"Enterprise" or "Star Trek" (2009) — Which Had The Better Cast?

[Saquist]

Are you expecting all Vulcan characters to be exactly the same, without any distinguishable psychological characteristics?

Like clones, or something? T'Pol was different, eccentric, damaged even. Thank god for that, it actually made her interesting.

--
BTW, there's an identical poll in the Trek XI forum, ST09 leads 30:7.

I expect my characters to be interesting without them being autistic or "damaged" just to appeal to some inane concept that "different" means better.

I don't appease that easily.
I want good acting and the list of bad/mediocre actors in Enterprise starts at Bakula and ends with the Anthony Montgomery. Phlox was the only character that was acted very well.

Yes, but we're specifically talking about Vulcans here. The very conception of Vulcans was that they are all the same by choice. That they are above emotions and therefore superior because of it. That they adhere to a cold logic and never stray from any personification beyond that. So, in that respect, in the context of Vulcans alone, they only truly become interesting characters when they deviate from that standardized view, even slightly. That's almost the whole point of Vulcans in relation to humans, that they are a contrast. Vulcan society would view any individual displaying an emotion or honest reaction over cold logic as "damaged". Spock's 40 year arc would have been far less interesting if he didn't evolve and change from beyond that concept, while still maintaining his Vulcan ideals. He found a balance, and his character advanced, becoming richer, deeper, more complex... it's that kind of journey that creates an interesting character, I find.

Beyond that, some of the most interesting characters in any story are the damaged ones. And especially depends on what one's definition of "damaged" is?

If found the personalities of vulcans different enought before Enterprise. They've never been portrayed as perfect.

Tuvok, Sarek, Saavik...they have extremely different personalities.

What ENT did was just a half effort of repairing the general antagonism they placed on the Vulcans helping Earth. I'm sure they thought it was a good idea at first and then when they didn't go anywhere with it or do the proper foreshadowing and clue dropping in the beginning they started telling the writers to work on two parter explanations for their screw ups.

I'm not going to clap at that or praise them for repair what they screwed up....
Were they improvements....Assuredly so. Much better but it was a sour improvement, trust had been broke already.

 

[SFRabid]

This is tough. I consider the Ent cast to be second in the 5 series behind DS9 mostly because of the secondary roles and massive size of the DS9 cast. I did not care for the new Scotty or the old Travis. The captains were both okay. Spock's and Trip are my favorite and two Spock's beat out a single Trip. However, T'Pol may be the turning point. As bad as Blalok is in her movies she did a wonderful job bringing T'Pol to life. For once we had someone playing a Vulcan that was not trying to emulate the evolved role of Spock we get from movies.

So, I give Enterprise a slight edge over ST XI though the DS9 cast is a bit better than either of them.

 

[Yug]

If found the personalities of vulcans different enought before Enterprise. They've never been portrayed as perfect.

Tuvok, Sarek, Saavik...they have extremely different personalities.

I agree, and that makes my point.

Tuvok was interesting because he was a Vulcan that found real enlightenment through his Vulcan heritage, he was the stoic Vulcan, true to himself and even comforted by his culture and it's teachings. In that regard he made the concept of being a traditional Vulcan work and even something to admire beyond just an annoying critic of humanity, no easy task.

Sarek was the poetic Vulcan, strong in his beliefs and his Vulcan ways but his love for his human wife (wives) made him another shade of Vulcan, passionate without passion. Living in two worlds but choosing the path of only one, in contrast to his son Spock whose circumstances were similar, but found a balance. You knew Sarek loved his son, even blamed himself for Spocks conflictions, but you felt for him knowing he could never truly tell him in the way Spock needed him to; it’s not the Vulcan way, a culture that seemingly abhors any divergence from it’s myopic perspective which Sarek accepts. And yet, his human wife Amanda was able to read his true heart, and that's why Sarek loved her. He was a superb unification of contradictions.

Saavik, I felt, was an undeveloped character with a lot of potential, and perhaps if Kirstie Alley had stayed in the role we would have seen something great in Saavik, I don't feel Robin Curtis or the material written for Saavik in subsequent films was enough to find that characters true arc.

