Fan Edit of Kelvin Trek

Except, it's not conveyed to you, but it's perfectly conveyed to most of the audience, including other trek writers who write the novels and comics based on this trek.
So your assertion that the writers failed to convey it seems to be too partial and unfair. Obvioustly, it wasn't that ambiguous and hard to get for others.

If it makes you feel better, I'm pretty sure sure spirk fans who want spock to be in a romance with kirk instead of uhura will agree with you^ but then, k/s is ambiguous too to them... everything is

I'm not the one defining canon. Canon is what is showed and it's showed that they are in love and in a relationship. You are the one "creating" different scenarios that fit your agenda better, not me.

If I want to turn your own argument against you, I'll say that they never say or show, in canon, that they started a relationship only because vulcan gets destroyed.
That's all a big assumption from your part based on the, silly, idea that just because they don't show them kissing before the first scene where they show them kissing (there goes the writers' plan to make their relationship a secret -narrative device - before it's finally revealed. Like, sure, they totally had to tell you they were a couple before they wanted to tell you that. I hope your friends don't call you when they make a surprise party for someone ), then it means they never did that before.
It's like saying that Kirk ate an apple for the first time in his life only in the maru test scene. Why? Because, according to your logic, since they didn't show him eating an apple before that then it surely means it never happened before, and thus the scene can't simply suggest that he's eating an apple because he had tried the fruit before, and he's used to its taste and likes it.

According to your definition of canon, your interpretation would be even less canon than mine. Only difference, mine is supported by the writers and what reasonably makes literally more sense for the characters by judging their body language that hints a pre-existing familiarity, and intimacy, that gives sense to why he's able to act that way with her.
Yours is not. It's inconsistent with canon, of both realities.

You are too stuck on the concept of them being a couple , anyway, when the biggest obstacle for your revisionism is the fact they are in love and that in no way is dependant on the destrouction of Vulcan. Or maybe your denial about Spock is deeper than I thought..

Nice try, but I never said that.
I said that kelvin uhura doesn't need to be reduced to a mammy stereotype in order to show the qualities that, you said, she'd show in your version ' thank' to your changing the context of her interactions with him from girlfriend to "black friend". I argued against your implication that you are giving her those qualities when the movies already made her like that. Just, she does show those qualities in a less stereotyped role (for her, for black women) than the one you want to give her by erasing her from her actual relationship (that did inform the way she acted with him in canon and why he welcomed her affection. But, apparently, Spock's culture is optional to you because you don't share it)

I thought you didn't think their interactions were sexualized, and it's just the way you act with your platonic friends?

And no, she doesn't need to be sexualized and in fact.. she isn't. Just because her connection to Spock is not just platonic, it doesn't mean she's just a sexual object - especially when that flies in the face of how their dynamic is decipted on screen.

I dunno what's your issue with romantic relationships but you seem to have a few, and it really translates into some huge double standards for the s/u relationship compared to the friendships, especially between male characters.

So, Uhura is Spock's friend, and his lover and the person he's in love with. I dunno what makes the first layer, friendship, acceptable and not dependant on the destrouction of Vulcan, while the other layers of their relationship apparently are offensive and dependant on the event you remove.

Honestly? If you don't find a reason to keep the relationship as romantic, you don't find one to keep the friendship either. Remove it all, it makes more sense.
It would be more honest for you to completely ignore their connection, instead of pretending that the characters apparently have a switch on their head that makes them fall in and out of love, and want to be in relationships, according to the events of the day.

I dont need to. The movie and the writers already did that (+ the novels and comics), you only need the subtitles.
but you don't care because, apparently, your interpretation that they magically fall in love and start a relationship just because Spock is sad makes so much more sense for you, and is so much more canon, in spite of there being no evidence that this is the case.

Seriously, if it's so hard for you to imagine a more realistic scenario where they became a couple than tragedy acting as magic love potion, I dunno what to tell you.

The funny thing is that I don't even think, honestly, that you really didn't understand they were a couple. I think you are just making up excuses using a forced interpretation in order to rationalize an aspect, of the many, that is 100% guided by your bias, selectivity and partiality, rather than an effort to keep the integrity of the story.
You'd save yourself a lot of time and energy if instead of being like "I can't keep it, it's impossible" you just said "it's out because I don't like it, while other things I like instead, eg kirk/pike, are in no matter if they fit prime trek or not because you know what? I'm going to forcefully retcon them in the story anyway" simple.

