Did Kirk's rather *enthusiastic* execution of Nero bug you?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

At a minimum, they could have simply added another 10 minutes to the film ...

Oh yeah, lengthen a film by 10 minutes.

Simple. Trivial. Won't make a bit of difference in expense, pacing, scheduling etc.

 

[Sector 7]

Kirk.
Starfleet Captain.
Starfleet's finest.
....

Goofing on the guys he's about to kill...?

Not sorry for for believing he HAS to do it?

Has this alternate reality created a Kirk I can't look up to any more? Just another angry angsty texting post-teen that revels in his justifiable excesses?

Or did Nero REALLY ASK for it?

I actually really disliked Spock's reaction when Kirk offered assistance.

Spock, in ST09, is the least like his original version. I agree with you.

I'm trying to figure out what makes people think the Narada was unable to fire their weapons. As long as they had weapons they were a threat.

Threats with big guns who refuse to surrender have to be shot, last time I checked.

General Order 25, right after the miniskirt order.

I look at Spock's "No, not really. Not this time." was the one time he gave in to his feelings.

I love this movie, but my least favorite part is the new EmoSpock. Spock also gave into is feelings when he said, "Live long and prosper," to the Vulcans; made out with Uhura in the turbolift; disagreed with Kirk about Nero's fate, etc.

I also saw a glimpse of TOS Kirk when he reasoned that saving Nero could create a diplomatic bonus with the Romulans. I can see that Kirk will one day mature into the Admiral we saw in later TOS movies.

 

[pookha]

LOL, you say that like it was a law of physics. It's fiction, they can do anything they want and achieve the outcome they want. The 'reset button' would have been a plot device heavily needed in this movie. At least the option should have been mentioned. I mean NOBODY, not even the original Spock, thought about stopping Nero where it all began, to save the Kelvin, Kirk's father, and 6 billion Vulcans. They just accept the destruction of half of the fleet and a major planet, execute Nero and then they are all happy again. Geez.

Exactly. As I said before, by about 2/3 of the way through the movie there were two people in the story who knew how time was SUPPOSED to unfold. That none of the above was supposed to happen. Spock Prime and Kirk (by virtue of the mind meld with Spock Prime).

We saw essentially this same setup in Yesterday's Enterprise, where a ship thrown from time screws up the entire timeline.

Picard, on nothing more than Guinan's intuition, sacrafices his entire ship and his chief of security for nothing more than a belief that it COULD fix things by doing so.

Spock Prime and Kirk KNEW how things were supposed to be and did NOTHING to correct it. Not only is it not consistent with those characters but with anything Trek has ever done.

how are you going to stop the narada..
the narada blew away all those other starfleet ships plus who knows how many other vulcan ships like skipping through the park.

I already answered this. The difference here is that the other ships had something to lose, those on the Enterprise did not.

Kirk could have ordered the crew to sacrifice itself (by ramming the Narada with the Enterprise) simply on his word that doing so would prevent any of this from happening. If it succeeds (which, since it's Trek it would have), the time line would be fixed and things would return to their proper course. If it had failed, then the time line we had seen in the movie would simply be repeated and we would have at least seen SOMETHING from this Kirk to warrant his command.

and we saw from what happened with spock prime and the narada that there is a very big chance enterprise if they had just followed through the rift would have come out years or decades later.

It's Star Trek. It's science fiction. It would have worked just fine.

At a minimum, they could have simply added another 10 minutes to the film taking place back where the film started, only this time actually saving Romulus and, thus, avoiding the entire thing to begin with.

Not quite as spectacular as blowing up the Enterprise, but it would work.

in all of the above you still didnt adress there is no guarantee they would have come out at the right time.

and actually we see a divergent time line in yesterdays enterprise,.

pre to yesterdays enteprise tasha yar had not been made a captive of the romulans in the past.
seriously go back and see how different the time line appears to be both pre and post yesterdays enterprise,.

yeah it might have fixed things as far as preventing war with the klingons but post all of a sudden we find out the issues between the cardassians and federation for one thing.


that whole business with the scheming daughter of tasha yar may have convinced prime spock that yes indeed one dosnt really fix a time line but just cause new branches.

and really without spock prime telling them about the slingshot effect they wouldnt have known how to go back in time beyond the singularity due the whole slingshot thing being discovered later on in the prime universe by accident,.

and really a lot of fans would have gone beserk if the reset button had been used .

 

[-Brett-]

If it was a TNG movie the scene might have bugged me a little.

