Star Trek by the Minute, the Last Minute

[FarStrider]

Even NuSpock recognised it had the "appearance" of a conflict of interest, rather belatedly I thought. I couldn't imagine SpockP even getting near such a position, whatever the reality may be. Call me out dated it you like.[/QUOTE]

He is NOT Spock Prime. . . he doesn't have the same experiences as Spock Prime. . . and you don't know Spock Prime as well as you think you do, considering that according to Gene Roddenberry, Spock Prime was quite the player when he was in the Academy. . . so you are even out of date for TOS.

I assume he asked someone or looked up the crew list etc. Wasn't Kirk there when Uhura was assigned to a different ship? Granted he may have missed it. But no one knew which ship they would be on until the last moment and Uhura's "reassignment" occurred afterwards as you point out. Besides, why assume that the "best" pupil would be assigned to the "best" ship? If thats true how did Sulu get on board? And how did Kirk know they didn't already have enough communications personal on the Enterprise? I don't think Kirk can assume Uhura would be there (she may have been needed elsewhere, its not a school prize giving). The writers, on the other hand, probably did.

Kirk wasn't paying attention to anyone's assignment but his own. . . he was in a totally different group than Uhura was, and when she demands reassignment, McCoy is giving him shots in a backroom somewhere. . . but when he wakes up in sickbay, he runs to the nearest computer and asks the Enterprise's computer to find Uhura, because he "knew" she was supposed to be board the ship. . she's one of the top students in the Academy, and yes, the top students usually get their choices of assigments. . .

Unfortunately there are a number of alternative ways of viewing that. As I said, not a good look.

Sure, there are alternative ways to look at it. . . why choose one that makes you look like a sexist?

I will accept your claim until I see evidence to the contrary. I remember the chief engineer being male but other personal didn't stand out to me.

So because you don't remember them, they aren't there? Hannity, Girl in science blue who says they have to leave Vulcan space or be sucked into the singularity, Transporter Chief? Hell, even Madeline the alien girl with silver eyes gets a closeup. . .

Sadly I don't have the blue ray version but my source must have got it completely wrong because that is a very different event. You are sure there was no deleted scene where Kirk uses his relationship with an Orion girl (I assume Gaila) to allow him to rig the Kobayashi Maru simulation?

Assuming your description is correct, I would have considered it one of the more important scenes in the movie. It would have been one of the few (perhaps only) scenes where Kirk, or anyone, does something "wrong" and then shows contrition. I'm disappointed you don't value it for that reason. I hope my memory isn't failing me on that point but I am aware of at lest five moral/social issues that are just accepted in the movie as no big deal or somehow justified.

There are lots of scenes in movies that either don't get filmed, or get filmed and sacrificed because they don't actually work. . .There is a scene where it is shown that Kirk is using Gaila to cheat on the Kobayashi Maru. . . but it is not the scene in which Kirk "looks bad". . .and if you haven't seen the scenes, you really shouldn't comment on whether or not they would have helped the movie any. . .

I don't sweat the small stuff. I would be happy to watch the next film if they can do better in that department. If not, then sadly it won't be to my taste particularly as a ST movie.

And your particular taste in what makes a ST movie matters, why? Seriously, if you are going to pass judgment on stuff, at least make it on stuff that you actually seen, or actually remember (and considering that your memory is so bad, that doesn't seem to be much) that way, you can actually have an intelligent conversation about it. . .

~FS

 

[UFO]

... But to do a minute-by-minute catalogue?! At least do something witty that'll actually be seen, a la RLM PT reviews.

Maybe you folks are taking this too much to heart? I mean, everyone's allowed a hobby. Besides, when William L Shirer wrote "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", there weren't too many reviewers saying: "Sure its an in depth analysis, but he could have made it funnier."

I get what you're saying, but any movie, regardless of how well it's made, can be picked apart if you do a minute by minute review, particularly if it's as anal and pedantic as the one cited in the OP.