 

You argument boils down to, it was in the books and comic books. If you have to go there for that narrative then it means that the narrative isn't well done by what is established on screen.

As far as your arguments about canon, there has long been a convention held by many a fan, on screen = cannon = "Memory Alpha"; comic books, novels, video games are apocrypha = "Memory Beta".

I didn't make that up, that has been around for a while.

Paramount stated:

"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trekfacts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon." -- StarTrek.com

https://web.archive.org/web/2010062...trek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html

I accept your apology in advance.

Not that it matters what is canon to a fan edit anyway whose whole purpose is to try and make the saga fit more in with the Prime universe.

OK, so now you are being insulant and homophobic. Good one. You have a lot of class, clearly.

But you are, see above.

This is tiresome, if you don't have a way to edit it in without destroying Vulcan, then why are you still talking about it? The edit goes from the inquiry to the opening of Into Darkness. Uhura and Spock do not have a single scene together until the volcano mission, and you want to leave in the romance, with not a single scene establishing it at all. That is actually worse narrative than the actual film has with this supposed long-standing relationship that predates the events of the movie. It's out place despite your diehard fetish for this particular plot element that has no context or reference established by any scene when the Nero/vulcan plot line is removed.

They don't have to say that because they show that. We see no romantic moments or expression of affection between these two characters until that scene. You insist that I made that up, but tell me what prior scene do they convey romantic feelings for each other or physical affection? There are not scenes which *explicitly* state this AT ALL, only a half-assed inference that is foreshadowing a later bigger plot twist and reveal.

A surprise reveal is a narrative choice, one that deliberately obscured certain elements while only hinting until the reveal. You are actually making my case for me.

Now you are just taking the argument ad absurdism. For that matter how do we know Spock isn't a sex fiend will multiple partners simultaneously? We don't know, but we aren't shown anything to support such a conclusion either. Basic narrative in film needs shots, dialogue and scenes to establish narrative elements. You are the one pointing to outside sources to back up your claim, which shows how weak the fitm's narrative is for that plot at that point, because as I said before, there is no explicit romance shown or spoken about in the film until the destruction of Vulcan.

Irrelevant. It isn't on screen, I can't use it. What's on screen deviates from Prime continuity too much to be included. Simple as that. I don't care about Kelvin canon for this project, I care more so about Prime canon. I don't know how to make that clearer to you. Please stop talking about Kelvin canon, it bares little importance to this project.

Go back and look at StarTrek.com's definition of canon. Again, I accept your apology preemptively.

So, with he destruction of Vulcan out of the picture, how do you propose to establish their relationship, just jump into it? Sorry, but that comes out of left field and quite frankly, being THAT level of intimate doesn't actually jive with TOS depiction. Sure, they suggested in TOS there was something there in terms of attraction, but TOS never established a flew-blown relationship. If I am wrong, please cite to me those times in TOS where it showed Spock and Uhura being in a romantic relationship. Otherwise I consider this topic to be dead, and have no interest in going over and over it ad nauseam. Offer me some ideas of how to properly introduce the relationship, offer me examples of this relationship as being established in TOS Prime and you win. Otherwise, enough already.

Oh, so all the sudden you care about what people ACTUALLY SAY. Well, there is a first for everything.

So by your logic every time a woman of color shows me platonic affection I should chastise them and finger wag at them for acting out and playing to a mammy stereotype? Do you even realize how in your faux Social Justice Warrior-hood you are actually being very offensive?

Amazing how you were silent when I mentioned that Into Darkness took a Sikh character, previously played by a Hispanic, and gave the role to pastey Brit. You were also silent when I talked about how JJ Abrams objectified Ms. Eve who portrayed Carol Marcus for a gratuitous underwear shot that advanced the plot in no way.

So please spare me your selective outrage and faux progressive soapbox, because I don't buy it.

I was referencing your argument and views, not my own. For a person who seems so adept at picking up supposed clues, you seemed to have missed that one.

I seem to remember a scene of Uhura in underwear also, but yeah, she totally isn't objectified or sexualized.

Its not a double standard, anything that changes the universe too much from Prime continuity is taken out, which means we lose a lot of the friendships established period. We lose almost all of the Kirk and Spock relationship, and preserve only Bones and Kirk's meeting, their time at the Academy, and Kirk's birthday for that friendship. That is a total of three scenes. So this charge that it is a double standard or heavily about bromance, not justified.