Picard should pretend to regret having to blow up a planet destroying superweapon commanded by a genocidal lunatic who'd murdered Picard's father.

Kirk's not Picard. There's no reason Kirk should be held to Picard's sanctimonious and hypocritical spiel about having more evolved sensabilities.

 

[TJinPgh]

At a minimum, they could have simply added another 10 minutes to the film ...

Oh yeah, lengthen a film by 10 minutes.

Simple. Trivial. Won't make a bit of difference in expense, pacing, scheduling etc.

They spent $150 million on a movie staring D-List actors. I think they could afford another 10 minutes worth of film.

Of course, they could have simply written a better story to begin with and avoided the entire situation.

 

[TJinPgh]

in all of the above you still didnt adress there is no guarantee they would have come out at the right time.

Since when have we ever asked for guarantees? It's fiction, not a used car.

Correcting the time line has always been a crap shoot. You are putting a condition on this that has never existed otherwise.

and actually we see a divergent time line in yesterdays enterprise,.

pre to yesterdays enteprise tasha yar had not been made a captive of the romulans in the past.
seriously go back and see how different the time line appears to be both pre and post yesterdays enterprise,.

I never said that correcting the time line was perfect. I simply said that, within the realm of Star Trek, it's always been necessary.

Certainly you are not suggesting that the changes created by sending Tasha Yar back under the assumption that it would correct the time line are somehow equivalent to those made by Nero by not doing so?

yeah it might have fixed things as far as preventing war with the klingons but post all of a sudden we find out the issues between the cardassians and federation for one thing.

You are assuming that things were good between the Federation and the Cardassians before Yesterday's Enterprise. We have no reason to believe that.

that whole business with the scheming daughter of tasha yar may have convinced prime spock that yes indeed one dosnt really fix a time line but just cause new branches.

Hmmm. One pain in the ass illegitimate daughter is equivalent to 6 billion people dying.

Somehow, I don't think Spock would find the logic in that one.

and really without spock prime telling them about the slingshot effect they wouldnt have known how to go back in time beyond the singularity due the whole slingshot thing being discovered later on in the prime universe by accident,.

They wouldn't have needed to. Kirk already knew that the singularity would throw them back in time.

and really a lot of fans would have gone beserk if the reset button had been used .

Unlikely. At worst they would have simply called it unoriginal. It would be far less insulting than Abrams saying after this movie that they would still have trouble using Shatner as an older version of Kirk because the movie remains so true to the original canon.

Keep in mind that I said before the movie was ever released that the entire time travel approach was a mistake and entirely unnecessary.

Given that they didn't use virtually any of the back story between Nero and Spock in the film, there was really no advantage to Nero even being Romulan.

Other than giving them a way to have Leonard Nimoy in the film (which, IMHO, was the only part of the film worth watching), there was no real point to time travel even being a part of this film.

But, once you decide that it is going to be used, if you're going to make a movie that you assert is true to Star Trek, then you're simply going to have to accept the fact that in Star Trek they fix what they screw up.

 

[Devon]

I love this movie, but my least favorite part is the new EmoSpock. Spock also gave into is feelings when he said, "Live long and prosper," to the Vulcans; made out with Uhura in the turbolift; disagreed with Kirk about Nero's fate, etc.

How does any of this constitute "Emo Spock?" That's actually Spock being Spock! It is no different than his happy reactions in the first two pilots (both canon,) VERY happy reaction to seeing Jim alive in "The Amok Time," angerly demanding that a Klingon give into his wishes with "Damn you sir," angerly slapping a phaser out of the hands Valeris with a look of betrayal and disgust on his face, etc.

I'm quite surprised that people actually think that Spock, who at this point is younger, not in control of his emotions as an older Spock (who never even made it to achieve his goal of purging all emotions,) is somehow "radically" different when he's actually what he needs to be.

 

[npsf3000]

Unfortunately, this very question shows why this movie was completely devoid of morality from the word go.

The problem isn't whether or not Nero should have died, but rather the 6 billion.

A villain does something bad, and dies, thats justice in my book.

I cannot think of a way that one could realistically not kill Vulcan, and retain the same emphasis on the new trek.

It is not a moral question, if 200 people died in-front of you, you cannot say "Thats morally not right therefore didn't happen", morals is how people react to such a circumstance.

If you think that the Enterprise could off prevented this I would like to see a reasonable solution that:

1) Does not violate any time-travel ethics.

2) Retains the same emphasis on the second universe. (this includes not returning to the 24th (ish) century).