True (I will provisionally accept your opinion about its anal pedanticness. ). However I do feel STXI has particular problems due largely to its "creative" "science" and its need to get everyone on board by the credits. I agree with your implication that even such matters wouldn't call it into question as a good ST movie if there weren't more serious problems.

It's not an in-depth analysis either. An in-depth analysis wouldn't make so many casual mistakes as this one, and it's for a reason. As it's also not wholly accurate, it is so filled with the emotional invective of it's reviewer, who positively despises it, that the review makes mistakes any casual observer would be able to rebut.

I see what you mean and that may be the case. At the risk of displaying my poor knowledge of pop psychology, maybe its better out than in! That is, if people are really concerned about his welfare of course.

All in all, that's not healthy, to fixate so much anger and bitterness on a movie.

I could be wrong, but if you read other comments by the reviewer, he doesn't seem that bent out of shape, generally (I've only read parts of his review you understand). Maybe the blog is a form of "therapy"?

Often, it seems, one or two things will rub us up the wrong way and then (particularly if we don't completely recognise the actual issue) we will look for problems anywhere we can find them to justify our opinion. That may make us look unbalanced to some, even though the original issue may be legitimate, at least if you value that aspect of the ST world.

… according to Gene Roddenberry, Spock Prime was quite the player when he was in the Academy. . . so you are even out of date for TOS.

I will happily accept that, although Gene Roddenberry's comment makes no sense to me. Never-the-less my impression of the value of Star Trek is based on the totality of what I have seen on screen. Isn't that what I am supposed to go by? When did Gene say that by the way?

... and yes, the top students usually get their choices of assigments. . .

If true, it’s still not possible for Kirk to be certain she would be there. I agree it doesn’t seem likely the writers made another mistake, but NuSpock’s actions don’t help. In any event, whether or not she deserves to be there is not the point. See below.*

Unfortunately there are a number of alternative ways of viewing that. As I said, not a good look.

Sure, there are alternative ways to look at it. . . why choose one that makes you look like a sexist?

That there are alteratives is the issue. Of course I don't accept pointing that out makes me look like a sexist. * The same "conflict of interest" problem would exist if the genders/positions were reversed. It’s just that the way it was present in the movie was the traditional sexist arrangement and therefore causes problems.

So because you don't remember them, they aren't there?

Did I not say I would accept the claim? How can you draw that conclusion? Your list of songs seems to support the notion that women are secondary. But I have already agreed that that situation is not a particular fault of this incarnation, so your emotional response is curious.

There is a scene where it is shown that Kirk is using Gaila to cheat on the Kobayashi Maru.

Thanks for your honesty and openness. I appreciate your help.

but it is not the scene in which Kirk "looks bad". .

Once again, as you point out, I am at a disadvantage, but my source (who had seen it) thought it did make Kirk look bad and I can’t see how it could do anything else on the face of it. I find it sad we have to put that down to a matter of opinion.

...and if you haven't seen the scenes, you really shouldn't comment on whether or not they would have helped the movie any. . .

I explained why and under what circumstance I thought they would help (OK, still my opinion of course). So long as I am not pretending to know things I don’t and am just trying to discover the truth of the situation I feel I have a right to do so. If you can show me where I am wrong I will retract or change my view. Seems fair to me.

And your particular taste in what makes a ST movie matters, why?

An age old question on here it seems! Because if enough people agree, it just might get ST back of track in this regard (yes, in my opinion). I know, I'm hopelessly optimistic! But what is wrong with giving a good impression of ST. If you are still getting everything you enjoyed about the movie why do you begrudge me and a few others that? You may even approve.

Seriously, if you are going to pass judgment on stuff, at least make it on stuff that you actually seen, or actually remember (and considering that your memory is so bad, that doesn't seem to be much) that way, you can actually have an intelligent conversation about it.