If you don't understand I will explain it to you one last time, once all scenes after the inquiry are removed (because shortly after most of the scene involve Vulcan being destroyed, or the plot that developed off of that event) there is no other scenes of Uhura and Spock ever together until the opening of Into Darkness. When that narrative element appears then, it has literally NO build up, because everything else ties in too much with Vulcan and Nero, meaning it feels out of place and inserted without any build into it.
You have a creative way to introduce the romance before the Nibiru volcano mission that doesn't reference Vulcan being destroyed then please outline it now, or just let it go already.

For me, Star Trek shows consistently showed camaraderie and a sense that the crew was becoming a family. Having Uhura care for Spock and his well being is in line with those traits and depictions through out Trek.

I am not saying that, nor is that my view. Please deal with that yourself.

See above for canon. It does make more sense to me because that is how the narrative looks and plays out on screen. Moving on.

Don't tell me anything, just let it go. Thanks in advance.

Says the user with a Kelvin Uhura/Spock avatar. I think you are the one who has a hardcore fetish of Uhura and Spock. I have allowed you ample opportunity to lay out for me which scenes you would include for this to work without destroying Vulcan and you haven't. Instead you continue to be belligerent and ascribing motivations to me which are not my own, even after I asked you to stop doing that because you don't know me and are not a psychic.

It is just a poor form of debate to make those kinds of ad hominem attacks, and it isn't clever or hurtful, just annoying. I mean how would you like it if I said the only reason you like the Spock and Uhura relationship is because you want to re-enact the white-male domination and sexual violence against the black-female as a fetish? Such ad hominem attacks are really base and should be beneath those who wish to have a reasonable conversation like adults.

I already explained to you the reasons, your choice whether to accept them or not. i think my explanations are valid, and STILL I have offered you the floor and the opportunity to present your vision, but instead of being constructive you just want to complain and insult. I have no interest in that kind of interaction, so if you don't have anything nice or valuable to contribute then please stop trolling.

Please no more straw men, ad hominem attacks or forcing on to me notions that you came up with as somehow being my own. Thanks again in advance.

 

You are doing the most with so little.

Your interpretation, according to what you have quoted yourself, isn't canon.
if you want to continue playing oblivious about what happens in the movie, and the narrative device used by the writers to reveal a secret pre-existing relationship, that's fine but you are losing credibility and painting yourself into a corner by preaching about canon to me when your precious interpretation isn't canon, nor supported by the writers and ANYONE authorized to write about this trek in respect of its established canon.

That's typical pot calling the kettle black hypocrisy. You have some nerve trying to make others come across as the ones whose opinion is baseless, when you are the one here whose interpretation is the most biased and subjective, not supported by anything. Neither the scenes in the movie (they never said they fell in love and started a relationship in that scene, so according to your own rules, this idiotic interpretation of romance isn't canon either) , nor the script, the writers, the actors. You have nothing but your bias and delusion to support your ideas. And again, don't sue me just because I correctly interpreted canon just like the writers and JJ had intended us to. Don't give me much credit either, because it didn't require me any special ability since the majority of audience and pretty much every other trek writer who worked for this trek and its EU (expanded universe) , had the same exact "interpretation".

Again, you'd save yourself a lot of time and embarrassment if you just admitted that you want an excuse to take their dynamic out because you don't like it, and you prefer to make it all more "traditional" trek thus only about bromance and where you don't have to deal with the characters being adult people who happen to have other kinds of relationships too besides friendship (and leave the Greeks alone, please), instead of making up all these ridiculous excuses why "you cant" or you are respecting the inetgrity of the narrative when your whole story is a forced retcon of prime trek anyway where you are borrowing elements, and dynamics, unique to the alternate reality and its specific events and retconning them into tos.
You didn't even realize that your inconsistence and double standards about the romance was a pretext I used here to point something else up.

All in all, your posts make it obvious that one of the commenters here was right that this just feels like a tos purist hating on Abrams&Co and sh**ting on their work because it isn't "their trek" and like tos.
That's wanting to have the cake and eat too by using the new elements you like from the reboot, all the while altering and ignoring every defining aspect of their story.

------------

As for the rest, tbh I didn't even read past you accusing me of being homophobic just because I said that the slash fans (who historically perceive a lot of things about the characters as being ambiguos - your word - too, meaning not defined by canon <--- which was your main argument) share your same interpretation about s/u

Fyi I read slash fiction too. If you think that someone merely mentioning the shipper name of people who write about slash fiction, and pointing up that they share your interpretation about certain characters, is homophobic that not only is trivializing what homophobia actually is, but it really says more about you and the kind of mindset you have.