3) Makes a good movie.

EDIT: This is only relevant if you make the claim that nothing in the film can be moral since Vulcan being destroyed is immoral, otherwise its Off Topic (Still is a stretch to make that On topic).

 

[Eleanor_zhDarjel]

If it was a TNG movie the scene might have bugged me a little.

Picard should pretend to regret having to blow up a planet destroying superweapon commanded by a genocidal lunatic who'd murdered Picard's father.

Kirk's not Picard. There's no reason Kirk should be held to Picard's sanctimonious and hypocritical spiel about having more evolved sensabilities.

Amen brother.
It was a very unique situation and I liked the reation.

 

[khaaaa]

not a forum fan here -- but i specifically registered for this because I've been bothered by Kirk's final interaction with Nero from day 1. Yea.. Kirk "laughed" at Khan... but that was different. There was a history between them. Khan personally hurt Kirk. Kirk was the object of Khan's scorn.

I think it was out of character, but I can't decide if it was Chris Pine's choice in that moment or just the writing. It was too harsh for Kirk - didn't have the depth that Shatner would have brought in that moment. It was too easy & the anger displayed was superficial... I think it was an actor problem perhaps...

side note: The reason we all love Khan is because Ricardo gave him layer upon layer...there was so much subtext to his performance. Boy you can't say the same for Nero.

 

[khaaaa]

I guess Nero did kill Kirk's dad... but... it still bothered me. Enough to google it and find this forum...

 

[pookha]

uh and not know just when in time they would come out.
or did you miss the part were even though the narada and prime spock's ship went through about the same time they came out decades apart from each other????

as for spock being too emotional and being snippy (in a sly underhand way) to the vulcans..
really check out the cage where we actually see him smiling, some of the early episodes were he is smirking.
and some of the exchanges he had with bones to see how snippy his ego could get.

vulcans are not born without emotion they have to work at control.
and sometimes it isnt an exact thing.

 

[Locutus]

I don't know if it makes much of a difference, but I remember an interview with Orci and Kurtzman where they stated that their intent WAS that if the Narada entered the black hole at the end, it may very well be able to go further in time. Therefore it was either Kirk help them or destroy them, lest ANOTHER timeline / universe be created.

I had no issues with Kirk's actions. Just as many others have said, Kirk offered his help to Nero, and Nero spat in his face. Sure, Kirk could have fired up the transporters and grabbed whoever he could grab, but he could have done that against Khan too. He didn't.

 

[startrekrcks]

I liked the scene it was very good did you think it was good what Kirk did and what he says &

 

[TJinPgh]

Unfortunately, this very question shows why this movie was completely devoid of morality from the word go.

The problem isn't whether or not Nero should have died, but rather the 6 billion.

A villain does something bad, and dies, thats justice in my book.

Agreed. Hence the "the problem isn't whether or not Nero should have died" in my statement.

I cannot think of a way that one could realistically not kill Vulcan, and retain the same emphasis on the new trek.

Unless you are suggesting that this last movie did well because the time line changed, then there's no real benefit to it being "new Trek" vs. "old Trek."

If you are suggesting that the movie did well because the time line changed, then that more or less proves my theory that non-Trek fans didn't flock to this film at the rate we're led to believe they did, but rather a core group of fans seing it over and over and ovre again.

In either case, the entire look and feel of this movie could have been done within the context of the original time line. The fact that it's different serves no purpose in this film as it's only even mentioned as an afterthought.

It is not a moral question, if 200 people died in-front of you, you cannot say "Thats morally not right therefore didn't happen", morals is how people react to such a circumstance.

Your example is not a valid comparison unless you maintain the following.

1. The 200 people died as a result of time travel and wouldn't have otherwise.

2. I have knowledge that the 200 people only die as a result of time travel and wouldn't have otherwise.

3. I have the means to correct the situation and don't.

By your very statement, it's how you react that makes your actors moral.

Kirk did nothing.

At best you can say New Spock did something based on his limited knowledge of the situation.

If you think that the Enterprise could off prevented this I would like to see a reasonable solution that:

1) Does not violate any time-travel ethics.

Kirk has never concerned himself with time travel ethics. For that matter, neither has any other Trek captain other than to avoid screwing it up and doing everything possible to correct it if they do.

By your theory Picard should have simply returned to his time period in First Contact and allowed Earth to be assimilated.

The humans on the Enterprise could re-propagate the species. The fact that a few billion others would have been assimilated isn't important in your view.

