emotion in this one, his planet was just blown up. Although sometimes I wonder why he was that emotional... because techically, it wasn't really "his" planet, being they were in another timeline.

 

[F. King Daniel]

As a mere fan and a viewer of the film, it didn't matter one iota that Amanda Prime and Vulcan Prime lived on in some alternate timeline. From this point-of-view, they're dead and gone - and if Spock hadn't caused himself and Nero to fall into into the black hole (IIRC it was his attempt to evade Nero that led to them going through), none of it would have happened. Spock Prime has the deaths of both Romulus Prime (where he failed to get there in time) and (indirectly) Vulcan Alternate on his concience.

...poor guy!

 

[Sharr Khan]

but their heightened emotional responses, when unrestrained, is due to biology.

Emotions are hardwired, so in that sense for anyone Vulcan or human this is true... its not that they are experiencing more, they are just letting false culturel shields drop and experience their normal state. Now of course outside influence can break the social barriers of a Vulcan.

I don't know, but the existance of Kolinahr suggests Vulcans aren't self deluded about the degree of success of their training techniques, though they still appear to be pretty good. If Vulcans seem to be totally logical and emotionless to other races (thus the "myth") that could be because Vulcans don't like admitting weakness in that area. But right from the beginning writers have been ambiguous about Vulcan emotions or lack of them.

Institutions such as kolinahr suggest the opposite to me as they would be part of the cultural facade.

So far the only people who I have seen who buy the notion of truly emotionless Vulcans are those who have had little interaction with the real thing, and thus only know the myth as well as a few fans who also like their fictional counterparts want to buy the notion as well.

I think if we were to ask Old Kirk or McCoy or Archer for that matte they would tell you not be so quick as to buy the myth of Vulcan reason.

Vulcan being a somewhat a closed culture also furthers the myth of truly logical beings.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which is a silly point, because that's exactly what Nimoy did when playing the elder version of this very same character (actually, OldSpock seemed slightly MORE emotional than his younger counterpart, but maybe that's just me). He even flat out and expresses a certain amount of pleasure at seeing Kirk again, all things considered.

Leonard Nimoy didn't write the thing.

He didn't need to. Abrams gave him creative input on Spock's overall characterization, and Zachary Quinto went to him for advice.

As for your agenda:

The word you're looking for would be 'opinion', not 'agenda'.

Even an opinion is PARTLY based on facts. In this case you're complaining about the characterization of Spock as a reason for why you didn't like the movie. The fact of the matter is you're complaining about the characterization BECAUSE you don't like the movie and don't want anyone else to like it either.

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>

TOS Spock was interesting and compelling because of the choices Spock had to face in maintaining his discipline, and the problems they caused/solved - hence episodes like Amok Time, This Side of Paradise, etc, because they illustrate those challenges. ST09 threw that out the window and chose to address his discipline as the problem itself.

I couldn't help but notice you left out "This Way to Eden." I'm starting to think you've got some kind of agenda, Herbert.

I could make the same criticism about most of the characters in the movie - they took the 'window-dressings' of the characters, but excised the heart and motivations of each of them, and replaced them with baser fillings.

For instance, no longer do the crew just simply want To Boldly Go, for exploration's sake: Kirk is now challenged into living up to his father's legacy, Spock is joining Starfleet in order to give the middle finger to the racist Vulcan Science Academy, McCoy's running from his divorce, etc.

Did TOS ever actually explain to us why Kirk joined Starfleet in the first place? Or McCoy, for that matter? Hell, we weren't even sure what planet he was from until TVH.

I'm now convinced you're not being honest with us, Herbert. You've definitely got an agenda.

The primary difference is that ST09 showed us only the emotionally-driven Spock. In fact, the only indications of his TOS characterization were window-dressing: he spoke in a metered, even voice, and threw around the word 'logical' a few times

...which is convenient, because that was the primary main idea I was making.

Which is a silly point, because that's exactly what Nimoy did when playing the elder version of this very same character (actually, OldSpock seemed slightly MORE emotional than his younger counterpart, but maybe that's just me). He even flat out and expresses a certain amount of pleasure at seeing Kirk again, all things considered.

That's what I mean about your agenda, Herbert. You're not really interested in looking at the characterization of Spock in this film, only with finding fault with it or inventing fault when there is none to be found.

Which is a silly point, because that's exactly what Nimoy did when playing the elder version of this very same character (actually, OldSpock seemed slightly MORE emotional than his younger counterpart, but maybe that's just me). He even flat out and expresses a certain amount of pleasure at seeing Kirk again, all things considered.

Leonard Nimoy didn't write the thing.

He didn't need to. Abrams gave him creative input on Spock's overall characterization, and Zachary Quinto went to him for advice.

As for your agenda:

The word you're looking for would be 'opinion', not 'agenda'.

Even an opinion is PARTLY based on facts. In this case you're complaining about the characterization of Spock as a reason for why you didn't like the movie. The fact of the matter is you're complaining about the characterization BECAUSE you don't like the movie and don't want anyone else to like it either.

(emphasis mine)

newtype_alpha, that last is not only not a fact, it's not even a supportable opinion. Furthermore, using "Herbert" once I could see as something done for humorous effect - even used twice... maybe. But continuing to bang that drum, and in conjunction with this business about Anticitizen having an agenda? That makes things appear as if you've got an agenda of your own—that being to bait Anticitizen into making an injudicious response—and it is not the sort of impression you want to be giving here.

Anticitizen has been expressing his opinions concerning elements of the movie (I see no reason whatsoever to think that they're anything else,) you've been expressing yours, and as long as we keep to discussing those opinions, everything is fine and dandy. Making things personal by repeated taunting with "Herbert" and insinuations of having an agenda? Not fine and dandy. Please refrain from employing such tactics now and in the future; it's just not good debate and it might be seen as an infringement of board rules.

 

[Anticitizen]

I don't even know what this 'Herbert' thing even means. So far, Newtype's posts have left me more confused than anything.

 

[number6]

Most of the comments from "fans" leave me more confused than anything.

 

[6079SmithW]

I don't even know what this 'Herbert' thing even means. So far, Newtype's posts have left me more confused than anything.

Haven't you watched TOS "The Way to Eden"?