Anyway, that's where I realized that the argument jumped the shark, and you are way past the point of getting defensive and making straw man arguments for the sake of.

So far, I seem to be the only one really giving you my opinions but it's time, perhaps, to see if others beside me have something to say too and contribute to the thread. I think I explained my opinion more than needed and I wouldn't want someone here to accuse me of being "mean" and ruining your party and "fun".
In either case, I think we are both being repetitive and redundant now.

(besides, english isn't even my primary language but I'm more argumentative with it and I honestly don't think, at this point, that this thread is worth my ulterior effort and time that I could use differently. I gave you way more attention, already, than most of the people who voted did but I doubt you appreciated the effort anyway^)

 

Did I ever claim it was canon? You are the one stuck on claiming canon like a Bible. And the point is your claim that things in books, interviews and comics are canon doesn't fit without he long standing tradition of what is and isn't canon. So, sorry, you are wrong about comics and books being canon.

Take that in, admit you are capable of making mistakes. You won't die just because you have an opinion and it is just an opinion like other opinions.

I could care less about Kelvin "canon" as the whole thing is an alternate fan-fiction to Prime canon anyway when it comes to this project. the whole point IS to change it, so what is the problem here?

I am the one talking about what happens in the movie. You are the one talking about canon and comics and books and interviews. It seems you need to draw attention away to anything but the movie, where as that is ALL I ever talked about (outside of Prime).

I didn't author what is or isn't canon, I am telling what is officially considered canon by the caretakers of the Star Trek franchise. I gave you THEIR words, not mine. You are the one who is claiming canon, and claiming it wrongly as it turns out. So you should go back and read about what is and isn't considered canon before you embarrass yourself further.

I wasn't the one who tried to beat you over the head with canon, you were the one wrong claiming that. Not only do you want to slander me with your invented motivations, you want to rewrite history too. No wonder you love Nu-Trek and like to trash TOS. Its all here in the boards, documented for anyone to go back and read.

If its not on screen, not covered in dialogue, then it isn't in the narrative of the film. I think you have been confusing narrative with backstory.

All Spock says to Uhura s that he wants to avoid favoritism. As you pointed out Pike showed favoritism to Kirk. Favoritism may have many reasons behind it. Neither Uhura nor Spock further elaborate in that scene why there would be the appearance of favoritism. They don't. It's not in the dialogue. All the dialogue confirms is that A) Uhura was one of Spock's top students B) demonstrated remarkable abilities, and C) Spock wished to avoid the appearance of favoritism. Thur calls Spock "Commander", and as I said before Spock is wearing a gray uniform, Uhura the red cadet uniform. I still have issues if we are now supposed to believe Spock slept with his students. That scene, retroactively could be scene as foreshadowing, but there is in and of itself no clear or obvious romance indicated in that scene. Once again, all I heard was "top student" and "avoid favoritism" and your arrogance you think anyone who doesn't go with your interpretation of narrative THAT ISN'T ON SCREEN is "silly" or "idiotic" (your words).

You seem to have to make yourself better than people because they dare to have a different opinion than you. You can't let people have their own mind, you insist on taking the opportunity to take people down and berate them instead of respecting people and respecting difference and difference of view and opinion. It's Star Trek, it's a movie, it's no reason to insult people, but because you are a mean person, nasty and insolent you have to take it there and make it personal. You might have missed the underlining meaning of Star Trek I suspect. I also suspect you have serious emotional and psychological issues based on how you behave.

Lastly, I am done talking about that scene, because it isn't even in the fan edit anyway, because it's all about them getting on to the ships to stop Nero and the destruction of Vulcan, something that breaks continuity between Kelvin and Prime.

You are mistaken. I never used the word "baseless" to describe anyone's opinion. When did I say then? I never said that.

All I have pointed out repeatedly is that there was nothing on screen or in dialogue to give a clear indication of Spock and Uhura's having a romantic relationship at that point in that scene. That is just empirically true, so I don't see why you keep harping on it, except for a sick compulsive desire to be seen as "right" on something that is not established on screen and therefor open to interpretation. You just don't like things being open to other interpretations than the ones you arrive at and want. That's the good thing about art, it is open to interpretation, and every author, writer, director and artists worth their salt knows that even with their intentions there is room for an audience to make up their own minds and come to their own understandings. And that's why you would never be a great artist.