Or, perhaps he should have killed the Borg and used the extreme power of the Enterprise to change the entire course of events for Earth for it's entire future. No need to stay out of the future's way, apparently.

2) Retains the same emphasis on the second universe. (this includes not returning to the 24th (ish) century).

3) Makes a good movie.

Neither exists as a result of them not correcting the time line.

Neither this story nor the prospect for future stories is benefitted by the change, as is evident by the fact that they are already considering actors to play Khan.

They are simply re-hashing old stories.

Whether or not they achieve the 3rd of your rules is debatable in and of itself, let alone suggest it was good BECAUSE 2 billion people died.

EDIT: This is only relevant if you make the claim that nothing in the film can be moral since Vulcan being destroyed is immoral, otherwise its Off Topic (Still is a stretch to make that On topic).

I make that claim BECAUSE of Kirk's actions in the film.

We are debating whether or not Kirk acted immorally by his attitude while killing Nero when it's quite clear that the character, as written, lacks the moral insight that would normally be associated with the role.

Yes, Nero killed Kirk's father and, as such, that gives him cause to have utter disdain for him. Just as it did in TUC when he said let them die about the Klingons for killing his son. To that end, he's consistent.

However, unlike in TUC, Kirk makes a moral choice to make up for his previous lack of it. He saves the President and the Chancelor's daughter, despite his own personal feelings.

In this movie, Kirk simply kills the bad guy (more a function of something New Spock does than him) and goes on his merry way, all the while knowing that not only did 6 billion people die that shouldn't have, but that it may well have been within his grasp to fix it.

Nope, didn't miss it. Simply not relevant in this situation.

When Spock Prime arrived in the past is only relevant in the context that he, himself, wsn't able to stop Nero by arriving at the same time.

Had the Enterprise gone back, when they arrived would be irrelevant so long as they arrive before Nero shows up the FIRST time. Nero's ship was destroyed. It is assumed he died with it. It was no longer a race to beat that Nero to the past, but rather the first one.

So, unless you maintain that a situation that threw Spock Prime 150 years into the past the first time wasn't capable of throwing them 30 years into the past now, then it's not relevant.

Again, it's fiction, not fact. They didn't bother to explain how Red Matter works.

In fact, had Abrams actually wanted to include Shatner in the story, that would have been a perfect way to do it. Let the Enterprise get sucked another 150 years into the past... let it hide out (like they did in E2) and let an OLD Kirk destroy Nero at the end.

The timeline is re-set. And New Kirk goes on to command the Enterprise, just as he originally did.

 

[npsf3000]

Unless you are suggesting that this last movie did well because the time line changed, then there's no real benefit to it being "new Trek" vs. "old Trek."

If you are suggesting that the movie did well because the time line changed, then that more or less proves my theory that non-Trek fans didn't flock to this film at the rate we're led to believe they did, but rather a core group of fans seing it over and over and ovre again.

In either case, the entire look and feel of this movie could have been done within the context of the original time line. The fact that it's different serves no purpose in this film as it's only even mentioned as an afterthought.

I make the claim that ST did well because it went back to its roots, and I make the claim that without going with the new timeline that this would not of been possible.

This new trek returns to the basic roots, but doesn't rewrite trek and this is a vital element. The show "enterprise" failed simply because they started rewriting trek - which is why I stopped watching it. The destruction of Vulcan proved that this new trek is a real universe - not one tied into the facts of 4 TV series and 10 movies in front of it.

Without such an arrangement they would of had to annoy all the fans while making it good for newcomers, or annoy all newcomers and make the fans happy. This arrangement avoids this.

By your very statement, it's how you react that makes your actors moral.

Kirk did nothing.

At best you can say New Spock did something based on his limited knowledge of the situation.

Time travel is an extremely dangerous and should not be attempted. For Kirk to attempt to travel back in time would be immoral - using technology for personal gain. Furthermore there is no evidence that Kirk had the ability to commit time travel. Spock would have the requisite knowledge but knew such a event (if even possible, as time had passed since the original breach) would be extremely dangerous.

Kirk has never concerned himself with time travel ethics. For that matter, neither has any other Trek captain other than to avoid screwing it up and doing everything possible to correct it if they do.

Are you saying they are concerned with time travel ethics or not? You have the two extremes in one paragraph.

By your theory Picard should have simply returned to his time period in First Contact and allowed Earth to be assimilated.

The humans on the Enterprise could re-propagate the species. The fact that a few billion others would have been assimilated isn't important in your view.