However, T'Pol may be the turning point. As bad as Blalok is in her movies she did a wonderful job bringing T'Pol to life. For once we had someone playing a Vulcan that was not trying to emulate the evolved role of Spock we get from movies.

Yes, and that's what I mean about Vulcans as characters, the nuances that painted a fuller picture of what it was to be Vulcan, beyond the contrivance of what the Vulcans represent in Trek. What, I feel, Gene Roddenberry had in mind when he created Spock, as critical of humanity, the cold logical eyes thru which to explore humankinds motivations and us as an illiogical culture. But, he also wanted to show some bit of racial tension, expressed metaphorically by the way most humans reacted to Spock. He wanted to point up social problems by featuring the “human” attitude toward the Vulcans in general. Enterprise took that concept further. Most actors who played Vulcans in smaller roles in the films and other series’ did a cheap one-note portrayal for the most part, (understanding of course that not much room for depth exists in a supporting role for one episode -- if that) but often the performances were stiff to the point of ridiculous caricatures (see: Kim Catrell). Enterprise was able to explore the misunderstood aspects of Vulcans in a well-rounded way, including the nicely acted supporting roles seen all thru ENT (see: Gary Graham). T'Pol was a character that personified the struggle to remain true to one's heritage in conflict with one's self. And I think Jolene did a wonderful job playing that character... I know it will sound a bit silly, but when Archer embarked on a suicide mission against the Xindi and T'Pol was trying her best to convince him it not to go, she finally says in an almost yielding, yet passionate, moment of true heart felt honesty "I don't want you to die!!" I almost cried. Because it was one of those scenes when I could really put myself in the characters place, knowing how hard that was for her, knowing the struggle she goes thru to keep her emotions in check, how hard it was to build trust in someone else, and knowing that she really fucking meant it, I felt for her. To me, she hit an absolutely perfect note in that scene, which personified what it was to be Vulcan. And added another level of understanding of what it’s like to be from that world, while living among “irrational” humans, without betraying her true self in the balance, and learning to trust in something that wasn’t singularly Vulcan. A parable many of us can identify with. Vulcans have a huge capacity for friendship and love; it's a respected concept in their world, but hard for them to express, that’s their eternal conflict. Vulcans repress their emotions not out of arrogance, but out of fear, afraid that they have the potential to lose control. Their history seems to reflect the capacity to let their emotions destroy themselves, as they in truth, are very emotional beings, perhaps too emotional. In a way, to be Vulcan IS to be damaged.

 

[bluedana]

Something that someone brought up in another thread got me thinking about the cast of Enterprise versus the cast of the new Star Trek movie (2009). While, personally, I really like the guys from Star Trek — especially Anton Yelchin, Chris Pine, Simon Pegg and Karl Urban—, overall I would have to say that I like the cast of Enterprise more. I mean, acting-wise. I would take Connor Trinneer over anyone from Star Trek any day of the week. Same thing with Scott Bakula.

I know, to compare the cast of a television series to that of a major movie release might be a slightly unfair premise. Especially when you consider the long period of time the viewer gets to know actors in a series that ran for four years versus the two hours of a movie. But this is just a Star Trek message board on the internet; so why not compare the two?

It's apples and oranges for me. The ENT cast created compelling characters out of whole cloth, and, at least in Jolene Blalock's case, had to work against expectations set up by actor portrayals of Vulcans that came before. They then had to evolve those characters over four years - some more successfully than others.

By contrast, the ST09 actors had to tread the fine line between impersonation and interpretation. Their characters were already familiar and well defined; they really gave us "echoes" of people we already knew, albeit in their future state. Karl Urban, for example, gave us a hint of McCoy, but we filled in the gaps with what we remembered of DeForrest Kelley's character. I'm sure it took a lot of restraint to walk that tightrope.

