Voyager even managed to create their own emotion V logic banter with the relationship between Neelix and Tuvok.
Fifth Movie
- Thread starter AdmiralBruno
- Start date
Given the vitriol towards ST:ENT (on a TNG section no less) I think I'm glad I wasn't around here when the series was in first run.
All the shows have their fans and detractors.
Are also going to question why Kirk, Chekov and McCoy wore hairpieces? Or why so many Vulcans and Romulans wore wigs? And what's with the glamour makeup, T'Pring?
Don't be silly. T'Pol lived 200 years before Seven, didn't she?
Maybe the Borg used T'Pol as a model when they assimilated Seven.
Insert "Borg implants" joke here.
And I liked both Seven and T'Pol. Seven added a welcome bit of conflict and edginess to Voyager, while T'Pol had her own issues, which made her more interesting than a standard-model, perfectly well-adjusted Vulcan. (I really liked the idea of her sneaking out of the Vulcan embassy to go hit jazz clubs on Earth.)
Vulcans... instead of completely getting rid of emotions, how about controlling them into a point where they can be emotional beings, because that's what they are. Being completely emotionless is like cutting of your finger if it has a wound. (to exaggerate a little)
Not having emotions at all does have its benefit though, there's no joy, put there is no sorrow either, which in our world today might be more than half... at least in my own world.
Not having emotions at all does have its benefit though, there's no joy, put there is no sorrow either, which in our world today might be more than half... at least in my own world.
I always understood from Sarek and Spock and even somewhat from Tuvok that Vulcans weren't slaves to their emotions, not that they didn't have them. They were the master of their emotions, not the other way around.
And by contrast, there are some (many) people that just act out based on how they feel about something. How many times do you hear,"I don't like that!" but no reasons for it? And if pressed, the person can't say. That's an emotional reaction. A Vulcan wouldn't be motivated by that reason. There would have to be another reason based in rational thought.
Which leads me to another part which is important, discipline. Adhering to logic is a discipline that must be worked at.
So many negative things come from just giving in to negative emotions.
A person cuts you off in traffic and you become angry, go after them because you're angry. You lose your job, and lapse into a depression and just wallow there because of your misfortune. You decide you like your friend's spouse and must have that person for yourself and will do anything to attain that.
A Vulcan would never do these things, or at least aspire never to do them. They might feel the anger, jealousy, disappointment, or any other emotion, but then would assert themselves over it and not let it rule them. It works with what we usually consider positive emotions, too, though. Happiness seems like it's a real driving force in a lot of people's lives, even to the point where it makes them very unhappy because they haven't gotten their happiness yet. A Vulcan would not be motivated by the selfish need for happiness but do what needs to be done.
This what I think of when I think of Vulcans that try to live like Mr. Spock.
There's also the additional affect that Vulcans have a low level mental connection with all other Vulcans which would cause some amount of disruption if they all didn't have a disciplined nature. So there is a physiological aspect to it as well.
And by contrast, there are some (many) people that just act out based on how they feel about something. How many times do you hear,"I don't like that!" but no reasons for it? And if pressed, the person can't say. That's an emotional reaction. A Vulcan wouldn't be motivated by that reason. There would have to be another reason based in rational thought.
Which leads me to another part which is important, discipline. Adhering to logic is a discipline that must be worked at.
So many negative things come from just giving in to negative emotions.
A person cuts you off in traffic and you become angry, go after them because you're angry. You lose your job, and lapse into a depression and just wallow there because of your misfortune. You decide you like your friend's spouse and must have that person for yourself and will do anything to attain that.
A Vulcan would never do these things, or at least aspire never to do them. They might feel the anger, jealousy, disappointment, or any other emotion, but then would assert themselves over it and not let it rule them. It works with what we usually consider positive emotions, too, though. Happiness seems like it's a real driving force in a lot of people's lives, even to the point where it makes them very unhappy because they haven't gotten their happiness yet. A Vulcan would not be motivated by the selfish need for happiness but do what needs to be done.
This what I think of when I think of Vulcans that try to live like Mr. Spock.
There's also the additional affect that Vulcans have a low level mental connection with all other Vulcans which would cause some amount of disruption if they all didn't have a disciplined nature. So there is a physiological aspect to it as well.
I want to be like a Vulcan, emotionless. I would like to learn it. Not because it's Star Trekky, but because my life is basically only a hollow thing compared to what it was 10 years ago, sickness that will never go away in my lifetime, most likely, has made life basically meaningless... Without emotions, life would be easier. I'm just tired of being scared most of the time.
IMO the success or failure of a sequel is largely representative of the quality of the previous film. NEM was a great movie but it still got punished for INS. NEM was advertised as the last installment from the start. Which means it was the wrap up, go out with a bang TNG movie it was supposed to be.
The exact same thing could be said of TUC vs. TFF. TUC came after a shitty failure of a film and was billed as the last installment from the start. But TUC was far more of a success that NEM was in the same circumstances. So that logic doesn't quite apply.
I wouldn't. Yes you would lose the dark valleys of pain, despair and gloom, but you would also lose the soaring mountain tops of inspiration, passion and joy.
The fact that they both follow shitty installments and both are the last of their respective generations is all thing these two movies have in common. Many other factors contributed to the success or failure of each. I could just as easily argue that both would have done much better if FF and INS would've been better quality.
Then I'm not sure what your point was when you said, "IMO the success or failure of a sequel is largely representative of the quality of the previous film."
My point is that FF and INS hurt the box office turnout of TUC and NEM, but it is only one factor in those sequels ultimate success.
Well now you've lost me, because while TUC would be considered a success based on several factors, NEM was a complete failure based on other factors. But both were films made after a previous flopped film and both were billed as the final films of the series.
And honestly, I don't really believe that the success or failure of a film depends on the film that came before it (i.e. if the previous film was a failure it will cause the next film to be a failure.) Especially since Star Trek '09 came after Nemesis, and it was a complete success.
Or maybe I'm just not understanding your point.
Similar threads
