The Spock and Uhura relationship

[fireproof78]

If I may interrupt for a minute, the main difficulty I'm seeing is that comments on liking the relationship in Beyond can feel like a rejection of the new elements, such as the Spock and Uhura relationship in favor of and old dynamic. It may not be the intention, and I've watched the back and forth to gather than it feels like something is being missed in these exchanges.

Honestly, I think the one trip up is the attitude that Beyond feels more like TOS is essentially saying that the stuff that came before is bad.That's frustrating, especially considering how roasted ST ID was for taking two minutes (out of a 2 hour and 12 minute film) from TWOK. So, saying that "it's just like TOS dynamics"feels inconsistent.

 

[Malaika]

No, of course not. I originally posed with an offhand comment, not intent on debating anything

disingenuos.
you made specific arguments about an aspect of the reboot that you dislike in a thread that is essentially directed at people who like this aspect of the series and asks them which movie is better. But, apparently, you didn't expect someone could disagree, or that your comments could initiate a debate one way or another?

Look, I think the Kelvin series has an identity crises on whether it's a continuation or a remake, since it combines elements of both. Because of that, "adaptation" seemed to be the best way to describe it, since the idea was to introduce changes, as if it was adapting a book or something. If I am wrong about that, what do you think is the best description?

reboot?
regardless you still want to call it adaptation because it might have elements of it, we are still talking about an alternate reality and that changes a thing or two when we talk about the characters and their interpersonal relationships.

Sure, one could say that a lot of adaptations can be considered AU, but here this aspect is actually part, canon, of the narrative itself.

Also, how the heck have I been giving a pass on anything?

like I said, you are projecting on a new dynamic (s/u) flaws that can be found in your preferred dynamics and characters too (the old tos ones being forced in this series)
e.g., (edited to elaborate a summary)
You essentially seem to want (and consider it great) McCoy (and the main guys in general) to be more defined by his relationships with the main dudes (thus Spock's screentime being dominated by other dynamics), than Uhura is..but you still concern troll about her having screentime with Kirk and Spock more than with others; You are praising a movie for having a dynamic that dominated most of one of the main characters' screentime (and one of the secondary dudes), all the while criticizing the first movies for the same reason;
You saying that the new dynamics are overdone, in the same breath you are asking dynamics that are 50 years old to dominate another trek series and its representation of interpersonal relationships at the expense of new dynamics that are part of this canon now;
You implying that Spock is OOC in regards to his relationship with Uhura, and you asking the narrative to provide all the explanations why they are a couple, in the same breath you gloss over the fact that 1) by tos standards this Spock is pretty OOC with the dudes too THEN, and even more than with his girlfriend 2) the narrative provides no objective reason, or realistic and fully developed story, why Spock should be friends with these guys he has absolutely nothing in common with, and who generally treat him bad. All things you give a free pass to (his dynamics with the dudes) on the basis of those dynamics being, unlike s/u, tos dynamics and basically the tos dynamics must be there no matter what (cue your comments about this being an adaptation of the old thing)

for me, someone who can buy the bromances in this trek only on the basis of tos nostalgia, and in spite of those dynamics not having the narrative qualities they seek in the new dynamics, has no room nitpicking about Spock/Uhura or any other dynamic developed in this reality. Not by using the above mentioned reasons. Also, and to repeat myself, I find it hypocritical that someone would deem s/u useless in the same breath they appreciate scenes for other dynamics that wouldn't exist without s/u, and thus want that dynamic to be developed only in the measure it benefits your faves by giving them stuff they couldn't get in tos where Spock was different.

Also, you're ignoring what I'm saying; taking the new movies by themselves and ignoring all the other Star Trek material

You don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what came before. In the context of itself, I don't think it works.

I problems that I have with the relationship are with the Kelvin movies alone and would still remain even if taken in a vacuum.

you are being, again, disingenuos.
Through your whole commentary, there are several points you make that are obviously based on tos and you projecting it on this series in order to establish which dynamics make more sense by default. I don't need to quote back every point because every of your comments is still here and recent.
You did that to justify Spock's bromances compared to his relationship with Uhura (in spite of, again, this version of his bromances being as out of character for him, by tos standards, and barely developed as the romance is for you) and, in fact, one of your main criticism about s/u is you saying it doesn't make sense with what you know about them from tos (which is itself up to debate, but irrelevant still because we are still talking about them in another reality)
You even said that Kirk romancing Carol would make more sense simply because that happened in tos, in spite of there being even less evidence - in both series - that a relationship could work better for them than one between Spock and Uhura.