So, both types of performance, from both casts, were difficult in my opinion. I can't say one was better than the other. I can say that I got more out of the ENT cast because their characters' journeys were fuller and more believable. But - apples and oranges.

 

[Saquist]

If found the personalities of vulcans different enought before Enterprise. They've never been portrayed as perfect.

Tuvok, Sarek, Saavik...they have extremely different personalities.

I agree, and that makes my point.

Tuvok was interesting because he was a Vulcan that found real enlightenment through his Vulcan heritage, he was the stoic Vulcan, true to himself and even comforted by his culture and it's teachings. In that regard he made the concept of being a traditional Vulcan work and even something to admire beyond just an annoying critic of humanity, no easy task.

I hated the idea of the black vulcan. I got used to it...and eventually got used to Tuvok's angry stare. (instead of an impassive stare)

Sarek was the poetic Vulcan, strong in his beliefs and his Vulcan ways but his love for his human wife (wives) made him another shade of Vulcan, passionate without passion. Living in two worlds but choosing the path of only one, in contrast to his son Spock whose circumstances were similar, but found a balance. You knew Sarek loved his son, even blamed himself for Spocks conflictions, but you felt for him knowing he could never truly tell him in the way Spock needed him to; it’s not the Vulcan way, a culture that seemingly abhors any divergence from it’s myopic perspective which Sarek accepts. And yet, his human wife Amanda was able to read his true heart, and that's why Sarek loved her. He was a superb unification of contradictions.

Sarek was Yoda...even smarter and a proud father I LOVED Sarek and Mark Leonard's portrayal of him. He was so mild and strong at once, and clearly a great speaker. Seeing him young and old in TOS and TMP made Star Trek seamless. I always though he was the model vulcan.

Saavik, I felt, was an undeveloped character with a lot of potential, and perhaps if Kirstie Alley had stayed in the role we would have seen something great in Saavik, I don't feel Robin Curtis or the material written for Saavik in subsequent films was enough to find that characters true arc.

I preferred Robin Curtis to Kirstie Ally by Far. She portrayed a true vulcan, young trained and logical as raised. Kirstie was odd...a contradiction...commenting on how human Kirk was and yet she was acting just ask human. They had her play the puppy in part II.

I was okay with here but Curtis in looks and acting was far better. Alley plays the same character she always plays on screen, her self and I wasn't fan of her personality.

However, T'Pol may be the turning point. As bad as Blalok is in her movies she did a wonderful job bringing T'Pol to life. For once we had someone playing a Vulcan that was not trying to emulate the evolved role of Spock we get from movies.

she reminded me of a broken doll.
her mannerisms were awkward, the way she would try to be mild and yet emphatic with her gesturing. It looked like a puppet on strings. Her voice was an irritating cat sound. She was best when giving orders.

It didn't like Spock because he was half human.
I like him because he was logical...the ears were kewl too.
He was analytical and always unflappable (except when he wasn't)

Sarek was a Jedi Master.
Knowledgeable, trusted, father like, expecting yet allowing.

Tuvok was anti human, and constantly irritated. He was flawed...a clear crack in his armor from childhood. But he wasn't irreparable.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Saavik, I felt, was an undeveloped character with a lot of potential, and perhaps if Kirstie Alley had stayed in the role we would have seen something great in Saavik, I don't feel Robin Curtis or the material written for Saavik in subsequent films was enough to find that characters true arc.

I preferred Robin Curtis to Kirstie Ally by Far. She portrayed a true vulcan, young trained and logical as raised. Kirstie was odd...a contradiction...commenting on how human Kirk was and yet she was acting just ask human. They had her play the puppy in part II.

I was okay with here but Curtis in looks and acting was far better. Alley plays the same character she always plays on screen, her self and I wasn't fan of her personality.

In the novelization of Star Trek II, Saavik is half-human, half-Romulan, and her mentor Spock has been helping her to follow the Vulcan path. Her Romulan background really worked for me as a way to understand the character's motivations, and I enjoyed Alley's performance.

It's possible that the Vulcan/Romulan background was the original conception of the character (even though this reference didn't make it into the film), and a reason Alley portrayed Saavik as betraying her emotions at times.