IIRC the Borg attempted an attack on Earth using time travel, The enterprise used the same singularity to go back and prevent this.

This is a completely different scenario, it focuses on time travel being used as a weapon. In STXI time travel is not used offensively, neither Spock nor Nero used timetravel, they were merely victims of it. The paradigm is different.

Furthermore there iw an assumption that one could actually use time-travel to prevent this - even if they had the ability to travel back in time to where the Nerada showed up, somehow magically prevent the Kelvin from noticing the lighting storm, somehow kill, destroy or send the Nerada back into the future, you still assuming that either Kirk - a product of the altered universe could do this, or that Spock could time-travel from the altered universe to do this. Considering the timeline itself has forked, not just moved (Like in the Picard example), you would have to find a way to mend this!

This avoids the fact that the only known substance to give time-travel in this universe is the red matter. Not only would you have to construct a completely different rescue plan, you would then have to figure out away to use red matter for controlled time travel. For all we know the original time-travel was nothing more than a fluke due to the energies provided by a rather psychotic supernovae!

There was a reason that I wished for you to construct a scenario that solves all these problems while still making a good movie - because until you do so its hard to give anything you say credit - anyone can say stuff but to make it believable and entertaining is a different ball-game.

 

[Photoman15]

However, unlike in TUC, Kirk makes a moral choice to make up for his previous lack of it. He saves the President and the Chancelor's daughter, despite his own personal feelings.

In this movie, Kirk simply kills the bad guy (more a function of something New Spock does than him) and goes on his merry way, all the while knowing that not only did 6 billion people die that shouldn't have, but that it may well have been within his grasp to fix it.

And Kirk in TUC was 60-something and had years of Star Fleet training and experience. So? What I have done at 22 is not the same thing I'd do at 62. I'd hope.

 

[TJinPgh]

I make the claim that ST did well because it went back to its roots, and I make the claim that without going with the new timeline that this would not of been possible.

This new trek returns to the basic roots, but doesn't rewrite trek and this is a vital element. The show "enterprise" failed simply because they started rewriting trek - which is why I stopped watching it. The destruction of Vulcan proved that this new trek is a real universe - not one tied into the facts of 4 TV series and 10 movies in front of it.

You are contradicting yourself here. You're saying it returns to it's roots, you maintain that it doesn't re-write anything, yet maintain that it's entirely different.

By your very statement, it's how you react that makes your actors moral.

Kirk did nothing.

At best you can say New Spock did something based on his limited knowledge of the situation.

Time travel is an extremely dangerous and should not be attempted. For Kirk to attempt to travel back in time would be immoral - using technology for personal gain. Furthermore there is no evidence that Kirk had the ability to commit time travel. Spock would have the requisite knowledge but knew such a event (if even possible, as time had passed since the original breach) would be extremely dangerous.

Oh, give me a friggin break.

Have you ever actually WATCHED Star Trek? You're making an argument that has NEVER held up in any incarnation of Trek for purposes of justifying why a man who isn't a fan of Trek wrote it the way he did.

Kirk has never concerned himself with time travel ethics. For that matter, neither has any other Trek captain other than to avoid screwing it up and doing everything possible to correct it if they do.

Are you saying they are concerned with time travel ethics or not? You have the two extremes in one paragraph.

The ethics of a situation are dictated by the situation as it's presented.

Time travel simply for the sake of time travel might be, as you stated earlier, dangerous and unethical. That is not the condition that exists here. The time line had already been screwed up at an extreme level to the tune of 6 billion deaths.

You would have to believe that a greater risk exists by going back than has already happened by not. Sorry, I fail to see the likelihood in that.

IIRC the Borg attempted an attack on Earth using time travel, The enterprise used the same singularity to go back and prevent this.

This is a completely different scenario, it focuses on time travel being used as a weapon. In STXI time travel is not used offensively, neither Spock nor Nero used timetravel, they were merely victims of it. The paradigm is different.

I love how you make up rules as you go along to justify your lack of a position. I really do.

So, let me get this right. Time travel by accident... ok. Time travel on purpose... bad.

Hmmm. Ok. Then, I guess Kirk was wrong to intentionally go into the past to save Earth in the future in TVH. By your reasoning, they should have let the Earth be destroyed.

Sorry, but for every example you can give as to why doing so is wrong, I can give you an example where they did that very thing for essentially the same reason.

I have to admit, your assertion that using time travel as a "weapon" would somehow be wrong when it comes to dealing with a man who has just killed 6 billion people.