Really, I told you what my interpretation was supported by, but here it goes again, since you desire this so much:

A) Uhura calls Spock "Commander"
Yeah, super romantic, it is so obvious right there they are having sex.

B) Uhura points out she is one of Spock's top students.
That is the first and to this point only information the audience is given about how Uhura and Spock know each other. THAT IS IT. There is no further elaboration.

But clearly I am "silly" and "idiotic" for not thinking at this point that they are OBVIOUSLY screwing each other.

C) Spock wants to avoid favoritism.
OK, that is interesting, but favoritism, as we just established with Pike and Kirk, doesn't not mean it is because of sex.

So geez, because Spock is called commander, is Uhura's instructor, acknowledges she is a star pupil, I am apparently forcing some anti-black misogynist anti-Spock agenda because I didn't pick up on some signs laid out in a book, a comic and an interview but not on screen at all at that point.

Honestly, I spelled it out as clearly as I can, and at this point you damn well can see what I have laid out, you just have a hardon for this argument for whatever psychological or emotional ills and compulsions you posses.

What "rules"? All I am saying is movies convey a narrative, that is how a story works. Not every single thing must be spelled out, things can happen off screen, but they can't be pulled out of thin air either. Those elements of narrative which occur off screen need to cue the audience into them in some way, they can't just expect it by osmosis. And when a reveal is sudden with little lead in, that can confuse people and just be seen as an inconsistency, continuity error, plot hole, etc.

Here it is again, now because the film makers/actors/writers didn't clearly convey their intentions on screen, now I am delusional. What an ass you are. You can't be magnanimous about anything, you got to go for the throat and put people down and act all smug. You fail at showing the tiniest modicum of respect to people and fail at having any decency as a human being. I can't imagine that is how a mother would raise a person, but perhaps she is a failure in those respects too.

Oh, you get a gold star and prize! Good for you!

Except you still don't understand what canon is. Go study it, look it up and then I will accept you apology for being wrong.

Mmm, probably because they have some sort of writers bible to keep things consistent, that's usually how that goes.

Really, I would love to see the data or the polls of how many in the audience interpreted Spock and Uhura's first interaction in the movie as a romantic relationship. Please supply the polling data along with the sample size, and other citations that allow you to make that assertion.

For the last time its because Vulcan gets destroyed. You have been asked multiple times how to preserve this plot element without it coming out of the blue and without reference to the plot of destroying Vulcan. You have FAILED to do so. Just admit you have a giant hardon for Spock and Uhura because it lets you live out all your "jungle fever" white-man claims black-women racist fantasies.

Just admit it. You aren't a progressive, you LOVE British Khan and whitewashing, the sexual objectification in Nu-Trek with all the gratuitous women in underwear scenes. Go ahead ADMIT IT.

Seriously, that is my imitation of you. You are a vicious person. You take this faux sanctimonious tone, but I doubt you actually care about real injustices in the world.

Admit that you hate the very notion of higher causes and ideals because you only accept a selfish world view that if something doesn't personally impact characters, you don't think they should care about anything or anyone else unless there is a personal stake involved.

That is why you don't like the older Trek, not because the Nu-Trek is more progressive (it isn't, it objectifies women, it white-washes staple characters from the franchise, but you don't see any problem with that), but because Nu-Trek substitutes the highest values of Starfleet for sex and violence, romantic interests and revenge stories.

That wasn't what traditional Trek was about. I think you missed its meaning entirely. More importantly, that isn't what my edit is about, because very little of those interactions remain. As I said before, only three scenes occur between Kirk and Bones alone, there getting, their talking before the Kobyashi Maru in the first episode, and Jim's birthday in the second. How can that be the main focus of this edit when it only occupies three short scenes in a span of almost two hours?
The relationship with Spock, almost all gone outside of professionalism. That is keeping with TOS Prime Trek, Kirk and Bones are close friends, Spock is a crew member, but one it will take until the movies to become a genuine friend.

The only notable personal relationship left is Pike and Kirk, which isn't a bromance, it is a surrogate father/son relationship.
Instead the edit spends most of the time showing the crew work together and for the missions and by following the ideals of Starfleet. They show camaraderie, despite there being almost no scenes showing any sort of personal relationships.

So just admit you don't like the ideals of Starfleet, you prefer selfish more narrow self-interests and stories which reflect that myopic view of life.