Clearly, the decision seems to have been made by Star Trek III to present Saavik as fully Vulcan and in control of her emotions. The novelization of STIII is consistent with that of STII, and Saavik still has Romulan blood in her veins... she's more Alley's Saavik than Curtis's in the book. Hoo boy.

 

[Michael]

I hated the idea of the black vulcan.

What the fuck are you even talking about? What's there to hate about Tuvok's brown skin? Also, how is his skin color an "idea"?

 

[Saquist]

Saavik, I felt, was an undeveloped character with a lot of potential, and perhaps if Kirstie Alley had stayed in the role we would have seen something great in Saavik, I don't feel Robin Curtis or the material written for Saavik in subsequent films was enough to find that characters true arc.

I preferred Robin Curtis to Kirstie Ally by Far. She portrayed a true vulcan, young trained and logical as raised. Kirstie was odd...a contradiction...commenting on how human Kirk was and yet she was acting just ask human. They had her play the puppy in part II.

I was okay with here but Curtis in looks and acting was far better. Alley plays the same character she always plays on screen, her self and I wasn't fan of her personality.

In the novelization of Star WarsWarsWarsWars II, Saavik is half-human, half-Romulan, and her mentor Spock has been helping her to follow the Vulcan path. Her Romulan background really worked for me as a way to understand the character's motivations, and I enjoyed Alley's performance.

It's possible that the Vulcan/Romulan background was the original conception of the character (even though this reference didn't make it into the film), and a reason Alley portrayed Saavik as betraying her emotions at times.

Clearly, the decision seems to have been made by Star WarsWarsWarsWars III to present Saavik as fully Vulcan and in control of her emotions. The novelization of STIII is consistent with that of STII, and Saavik still has Romulan blood in her veins... she's more Alley's Saavik than Curtis's in the book. Hoo boy.

Ah, you see that's part of story telling and a good story teller tells you what you need to know.

I found Valeris more relatable to Vulcans than Saavik. Saavik seemed more fake than Valeris.

 

[DevilEyes]

Saavik, I felt, was an undeveloped character with a lot of potential, and perhaps if Kirstie Alley had stayed in the role we would have seen something great in Saavik, I don't feel Robin Curtis or the material written for Saavik in subsequent films was enough to find that characters true arc.

I preferred Robin Curtis to Kirstie Ally by Far. She portrayed a true vulcan, young trained and logical as raised. Kirstie was odd...a contradiction...commenting on how human Kirk was and yet she was acting just ask human. They had her play the puppy in part II.

I was okay with here but Curtis in looks and acting was far better. Alley plays the same character she always plays on screen, her self and I wasn't fan of her personality.

If you think that a "true Vulcan" is boring and robotic and completely without emotion or sensuality, then she is a true Vulcan. But I don't - for starters, I think that the idea that billions of members of the same sentient species will act the same is absurd. Second, not showing emotions may be the Vulcan way, but from what we know about the Vulcans, they don't live in a totalitarian society, and I don't think everyone would or could be pressured into behaving in exactly the same way even by a totalitarian state, let alone a relatively free one. Third, following logic or being in control of one's emotions is not the same thing is not showing any emotion at all, although some Vulcans sure seem to have trouble differentiating between the two. Fourth, there are different ways to behave while in control of one's emotions. I would assume that there are all sorts of Vulcans, just as there are all sorts of Humans, and that some would have more of a sense of humor than others, some would show more feeling than others, some would be more approachable than others, some would seem happier or more pleasant while others (like Tuvok) would seem grumpier, some would have a better control over their emotions while others would be trying and failing, and then there will always be some who wouldn't even want to conform to the expectations. So I don't see why Robin Curtis' Saavik would be more "true" Vulcan than Alley's Saavik. That would be like arguing that McCoy or Trip are more "true" Humans than Picard.