Priceless. It truly is.

Furthermore there iw an assumption that one could actually use time-travel to prevent this - even if they had the ability to travel back in time to where the Nerada showed up, somehow magically prevent the Kelvin from noticing the lighting storm, somehow kill, destroy or send the Nerada back into the future,

No. I assume nothing of the sort.

I assume that the Enterprise would be thrown back in time, mostly likely to a point before Nero shows up. At no point did I say they would magically appear at the same time Nero does.

Nor do I assume that the Kelvin wouldn't notice any of this. I simply believe that the damage done by them seeing one unknown starship destroying another will be minimal compared to the damage done by blowing up a planet and killing 6 billion people.

And, yes, I assume that they could destroy Nero's ship by destroying their own because it would be written that way.

You keep making these arguments as though one needs to provide some actual mechanism by which they can be guaranteed to happen when, in reality, they simply need to be written that way. It's fiction.

you still assuming that either Kirk - a product of the altered universe could do this, or that Spock could time-travel from the altered universe to do this. Considering the timeline itself has forked, not just moved (Like in the Picard example), you would have to find a way to mend this!

Well, first of all, I concede that, in the realm of time travel as presented in the Trek universe, the notion of Spock correcting a situation 100 or so years down the road (which, incidentally, is what I meant. I never said he'd time travel to the future) is a bit far fetched, even for Star Trek.

As for the rest of that, again, you are creating rules that have never been placed on Trek previously.

At no time has Trek ever concerned itself with the notion that altering a timeline would result in multiple universes. Every series has had episodes or movies involving time travel. It is almost always assumed that changes in the past create changes in the future. Overwriting it.

Yesterday's Enterprise... Picard sends the Enterprise C to certain doom hoping that the war with the Klingons never happens. Not once do you hear him say that he simply hopes it will create a new universe where it doesn't happen.

Any number of other episodes cover it for TNG as well, along with First Contact.

Future's End, Year Of Hell, Relativity, Fury, Shattered... all operate on that same belief with Voyager.

Trials and Tribbilations, Alternate Realities for DS9.

Numerous examples on TOS and Enterprise as well.

This avoids the fact that the only known substance to give time-travel in this universe is the red matter. Not only would you have to construct a completely different rescue plan, you would then have to figure out away to use red matter for controlled time travel. For all we know the original time-travel was nothing more than a fluke due to the energies provided by a rather psychotic supernovae!

It's fiction. It simply needs to be written that way, just as it was simply written to work in every other movie and series.

There was a reason that I wished for you to construct a scenario that solves all these problems while still making a good movie - because until you do so its hard to give anything you say credit - anyone can say stuff but to make it believable and entertaining is a different ball-game.

Star Trek, as with just about any sci-fi, has always required a willing suspension of disbelief. Rarely is anything explained as to how or why something works. It simply does.

You are attempting to place a standard on this that doesn't even exist in the movie you're defending.

Red Matter? Transporting from a planet to a ship moving at warp? yeah, those are believable plot devices.

 

[FordSVT]

What, just to watch him die?


BTW, Nero's ship is only "Borg enhanced" in the comics. Doesn't matter whether it's the same writers or not, it's not part of the movie.

Who cares? Fact: they'd previously survived a head on collision with an exploding starship.

Why would he risk letting them get away again?

 

[FordSVT]

I love this movie, but my least favorite part is the new EmoSpock. Spock also gave into is feelings when he said, "Live long and prosper," to the Vulcans; made out with Uhura in the turbolift; disagreed with Kirk about Nero's fate, etc.

How does any of this constitute "Emo Spock?" That's actually Spock being Spock! It is no different than his happy reactions in the first two pilots (both canon,) VERY happy reaction to seeing Jim alive in "The Amok Time," angerly demanding that a Klingon give into his wishes with "Damn you sir," angerly slapping a phaser out of the hands Valeris with a look of betrayal and disgust on his face, etc.

I'm quite surprised that people actually think that Spock, who at this point is younger, not in control of his emotions as an older Spock (who never even made it to achieve his goal of purging all emotions,) is somehow "radically" different when he's actually what he needs to be.

Spock is half human, and looking at the character from the early days of TOS through the movies and into the now, it's always been about the struggle between his two sides, the emotional and the logical. And Spock has very clearly not come down on the side of "all logic, all the time". Logic is merely a tool, and Spock has recognized the value of emotion and intuition during the course of his life.