You still can't acknowledge the OTHER types of love that aren't erotic and "bromance". Again, did the Starfleet officer who became a terrorist to save his daughter feel erotic love for her or bromance? There are other bonds besides just friendship which are not erotic.

To risk one's life for the Federation, that is a kin to patriotism. To sacrifice one's self for one's crew (even the jerks you don't like, but you work with anyway for the common good), that is no bromance.
you are a broken record.
All I need to say is "The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few." and the juxtaposing "all for one, one for all". Those themes have run throughout Star Trek.

You still have failed to provide any useful alternative.
Its very simple why you can't have Vulcan destroyed to have this fit in with Prime.

Yes, to make it more of a retcon instead of the reboot it was.

There is no double standard except in your imagination. I explained every single narrative choice and why, painstakingly. You haven't offered anything but destructive criticism, even when I repeatedly asked for your input. You have no desire to converse or cooperate. You want to shout at and tear down.

First of all, if I were a purist, then why the heck would I even touch Nu-Trek? Why would I propose a retcon if I were a purist? Your logic falls on its face.

I haven't even seen the majority of TOS episodes.

So, no. You are once again predictably wrong when it comes to my motivations. I own the canon on my motivations, I don't accept the fan fiction of my motivations by fanboys like you. So you are not in keeping with canon with your fanboy fan fiction about me and are wrong, the canon says so. EVERYONE else and there mother sees that (because I say so), so your interpretation of me is "idiotic" and "silly".

I actually don't hate JJ Trek. I have issues with certain aspects: British Khan whitewashing, the sexual objectification of women (there were miniskirts in the 1960s, but why did we have to keep that element in the 21st century? All other versions of Trek allowed women to wear pants). I did not like the various vengeance plots that lose Trek's central meaning of the call of camaraderie and serving to better "the needs of the many", the Federation's efforts for peace, diplomacy, reconciliation and cooperation. But as a whole, I actually don't hate it, I love the first movie and like the third. So this believe of yours is waaaay off.

I just want to take those elements of Trek that don't work with Prime continuity in a world breaking way, or those plot elements that feel out of character and out place for something called Star Trek. Everything else is in, so long as if fits. I certainly don't think it removes the defining aspects of the story, as the edit still has clear narrative.

I am no idiot, despite your assertions. You brought it up as a swipe at me.

I already outlined why I don't think "Commander" star student and recognizing one's abilities qualifies as romance. Seems like a pretty run of the mill Trek trope to have to two characters show professional respect.

The only thing you got are outside sources not in the movie, and the assertion that "favoritism" could only mean one thing and be for one thing, which is clearly false. You think all of that is unambiguous? You think that all conveys clear uncut romance?

I am sorry, I just don't see it in and of itself. I only see it as a forced backwards reading. As narrative, if it was meant to convey a clear romantic relationship, it fails. If it is foreshadowing, it is pretty weak.

Oh get off it. By calling out a swipe you took at me, I am trivializing homophobia, but somehow at the same time your insertions of racism and sexism are somehow not trivializing Neo-Nazis and the Klan and rapists?

You are basically the last person who could convincingly take that political line. So you can scream sexism and racism, and that is held to one standard. I mention homophobia, now I am the bad guy and there is a new standard, which of course never applies to you. Let's just add hypocrisy to your character flaws.

Hypocrite. You don't get to talk about straw man arguments where that is your second debate tactic after ad hominem attacks.

You were mean because you were condescending, smug and insulting. Other posters can see it it all laid out here, and tried to alert you to this fact, but in your self-righteousness you refuse to check yourself or even be corrected.

Well I doubt you appreciated any of the effort I showed on my part towards you. You definitely never expressed even a modicum of appreciation, although I thanked you for your efforts more than once. But that is what one would expect of a person consumed by arrogance.

Goodbye.

 

I'm not sure what movie the OP watched, but it was glaringly obvious to me that Spock and Uhura were a couple well before that scene. Hell, it's pretty damned explicit in the scene where Uhura demands Spock reassign her from Farragut to Enterprise. Not to mention, it's been discussed plenty by the people who made the movie that that was their intent.

But hey, have at it, edit your 'fancut' however you want.

 

I don't see it as explicit, although reading backwards it makes sense. The reference to favoritism is not elaborated on, and the only information we get from the dialogue is that they have a relationship as teacher and pupil. I get and can concede that the intent of the writers was to have this relationship, but I don't see how this relationship was made explicit in that scene. Implied, sure, maybe. But explicit? Afraid not. Just my two cents.