If something isn't memorable its hard to argue its particuarly important and my second hand info seems pretty good. Your defensiveness suggests that part of you agrees with me. You may not think so, but I find that a very good sign.

By the way, I will have to try stating things as though the are absolute facts and my opinions as though they are infallible truths, if that is what passes for "intelligent conversation"!

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't think Gene Rodenberry said Spock was a "player" at the academy - I seem to recall him suggesting (and this is only half-remembered and I have no idea where it's from) Spock may have had an affair during his academy years, with a human, which ended badly for him and that's partly why he chose such a cold "super Vulcan" way of life. In the event this is the blueprint Bad Robot are using, Spockhura fans may be in for a rough time.

Oh, and if anyone listens to anything Uhura says other than "oral" sensitivity (), it's pretty clear that she has a list of qualifications and skills a mile long, and that it was Spock's discomfiture with their relationship that gave Uhura the orginal Farragut posting in the first place. Also keep in mind she was originally assigned as a nobody in the communications' centre and only bumped up when the original nameless com officer turned out to be useless.

 

[UFO]

I don't think Gene Rodenberry said Spock was a "player" at the academy - I seem to recall him suggesting (and this is only half-remembered and I have no idea where it's from) Spock may have had an affair during his academy years, with a human, which ended badly for him and that's partly why he chose such a cold "super Vulcan" way of life. In the event this is the blueprint Bad Robot are using, Spockhura fans may be in for a rough time..

I have to admit I find Vulcan social conventions perplexing. I mean, why is pon farr so important if they can just go around falling in love all over the place like a ... well, like a human! The relationship between Spock's mother and father is not something I claim to understand in that regard.

Your comment is interesting. I always thought Spock's attitude was fairly standard for a Vulcan so I am surprised by your description of him. Spock seems mystified by Uhura's comment that she isn't surprised that Vulcan as no moon, as though his behaviour is perfectly normal for a Vulcan. I would have to change my view of Spock considerably if that is not the case. I read that Gene Rodenberry planned to have a relationship between Spock and I think Uhura in a future season so maybe the comments you refer to were part of the ground work for that?

Oh, and if anyone listens to anything Uhura says other than "oral" sensitivity (), it's pretty clear that she has a list of qualifications and skills a mile long, and that it was Spock's discomfiture with their relationship that gave Uhura the orginal Farragut posting in the first place. Also keep in mind she was originally assigned as a nobody in the communications' centre and only bumped up when the original nameless com officer turned out to be useless.

Yes, as you say, all that is pretty clear, except for the poor "nameless com officer", who was only trying to stick to canon! Of course ironically Uhura's language skills weren't needed. Its also clear that NuSpock knew there was an apparent conflict of interest, although I was surprised he didn't anticipate that ahead of time, even if Starfleet is too mature to have actual regulations concerning such matters. Wouldn't Spock have been involved with some of those qualifications and skills, or can we assume he wouldn't have been silly enough to have a relationship if that were the case?

 

[F. King Daniel]

It was always intended by the writer of "Amok Time" that Vulcans have as much sex as they want outside of pon farr (as explained in the preface of DC Fontana's old novel "Vulcan's Glory", where a young Spock has a relationship with an unattached Vulcan woman). It was the writers of later TV Star Treks that made it into "Vulcans only have sex once every seven years", and mostly played it for laughs. Then T'Pol and Trip did it outside of pon farr in Enterprise, and Spock and Uhura in STXI (don't try and tell me they just kiss! ), so I guess it's up in the air.

I've always thought that Spock (TOS version) overcompensated for his human heritage by being more Vulcan than most Vulcans (something Worf was guilty of too), but so many writers have reinterpreted Vulcans over the years (particularly in Enterprise) that it's hard to say if that's true.

Amanda was Sarek's second wife. He was previously betrothed to Sybok's mother, who (I think) died, hence him being free to choose his own mate.

