Enterprise era Vulcans deserve all the hate and more

[Ragitsu]

How are they "outliers" if they're how the Vulcans were originally portrayed on the original series?

And, again, these were the first Vulcans we ever saw. Not "outliers."

Never understood the objections to the way ENT portray Vulcan. Seemed just like the TOS Vulcans I grew up on.

You saw the interesting Vulcans; "interesting", in this case, involved depictions of conflict. You don't see the 99+% of the time when their interactions function smoothly. This is the problem with Star Trek in general: a near-utopian future isn't terribly engaging for real twentieth/twenty-first century viewers and so we are treated to the moments when heroes need to step up to the plate.

they were emotionally repressed extremists

Hi. Are you familiar with Vulcans? The reason I ask is because you are portraying them as if they wish to be in a position where diligently honed emotional control is a cultural necessity.

The Vulcans were never meant to be role models. As far back as TOS, they were emotionally repressed extremists who were never as noble and logical as they pretended to be.

The Vulcans - collectively - helped humanity to get back up on its feet, when they were in no way, shape or form obligated to intervene; I call that noble.

By the way: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

 

[fireproof78]

The Vulcans - collectively - helped humanity to get back up on its feet, when they were in no way, shape or form obligated to intervene; I call that noble.

Doesn't make them role models or that Trek made out as such.

 

[Greg Cox]

Hi. Are you familiar with Vulcans? The reason I ask is because you are portraying them as if they wish to be in a position where diligently honed emotional control is a cultural necessity.

I like to think I'm familiar with Vulcans, having been a Trekkie since 1966.

And, honestly, that idea that the Vulcans represent one extreme goes back to the fundamental Spock-Kirk-McCoy dynamic of the original series. Spock represented logic, McCoy represented emotion, with Kirk having to strike a balance between the two. Superego, id, and ego, as it were. So, yes, from Day One, the Vulcans were meant to represent an extreme, not an ideal to aspire to.

Heck, Spock's whole character arc over the course of the movies, beginning with TMP, was about him rejecting pure Vulcan logic, in the form of Kohlinar, and embracing his human emotions as well.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Vulcans are bad guys. They've certainly done noble things in the past and are usually on the side of the angels. But the idea that ENTERPRISE somehow trashed their reputation doesn't ring true for those of us who grew up on TOS, back when it was the only STAR TREK.


And as for the idea that I only noticed the "interesting" Vulcans --- were there dull, uninteresting Vulcans in TOS that I'm forgetting? And why would we want to watch uninteresting Vulcans anyway? As you say, stories are about conflict, both internal and external. And I've always resisted that idea that STAR TREK is supposed to be "utopian." Optimistic, yes, hopeful, yes, but never utopian.

 

[Ragitsu]

Spock being half-human may have had something to do with his unique character development; what he did worked for him.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'll concede that Surak in "The Savage Curtain" was certainly portrayed in a positive light.

Granted, he was supposed to be the Vulcan version of Gandhi or Lincoln or whoever.

 

[Ragitsu]

And I've always resisted that idea that STAR TREK is supposed to be "utopian." Optimistic, yes, hopeful, yes, but never utopian.

I said "near-utopian"; there's room for improvement in the UFP and certainly the galaxy (universe?) in general, but the future of Star Trek - particularly in regards to human progress - is practically heaven compared to our contemporary state of affairs.

 

[fireproof78]

I said "near-utopian"; there's room for improvement in the UFP and certainly the galaxy (universe?) in general, but the future of Star Trek - particularly in regards to human progress - is practically heaven compared to our contemporary state of affairs.

Which wasn't due to the Vulcans.

And our contemporary state of affairs are an improvement for people 200 years ago. That doesn't make "near utopian." Just better.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

YES. This fits right in with the show's overall redneck-pandering. I genuinely blame "Enterprise" for the swaths of Trumpanzees now whining about "new Trek" having too much diversity. They seem to expect all of Starfleet and Earth to be 'murica!, like "Enterprise."

@WarpTenLizard, no RL political commentary in this forum. Especially political rock-throwing. Take it to Misc or TNZ.

 

[WarpTenLizard]

@WarpTenLizard, no RL political commentary in this forum. Especially political rock-throwing. Take it to Misc or TNZ.

Apologies.

 

[Sci]

ENT depicted both Vulcan and Andor as hegemonic neocolonialist powers who maintained unofficial networks of client states whom they dominated, and depicted both as interfering in the internal civil conflicts of other worlds as proxy conflicts in order to establish or retain those worlds as client states. Neither was depicted as morally superior to the other.

I wouldn't so much compare United Earth to the U.S. rebelling against the Kingdom of Great Britain. I would compare it to, say, those countries that gained their independence from the British Empire in the 1960s under less violent terms than, say, India/Pakistan or Kenya had; or I might compare it to, say, the ongoing process by which the nations of Central and South America began asserting their independence from U.S. hegemony after the end of the Cold War.