That scene won't be in the fan cut because it jumps from the inquiry at the Academy of Kirk to the next movie.

 

As I said, seems pretty explicit to me. *shrug* But I don’t really care enough to debate the point ad nauseum.

Anyway, I’m not really audience for your fan edit, so it’s no skin off my nose. Have fun with it.

 

...

Whoa tell me how you really feel...

or more like, show me all your coherence and integrity by writing a crazy sequence of several, random, ad hominem personal attacks and insults under the guise of 'imitating' me - when everything I did was point up your being partial to bromance (it's isn't an offensive word, unless romance is too), and criticizing your arguments for coming across as disingenuos (and out of touch about some things ).
Even when I'm the most rude, I never attacked you or insulted you using the language you are using to express what you, it's obvious now, really think not only about me, but I guess kelvin trek fans as well {I surely got the hint when you pulled the "they aren't actual fans of Star Trek who saw an opportunity to make more money by dumbing the franchise down for explosions and sex and gritty revenge stories" - argument in response to my critical thinking about TOS' limits, and pointing up that JJ&co adding the romance wasn't just a pretty choice, but a testament that maybe we are in a time where having a canon interracial couple that wasn't possible in the 60s - thus allow Uhura to be more than a 'strong independent black woman who don't need no man" or "mammy" stereotype by being in a mature, mutual loving relationship where her sexuality is acknowledged in a positive way, and without reducing her to the sexual temptress stereotype - isn't as controversial anymore, or it shouldn't be}

I admit it's not the first time that people show "the best of themselves", so to speak, when I touch certain points and hit some nerves.. but you hit the jackpot.

This is a post that needs to get saved for the posterity.
I'll need it when I'm still on denial about this fandom and why we have a bad reputation among some non-fans.

 

Seems you like to dish it out but can't take it.

There is hardly any bromance with the edits I am talking about. I repeated that multiple times. You are attacking a straw man, and you keep attacking him. There is hardly any of the personal friendship scenes at all in this cut, but you keep going there no matter how many times I correct you you point to a red herring, a straw man. But you can't be wrong so I guess I am wasting my efforts here. No matter how much clarification or explanation, you will hand wave that away and say that you think I am lying and I must have this agenda you thought of, that I am being disingenuous.

Still you keep repeating that in spite of my repeated clarifications and corrections.

Perhaps you suffer from a reading disability.

You like to cherry pick rather than respond (where as I took the time to respond to each and every one of you points repeatedly). Please tell me how it was so progressive to take Khan and cast him as a Brit, or to have gratuitous women in underwear scenes.

You don't even bother defending it, or even acknowledging this point, because it blows a giant hole in the argument that Nu Trek is more progressive than other Trek.

I can only conclude it is because tou turn a blind eye to sexual objectification and whitewashing if it challenges your agenda. This will be the third or fourth time I bring that up, and I fully expect you will ignore this while trying to focus more attacks on me.

Do I really think you have an inter-racial fetish? I obviously don't know you well enough to make such an opinion. I am deliberately mocking you. The idea is not to insult you, but to mock you, because although I repeatedly asked politely that you stop your arrogant assertions over my motivations, you kept it up.

I am glad you finally paused to think about. I took zero pleasure going there, but perhaps at least now the point is finally get through to you as to how obnoxious you were being.

Again, it was not intended as an insult, only a mockery. I do not wish to insult you, only to get through to you. If you were insulted then I am big enough to apologise, I do not wish to cause injury or harm. Not holding my breath for a single apology from you, I already know you are incapable of seeing yourself in any error.

I have knowledge of the history of racism, but look at how you take the idea that a relationship between a white man and a black woman has a long history in colonization and white supremacy and the very suggestion that this is what is being portrayed and re-enacted clearly struck you. It doesn't matter if it's 2017, there is still plenty of racism in movies.

Now go back to this:

Are those the only choices? You force a false narrative on this. And you never answered my question from before: would you have me chastise my black women friends who are affection for being "mammy" stereotypes? Do you understand how by forcing all personality traits you don't approve of in the combination you approve of, you are being offensive?

People can still be people with sexual relationships or as chaste persons. They can be people who are stoic and cold or warm and affectionate. What you did was basically put down any person who is affectionate in a platonic sense as being a "mammy". And that is why I took offense, not personally because that is not about me, but the notion that if folks don't conform to you values then they are mammies.

That is pretty atrocious.