I didn't like Curtis' portrayal of Saavik because she didn't emote at all. Most of the actors who played Vulcans found a way to portray emotions while still conveying through their character's Vulcanity in their demeanor. Leonard Nimoy was great in it, so was Mark Lenard, and Tim Russ, and, yes, Jolene Blalock. Curtis's Saavik, however, didn't just seem to be controlling or suppressing her emotions, she didn't seem to have any, not as far as could be seen on screen.

Saavik, I felt, was an undeveloped character with a lot of potential, and perhaps if Kirstie Alley had stayed in the role we would have seen something great in Saavik, I don't feel Robin Curtis or the material written for Saavik in subsequent films was enough to find that characters true arc.

I preferred Robin Curtis to Kirstie Ally by Far. She portrayed a true vulcan, young trained and logical as raised. Kirstie was odd...a contradiction...commenting on how human Kirk was and yet she was acting just ask human. They had her play the puppy in part II.

I was okay with here but Curtis in looks and acting was far better. Alley plays the same character she always plays on screen, her self and I wasn't fan of her personality.

In the novelization of Star Trek II, Saavik is half-human, half-Romulan, and her mentor Spock has been helping her to follow the Vulcan path. Her Romulan background really worked for me as a way to understand the character's motivations, and I enjoyed Alley's performance.

It's possible that the Vulcan/Romulan background was the original conception of the character (even though this reference didn't make it into the film), and a reason Alley portrayed Saavik as betraying her emotions at times.

Clearly, the decision seems to have been made by Star Trek III to present Saavik as fully Vulcan and in control of her emotions. The novelization of STIII is consistent with that of STII, and Saavik still has Romulan blood in her veins... she's more Alley's Saavik than Curtis's in the book. Hoo boy.

I haven't read those books, so I need to ask. Was she brought up by Romulans when she was a child? Or did her awareness of her half-Romulan heritage give her a different attitude; did she self-identify as half-Romulan and therefore decide that she didn't need to conform to the Vulcan "ideal"?

If neither of those is the case, I am not sure how being half-Romulan would make any difference. Romulans are supposed to be an off-shoot of Vulcans, and not nearly enough time has passed for them to biologically evolve into something different.

I hated the idea of the black vulcan. I got used to it...and eventually got used to Tuvok's angry stare. (instead of an impassive stare)

Why is the "idea" of a black Vulcan any worse than the "idea" of a white Vulcan?

 

[Mach5]

I hated the idea of the black vulcan.

Is saying such shit even allowed?

 

[bluedana]

I hated the idea of the black vulcan. I got used to it...and eventually got used to Tuvok's angry stare. (instead of an impassive stare)

Tuvok was anti human, and constantly irritated. He was flawed...a clear crack in his armor from childhood. But he wasn't irreparable.

Saquist, I'm going to assume you are making a valid point about the character of Tuvok, and further assume that you are entitled to your own personal opinions. But it must be abundantly obvious at this point that such a statement (indicated in bold) comes across as overly provocative and racist. Please remember that there are many, many people of all types posting on this site, and be more careful. IDIC, and all that. Thanks.

 

[Saquist]

I hated the idea of the black vulcan. I got used to it...and eventually got used to Tuvok's angry stare. (instead of an impassive stare)

Tuvok was anti human, and constantly irritated. He was flawed...a clear crack in his armor from childhood. But he wasn't irreparable.

Saquist, I'm going to assume you are making a valid point about the character of Tuvok, and further assume that you are entitled to your own personal opinions. But it must be abundantly obvious at this point that such a statement (indicated in bold) comes across as overly provocative and racist. Please remember that there are many, many people of all types posting on this site, and be more careful. IDIC, and all that. Thanks.

Well at least you asked before jumping to conclusions.
Yes, it is a valid point about the character. Thank you for the intelligent rather than presumptuousness.

Homosapiens are uniquely adapted to to the Earth and the melanin in the skin is a natural sun block. Considering that the system the planet vulcan is in a trinary star system, If vulcans were anything like humans they would all be black. Since obviously the majority of vulcans we've seen are not they should have a completely different method of blocking the sun that doesn't involve skin color.

