Star Trek's outdated vision of the future

[Sci]

But nothing in McCoy's comments in the movie has anything to do with that. I mean, if you think that a person losing everything in a messy divorce is something that could only happen in a world worse than our own, then you have an exceedingly rosy perspective on our own world. There is absolutely no connection between messy divorces and cyberpunk. Cyberpunk is about advanced computing technology and corporate dystopias, not unhappy marriages. It's a complete and total non sequitur.

If you still do not understand in which way cyberpunk and Trek are opposites I cannot help you.

It's not that he doesn't understand what you're saying, it's that you don't know what you're talking about.

Cyberpunk is not defined by its pessimism. It's defined by the presence of advanced computer technology and corporate-dominated political systems. It's a very specific subgenre.

The word you're looking for, the term that encompasses a more general "things get worse than they are today" notion of the future, is dystopia. And nothing in ST09 is dystopian.

I have no idea where you live but in the place where I live you cannot lose everything because of a divorce, there are well-designed laws which prevent this. So in this respect STXI portrays a world which is worse than our own although Trek is supposed to do the very opposite.

Right, because it's not like Doctor McCoy ever engaged in hyperbole in TOS or anything, right?

Right?

Sorry, but your argument has no leg to stand on here. NuMcCoy's incredibly vague reasons for joining Starfleet (insofar as anything that vague can be said to have been established) are completely consistent with the background developed for TOS by DeForrest Kelley and D.C. Fontana -- a man who was running away from a messy divorce and went into Starfleet to get away from his old life.

I have no idea where the hell you're getting that from. Heck, the whole story is about Kirk and Spock overcoming their respective jerky behavior and becoming better people, transcending the wrongs done to them in their youth. That's anything but endorsing those wrongs.

The movie clearly says between the lines that all the appalling behaviour, be it marooning fellow officers or following your daddy's advice and not holding your hate back, is totally fine

This is true, in Backwards World.

Spock was clearly shown to be acting out of line by marooning Kirk on Delta Vega. I'm not sure what "not holding your hate back" refers to, but both Kirk and Spock learned in the course of the film to let go of their negative stereotypes and prejudices against one-another.

Don't you find it mildly strange that a movie which tries to copy TWOK in some ways totally misses one point of TWOK, that giving in to desires of revenge is self-destructive behaviour?

You mean like Nero's behavior, motivated by revenge, was self-destructive?

 

[horatio83]

horatio, You need to watch TOS. Sarek and Spock were not Rabbis. Vulcans were meant to cool, cold and calculating. Perfectly capable of killing, if logic demanded it.

I do not care about the original setup, about what they were meant to be. Kirk was meant to be virtually the same character as Pike and an early episode like "Balance of Terror" featured a Hamlet-like moment similar to the one from "The Cage" yet Shatner's energetic performance soon changed the character.
Nimoy and Lenard definitely had a Rabbi-esque flair and defined with their performances what Vulcans are independently of any script stuff. That's partly why every other Vulcan, no matter how well he or she is played, seems somehow inadequate.

 

[horatio83]

Spock was clearly shown to be acting out of line by marooning Kirk on Delta Vega. I'm not sure what "not holding your hate back" refers to, but both Kirk and Spock learned in the course of the film to let go of their negative stereotypes and prejudices against one-another.

Don't you find it mildly strange that a movie which tries to copy TWOK in some ways totally misses one point of TWOK, that giving in to desires of revenge is self-destructive behaviour?

You mean like Nero's behavior, motivated by revenge, was self-destructive?

I refer to the scenes where Sarek tells his son that he should not try to control his anger, i.e. basically behave like ancient Vulcans / Proto-Romulans / "those who marched beneath the raptor's wings", and where Spock follows Sarek advice.

 

[Sci]

Spock was clearly shown to be acting out of line by marooning Kirk on Delta Vega. I'm not sure what "not holding your hate back" refers to, but both Kirk and Spock learned in the course of the film to let go of their negative stereotypes and prejudices against one-another.

Don't you find it mildly strange that a movie which tries to copy TWOK in some ways totally misses one point of TWOK, that giving in to desires of revenge is self-destructive behaviour?

You mean like Nero's behavior, motivated by revenge, was self-destructive?

I refer to the scenes where Sarek tells his son that he should not try to control his anger, i.e. basically behave like ancient Vulcans / Proto-Romulans / "those who marched beneath the raptor's wings", and where Spock follows Sarek advice.