Again, your point was that the original Star Trek was constrained by certain biases of it's time, even if it was trying to be progressive. Are you suggesting that can't also be true in the 21st century as well? Is racism no longer a problem in 2017? Do you think the media now isn't affected by this racism?

The comment:

"they aren't actual fans of Star Trek who saw an opportunity to make more money by dumbing the franchise down for explosions and sex and gritty revenge stories" -

Was A) about the writers, not about the fans, as the statement itself makes it clear it is not talking about fans. B) it was a supposition. You took it out of it's full context, which is deceptive (it begins "or because", meaning it is a counter-suposition). You asserted that Nu-Trek is better, more advanced, and then suggested that the changes made were an example of going forward as opposed to "backwards". And in this context I am suggesting the changes may not have been so progressively minded. It is just a theory, like yours.

There are different interpretations. Like you say that Beyond bombed because it wasn't close enough to JJ Trek, but what might have also happened is that Into Darkness road on the coattails of Star Trek, people were so soured by Into Darkness they quit the franchise and didn't go to see the third one.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/14/star-trek-into-darkness-voted-worst

And that is my issue with how you interact with folks, that you can't let a difference of opinion just be a respectful difference of opinion.

I don't mind too much that a block buster movie is going to have sex and explosions, it basically par for the course. I do feel that TV Trek allowed us to go into more cerebral stories than almost all of the movies did.

Again, I don't hate any of the Nu-Trek movies, but I am very annoyed with things about Into Darkness. I am more annoyed with how disparaging you come across to those who don't share your opinions.

I hope you do save that message for posterity and dwell on it, study it and understand that that is basically how you come across to me.

 

There are no links at that site - its a library of WHAT they are, and what the changes are, and who made them - but there is not a single link on that site. I know better.

I posted the link so that people could see what alterations were made to the much maligned movie in that particular edit. It was there for discussion purposes. Again, that linked site has the same policies about linking to stuff.

 

Nah, I appreciate that you want to remake it in your own image, or I should say with your own preferences, but I love the films as they are. I guess as I get older, I don't really care so much about the minute inconsistencies in stories. Glaring ones? Sure, but the small ones, the minutiae that used to catch my attention, doesn't bother me anymore. If I am entertained, if I have a good time, if it's fun, then for me it works. I have that experience with all three films, and love them as they are, warts and all.

Still, if you can make it look like how you want, and it gives you peace of mind regarding Star Trek in general, I wish you good fortune.

 

I understand your concern completely - that link was just to a database. Just wanted to reiterate, though - There are no links, or ways to get links, or instructions,or anything from that site. It was just a reference page of what other people have done in the past, no different then the page that lists all of the various Trek fan films in one place. There is not one frame of copywritten video there.

No disrespect intended; just want to be clear that I know the rules and am not setting out to break them. Shoot, i *WISH* I could find most of the stuff that they list... XD


But the lack of links is how a page like that has managed to exist for so many years. It teases you with lists of fanedits you can never find or watch. Lol.

 

Hey, SonOfUncleSam, I know you can't post the links to any of the work you've done here for obvious reasons, but if you want to send me a PM, i'd love to see what you've done. I own all three of the JJ movies, and i'd love to see alternate cuts of them.

 

Sure. My experience is the exact opposite of yours. Judging both from my personal preferences, my personal acquaintances and by online debates my definite conclusion is that the reboot movies are strongly liked by hardcore TNG fans who never liked TOS because of its supposed 60’s “cheapness” or “cheesiness”.

Of course I can’t persuade you of that, just as you can’t persuade me of the opposite, so any generalization that we make (“Kelvin films are liked/disliked by X or Y people”) is pretty pointless and irrelevant.

 

Missed that also.

I’d be very thankful if you could you please PM me the deleted link as well.

 

"XXXXXXXX.org does not host, provide links to, or sell fanedits. Do NOT contact us for such things. For more information please read our FAQ."

I checked 20 random review pages, and the video section was either blank, or links to youtube trailers.

That being said, the Vengeance one DID have a link under the trailer - it's probably slipped under the radar of the site, because it IS against their policies, and I never noticed it because literally every single edit i've ever read about on that site, has NOT had any links of the sort. Chances are vimeo will disable the link shortly - I truly don't know how that is even existing, other then the random fluke to make me look stupid. What are the odds..... I checked another 10 random database listings of the changes in random movies, and again, not one video link. That should NOT be there.

Apologies, because I truly DO know better, and literally every other listing on that site does not have links, AND it is stated in their top header that it is against their rules.