 

[Amaris]

I don't think Gene Rodenberry said Spock was a "player" at the academy - I seem to recall him suggesting (and this is only half-remembered and I have no idea where it's from) Spock may have had an affair during his academy years, with a human, which ended badly for him and that's partly why he chose such a cold "super Vulcan" way of life. In the event this is the blueprint Bad Robot are using, Spockhura fans may be in for a rough time.

Oh, and if anyone listens to anything Uhura says other than "oral" sensitivity (), it's pretty clear that she has a list of qualifications and skills a mile long, and that it was Spock's discomfiture with their relationship that gave Uhura the orginal Farragut posting in the first place. Also keep in mind she was originally assigned as a nobody in the communications' centre and only bumped up when the original nameless com officer turned out to be useless.

I thought it was "aural" sensitivity. That would make more sense than "oral" sensitivity (*ahem*) wouldn't it?

As for the rest of your post, and the post after it, I completely agree.

 

[UFO]

It was always intended by the writer of "Amok Time" that Vulcans have as much sex as they want outside of pon farr (as explained in the preface of DC Fontana's old novel "Vulcan's Glory", where a young Spock has a relationship with an unattached Vulcan woman).

Thanks for that. My education is remiss.

It was the writers of later TV Star Treks that made it into "Vulcans only have sex once every seven years", and mostly played it for laughs. Then T'Pol and Trip did it outside of pon farr in Enterprise ...

I just thought that was part of the modern trend to humanise Vulcans. In a weird way I may not have subconsciously viewed T'Pol as "real" Vuclan, if you know what I mean!

I've always thought that Spock (TOS version) overcompensated for his human heritage by being more Vulcan than most Vulcans (something Worf was guilty of too), but so many writers have reinterpreted Vulcans over the years (particularly in Enterprise) that it's hard to say if that's true.

That make sense to me in that they were both needled about their respective Vulcan or Klingon-ness, though for different reasons. Speaking purely about mainstream visual material, Vulcans mostly seemed to come across as pretty stiff necked, so I assumed Spock was just following his upbringing (Worf of course would have had to play catch up). The material you mention can give a better perspective though.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If you decide to start reading some Trek novels, keep in mind that they're not canon (so strictly speaking they "didn't really happen"), loads of little details have been contradicted by TV/film Trek productions made after the various books were published and different authors have different ideas about the characters (for example, some write Spock in a similar manner to STXI where his emotions are hidden, but constantly broiling beneath the surface, others write him as an alien truly incapable of emotions).

The STXI writers read Spock's World (lifestory of the planet Vulcan) prior to destroying it in the movie and plucked Uhura's first name as well as George and Winona Kirk from various old books as well.

If you want to know how Sarek and Amanda got together, you might want to try the novel Sarek.

 

[Set Harth]

It was accurately described by "nuFan" in the official review thread as a "psychotic hissy fit."

As we cut to an external shot, old Spock reads "Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise, her ongoing mission, to explore strange new worlds, (Do we ignore the new worlds that aren't strange enough?), to seek out new life forms, (Is this a clarification to prevent us from seeking life without form?), and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before."

Credits roll, without a woman speaking in this segment.

Attacking "these are the voyages" and pretending it's a fault on the part of STXI? That's psychotic, all right.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Uhura had a line in the last scene on the bridge - everyone did except, possibly, McCoy. His line - "same ship, different day," was cut and he just got a close up eye-roll.

 

[jgalley]

wtf? so instead of a movie telling a story and being entertaining they also have to be entirely politically correct..that means having equal amounts of all races and sexes..and points of view.

I notice you say nothing about it being anti-homosexual..being there wasn't any homosexuals in the film.

or does homophobia not matter?

forget storytelling or entertainment! if it doesn't have equal amounts of everything then it's racist/sexist!

all due respect (to all of you females, males, of all ethnicities, and all sexual orientations) this is stupid and so is that "review"

 

[Nerd unRage]

Agreed. This is beyond nitpicking; it's just plain being vitriolic for the sake of being a giant ass.