There's a big difference between him saying that it is appropriate for Spock to channel his anger so that he'll be able to function well enough to stop Nero, and telling Spock to "give in to his anger." This is Sarek of Vulcan we're talking about, not Emperor Palpatine.

 

[Nerys Myk]

horatio, You need to watch TOS. Sarek and Spock were not Rabbis. Vulcans were meant to cool, cold and calculating. Perfectly capable of killing, if logic demanded it.

I do not care about the original setup, about what they were meant to be. Kirk was meant to be virtually the same character as Pike and an early episode like "Balance of Terror" featured a Hamlet-like moment similar to the one from "The Cage" yet Shatner's energetic performance soon changed the character.
Nimoy and Lenard definitely had a Rabbi-esque flair and defined with their performances what Vulcans are independently of any script stuff. That's partly why every other Vulcan, no matter how well he or she is played, seems somehow inadequate.

In what context are you using "Rabbi" in your statement? As a teacher? A leader? A religious authority? I'm not seeing Spock as seen in TOS or STXI as those things. He was a teacher in TWOK. As a leader he tends to fall short,being better suited as an advisor. Religious authority? Nope. In TOS, Spock was often the one who learned something, usually begrudgingly. His encyclopedic knowledge of science rarely grants him wisdom.

Sarek when we first meet him is a bit of a douche. Unfriendly,haughty, stern, acerbic and disapproving. You have to wonder what Amanda saw in him. Not getting a Rabbi vibe from that.

 

[horatio83]

Spock was clearly shown to be acting out of line by marooning Kirk on Delta Vega. I'm not sure what "not holding your hate back" refers to, but both Kirk and Spock learned in the course of the film to let go of their negative stereotypes and prejudices against one-another.

You mean like Nero's behavior, motivated by revenge, was self-destructive?

I refer to the scenes where Sarek tells his son that he should not try to control his anger, i.e. basically behave like ancient Vulcans / Proto-Romulans / "those who marched beneath the raptor's wings", and where Spock follows Sarek advice.

There's a big difference between him saying that it is appropriate for Spock to channel his anger so that he'll be able to function well enough to stop Nero, and telling Spock to "give in to his anger." This is Sarek of Vulcan we're talking about, not Emperor Palpatine.

Which part of Proto-Romulan did you not understand?
There is a big difference between a human father telling his son to use his anger to capture a criminal and a Vulcan father doing the same thing.

 

[Sci]

I refer to the scenes where Sarek tells his son that he should not try to control his anger, i.e. basically behave like ancient Vulcans / Proto-Romulans / "those who marched beneath the raptor's wings", and where Spock follows Sarek advice.

There's a big difference between him saying that it is appropriate for Spock to channel his anger so that he'll be able to function well enough to stop Nero, and telling Spock to "give in to his anger." This is Sarek of Vulcan we're talking about, not Emperor Palpatine.

Which part of Proto-Romulan did you not understand?

I hate to tell you this, but it's not that I didn't understand you. It's that I disagree with you.

There is a big difference between a human father telling his son to use his anger to capture a criminal and a Vulcan father doing the same thing.

Obviously it's a break from Vulcan orthodoxy, but it's not the same thing as telling him to abandon cthia, and it's a ridiculous piece of hyperbole for you to claim it is.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sarek is acknowledging that Spock is the product of two cultures and that sometimes its okay to be "human". The advice comes from what Amanda, a human, would say.

SAREK: Speak your mind, Spock.
SPOCK: That would be unwise.
SAREK: What is necessary is never unwise.
SPOCK: I'm as conflicted as I once was as a child.
SAREK: You will always be a child of two worlds. I am grateful for this. And for you.
SPOCK: I feel anger for the one who took mother's life. An anger I cannot control.
SAREK: I believe, as she would say, do not try to. You asked me once why I married your mother. I married her because I loved her.

This is Spock and Sarek at their core. They know that the Vulcan way is not the best way.

 

[horatio83]

There's a big difference between him saying that it is appropriate for Spock to channel his anger so that he'll be able to function well enough to stop Nero, and telling Spock to "give in to his anger." This is Sarek of Vulcan we're talking about, not Emperor Palpatine.

Which part of Proto-Romulan did you not understand?

I hate to tell you this, but it's not that I didn't understand you. It's that I disagree with you.

There is a big difference between a human father telling his son to use his anger to capture a criminal and a Vulcan father doing the same thing.