This is particularly peculiar odd since Star Trek considers evolution as factual.

P.S By the way, I am black. You may all lower the racist radar...

 

[bluedana]

I hated the idea of the black vulcan. I got used to it...and eventually got used to Tuvok's angry stare. (instead of an impassive stare)

Tuvok was anti human, and constantly irritated. He was flawed...a clear crack in his armor from childhood. But he wasn't irreparable.

Saquist, I'm going to assume you are making a valid point about the character of Tuvok, and further assume that you are entitled to your own personal opinions. But it must be abundantly obvious at this point that such a statement (indicated in bold) comes across as overly provocative and racist. Please remember that there are many, many people of all types posting on this site, and be more careful. IDIC, and all that. Thanks.

Well at least you asked before jumping to conclusions.
Yes, it is a valid point about the character. Thank you for the intelligent rather than presumptuousness.

Homosapiens are uniquely adapted to to the Earth and the melanin in the skin is a natural sun block. Considering that the system the planet vulcan is in a trinary star system, If vulcans were anything like humans they would all be black. Since obviously the majority of vulcans we've seen are not they should have a completely different method of blocking the sun that doesn't involve skin color.

This is particularly peculiar odd since Star Trek considers evolution as factual.

Interesting theory, Saquist, although I don't find it particularly compelling. Clearly, if you'd explained your point of view rather than throwing out an obviously loaded comment, other posters might have engaged in discussion about it.

P.S By the way, I am black. You may all lower the racist radar...

How nice for you. So am I. And neither of us gets a free pass for posting overly provocative and racist comments.

Think twice, post once. And that's the last friendly that you'll get from me on this issue.

 

[Saquist]

And neither of us gets a free pass for posting overly provocative and racist comments.

Think twice, post once. And that's the last friendly that you'll get from me on this issue.

You have my, sincere apologies, sir, for misunderstanding that post. To me, vulgarities are provocative, apparently not here on this forum.

 

[Mach5]

Well, if evolution is such a big issue, whats with TNG Romulans getting those brow ridges then? Why would evolution suddenly give the Vulcan diaspora ridges? What purpose would they possibly serve?

I'm not trying to derail a thread here, BTW, just making a point.

 

[DevilEyes]

I hated the idea of the black vulcan. I got used to it...and eventually got used to Tuvok's angry stare. (instead of an impassive stare)

Tuvok was anti human, and constantly irritated. He was flawed...a clear crack in his armor from childhood. But he wasn't irreparable.

Saquist, I'm going to assume you are making a valid point about the character of Tuvok, and further assume that you are entitled to your own personal opinions. But it must be abundantly obvious at this point that such a statement (indicated in bold) comes across as overly provocative and racist. Please remember that there are many, many people of all types posting on this site, and be more careful. IDIC, and all that. Thanks.

Well at least you asked before jumping to conclusions.
Yes, it is a valid point about the character. Thank you for the intelligent rather than presumptuousness.

Homosapiens are uniquely adapted to to the Earth and the melanin in the skin is a natural sun block. Considering that the system the planet vulcan is in a trinary star system, If vulcans were anything like humans they would all be black. Since obviously the majority of vulcans we've seen are not they should have a completely different method of blocking the sun that doesn't involve skin color.

This is particularly peculiar odd since Star Trek considers evolution as factual.

So what color should Vulcans be? Judging from the skin color of Spock, Sarek, T'Pau, Selar etc. it seems to me like they have melanin or something similar to it. (Unlike, say, Cardassians, Orions, or Andorians.) Those Vulcans look like what we call "white", i.e. light beige (with the only difference being the greenish rather than pinkish hue to their skin, which is due to the color of their blood rather than the pigmentation). Why is that any more likely than Vulcans looking "black" (i.e. dark brown)?