Obviously it's a break from Vulcan orthodoxy, but it's not the same thing as telling him to abandon cthia, and it's a ridiculous piece of hyperbole for you to claim it is.

I said that "Sarek tells his son that he should not try to control his anger."

Myk picked out the precise lines:

SPOCK: An anger I cannot control.
SAREK: I believe, as she would say, do not try to.

Looks indeed like a totally exaggerated.

Tell me with a straight face that a Vulcan who does not suppress nasty emotions like anger is just fine.

 

[Sci]

I said that "Sarek tells his son that he should not try to control his anger."

Myk picked out the precise lines:

SPOCK: An anger I cannot control.
SAREK: I believe, as she would say, do not try to.

Looks indeed like a totally exaggerated.

Yes, you did exaggerate. It is a huge exaggeration to take "stop trying to suppress your anger for the duration of this crisis" and turn it into "renounce the entire philosophy of emotional control for the rest of your life."

 

[horatio83]

That's not what I said but never mind. Pointless to talk with someone who ignores everything we know about Vulcans and thinks that they are fine when they let out their anger.

 

[Sci]

That's not what I said

You characterized Sarek's advice as being to become a proto-Romulan. I'm not sure what "be a proto-Romulan" could mean other than "renounce the philosophy of emotional control."

Pointless to talk with someone who ignores everything we know about Vulcans and thinks that they are fine when they let out their anger.

No, it is not that I'm "ignoring everything we know about Vulcans." It's that I'm aware that Vulcans do not always live up to their ideal philosophy of emotional control, and I do not inherently object to a characterization choice of having a Vulcan character chose not to accept and channel his emotions in some circumstances.

 

[horatio83]

Yep, totally ignoring everything we know about them. Vulcan isn't a liberal culture and Vulcan orthodoxy exists for a very good reason. Stopping do keep their emotions in check is a straight way back into the dark ages.
Every Vulcan who tried to deal with his emotions, be it Sybok or the guys from "Fusion", failed. Only Spock managed to ease up after decades of life experience and due to his human half ... but he certainly did not stop to suppress his nasty emotions.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What we know about Vulcans is that they talk the talk, but rarely walk the walk when it comes to their "philosophies". Which is why they are much more interesting than the version horatio is presenting. The Vulcans were never meant to represent the perfect way or the better way. In many episodes their way is shown to be flawed. ( though they are loathed to admit it).

 

[Sci]

Yep, totally ignoring everything we know about them.

I mean, if by "ignoring everything we know about them," you mean, being aware of the existence of the V'tosh ka'tur, of events such as Tuvok's early love, of T'Pol's ongoing challenges controlling her emotions, of Soval's occasional lapses, of the deeply emotional nature of the nationalism that motivated the High Command during the ENT era, of the emotional fights that Spock and Sarek had throughout the Prime Timeline... yes, clearly I am ignoring everything about them.

Sorry, but Vulcans don't always live up to their own ideals -- nor do they automatically fall into barbarism and violence when they have lapses. Depicting a Vulcan who deviates from the ideal is not an inherently bad or dystopian thing.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Wake me when this thread returns to the OP's original posting.

 

[horatio83]

Yep, totally ignoring everything we know about them.

being aware of the existence of the V'tosh ka'tur

Wow, you can link to MA, I am impressed. Come back once you have actually seen "Fusion".

 

[datagal]

Just... never mind. It's not worth it.

Nice euphemism for 'I have run out of arguments'.

No, he just got tired arguing with you. He want to maintain his sanity.

 

[RAMA]

A lot of this has to do with what I brought up not even a week ago:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6251611&postcount=86

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6257122&postcount=88

Yes ST is out of date, but it doesnt have to be that way for the NEXT SERIES!

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6287704&postcount=260

There are new possibilities for the future of ST if producers are inclined to think out of the box. ST can retain a positive vision of the future and still take into account likely future events.

 

[RAMA]

I look at Trek as a fictional universe. As a result, I have no problems whatsoever with things there not matching up things with the real world.

I agree that you CAN look at it as alternate futures, just entertainment, et al, etc...I'll take ST series as they are, can't change them...but as for a new series, they MUST change to seem up to date. The reason is that good SF is usually pretty proud at creating a detailed, self-consistent milieu, but it should reflect some sort of educated speculation. The article brings up some good points about ST's outdatedness, but my main concern is for future shows.

RAMA