 

[Saquist]

So what color should Vulcans be? Judging from the skin color of Spock, Sarek, T'Pau, Selar etc. it seems to me like they have melanin or something similar to it. (Unlike, say, Cardassians, Orions, or Andorians.) Those Vulcans look like what we call "white", i.e. light beige (with the only difference being the greenish rather than pinkish hue to their skin, which is due to the color of their blood rather than the pigmentation). Why is that any more likely than Vulcans looking "black" (i.e. dark brown)?

Well I had two thoughts on the possible evolutionary paths of vulcans. One is based on the planet and the stellar environment. Vulcan is mostly a Rock/Sand White and Red environment. Just as humans are made of their environment vulcans should be as well. So vulcans should vary from the white sandish color to red.

On the other hand the vulcans also tend to have a green complexion so perhaps the vary from the white to extremely olive.

Remember Star Trek has already established that the sunlight on vulcan is so harsh that they evolved a inner eyelid to protect the retina. We know that sunlight of this level will easily tan human skin. (Sandy environments will reflect even more light)

TUVOK and his family are the only black vulcans we've seen and if they really have an anatomy similary to humans the majority of vulcans should be black not the other way around.

Well, if evolution is such a big issue, whats with TNG Romulans getting those brow ridges then? Why would evolution suddenly give the Vulcan diaspora ridges? What purpose would they possibly serve?

Ridges or horns on the cranium are typical animals that deal in regular contest of strength. Like Worf's de-evolved state in TNG. Star Trek is essentially presenting the Romulans and Klingons as having a past where they've used their craniums as blunt objects perhaps for mating contest or defense or offense.

I'm not trying to derail a thread here, BTW, just making a point.

We should problably make a thread, it might be interesting to explore.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I like Star Trek's cast...from the 2009 film, that is.

It was more diverse, which is more in tune with the diversity Trek is supposed to be known for....

 

[Mach5]

Ridges or horns on the cranium are typical animals that deal in regular contest of strength. Like Worf's de-evolved state in TNG. Star Trek is essentially presenting the Romulans and Klingons as having a past where they've used their craniums as blunt objects perhaps for mating contest or defense or offense.

Your explanation would be plausible, had the Romulans actually evolved separately from Vulcans. They didn't.

 

[DevilEyes]

So what color should Vulcans be? Judging from the skin color of Spock, Sarek, T'Pau, Selar etc. it seems to me like they have melanin or something similar to it. (Unlike, say, Cardassians, Orions, or Andorians.) Those Vulcans look like what we call "white", i.e. light beige (with the only difference being the greenish rather than pinkish hue to their skin, which is due to the color of their blood rather than the pigmentation). Why is that any more likely than Vulcans looking "black" (i.e. dark brown)?

Well I had two thoughts on the possible evolutionary paths of vulcans. One is based on the planet and the stellar environment. Vulcan is mostly a Rock/Sand White and Red environment. Just as humans are made of their environment vulcans should be as well. So vulcans should vary from the white sandish color to red.

On the other hand the vulcans also tend to have a green complexion so perhaps the vary from the white to extremely olive.

Remember Star Trek has already established that the sunlight on vulcan is so harsh that they evolved a inner eyelid to protect the retina. We know that sunlight of this level will easily tan human skin. (Sandy environments will reflect even more light)

TUVOK and his family are the only black vulcans we've seen and if they really have an anatomy similary to humans the majority of vulcans should be black not the other way around.

Well, be that as it may, let's look at it from the real world perspective - production perspective. All the Vulcans we saw before Tuvok were played by white actors who still looked white in character. If it had been decided that Vulcans couldn't look black, that would have left the following options: 1) deny all black actors the opportunity to play a Vulcan, which seems very unfair and a real shame in case someone like Tim Russ who is so good at playing a Vulcan, or 2) put a lot of makeup on the actor so his skin color would look different... either the same as the actors who had played Vulcans before - which would practically mean that the actor would be acting in "whiteface", or some other color - say, dark red, which you consider logical... Can you imagine the can of worms that would have opened? How many people would be accusing Star Trek producers of racism in either of those cases - if they refused to let black actors play Vulcans, or if they took steps to hide the color of their skin the way they never did with white actors?