Maybe for you I'm the one being obtuse here but everything I read so far confirmed my first impression of what is your main issue here. My back and forth replying was, if anything, an attempt to actually try to give you pretexts to elaborate some points more.
If you want to retroactively change your original point and tone NOW that's your prerogative, doesn't mean I'm the 'bad guy' just because I replied to you according to the arguments you have originally created.

You know, it's really funny, I'm the alleged bad guy here, yet I'm the one being condescended to, having the reasons I'm offering be ignored in favor of my subjective opinions

no one said that.

and I think that between adult people, calling an argument hypocritical (and explain why one finds it hypocritical) is not calling you names or making you the 'alleged bad guy'

And you wonder why I was feeling attacked? If you're not trying to do that, you might want to rethink your response style. I don't appreciate being called names, much less when it gets repeated without anything new I add being factored in.

I never called you bad names, if I did you are welcomed to go back and quote these supposed insults I apparently wrote.
I called your arguments hypocritical (which is rude yes, but not calling you names) and called you 'hater' (<--- written like that in a manner suggesting irony as I don't think hater is the right word, but it's the simplest expression I could find) which I don't think is exactly an insult either, especially in context of me thanking you for your opinion and actually saying that I find it useful for the thread (and I wasn't being sarcastic. That should be clear when I explain why your opinion, even if I disagree, is useful)
------------------

eta:

the main difficulty I'm seeing is that comments on liking the relationship in Beyond can feel like a rejection of the new elements, such as the Spock and Uhura relationship in favor of and old dynamic.

there are people like OP who might prefer stb over stid for s/u because they genuinely feel, from the perspective of liking this dynamic, the movie did it better, or like aspects of it better.
But there are many people (and here lies the issue for what op wants to gauge) who don't exactly like the romance and thus might prefer this movie's portrayal of it because they have ulterior motives, one of them being the fact they prefer the old dynamics to be restored at the expense of the new, and thus perceive this movie more 'safe' in that aspect. And you see that when they explain their preference.

I get OP was interested about people's preference for these two movies only, but the lack of options for those who don't like the romance welcomes the possibility that the poll's results can be skewed by those who dislike the romance voting too, and for a different purpose than what Op is really asking.
An issue that could have been resolved, in part , if there was a 'I don't like it/not care' option too.

personally, I would have also added the first movie and 'I like it in all the movies' option too.
In my case, for example, I voted for stid, but my favorite is the first movie. Then the other two equally have aspects I like and dislike when comparing them to each other. I don't want to make it seems I'm saying there is nothing good or done right in Beyond for the romance.

It may not be the intention, and I've watched the back and forth to gather than it feels like something is being missed in these exchanges.

I honestly think that for some people it's not intentional because they might not even realise it, but it's their ulterior motive.
It's like when I read people concern trolling about Uhura using feminism (not even taking into consideration that the stereotypes and cliché WOC and white women fight against in pop culture are very different and often the opposite of each other), when it's obvious it's just an attempt to rationalize the fact that they essentially dislike her being allowed to access to narrative elements that only their faves were allowed to access to before. Instead of saying they dislike the romance for taking away from their preferred dynamics, they pull the excuse that it's 'not good for her' (one of the oldest excuses used in every fandom ever) and essentially criticize Uhura and her dynamics for everything they consider praise-worthy in other dynamics and characters. It's especially disingenuos when people lament that the romance is not well developed enough, in the same breath they criticize it for eating too much of the characters' screentime.

and yes, it's contradictory that stid can be so criticized for its tos homages and fan service, using the argument that it wasn't fresh and new enough for an alternate reality, all the while Beyond is praised as the best of the 3 for being much worse in that regard and going even more backwards in the name of nostalgia than stid did.
Trek fans, and the new creative team too honestly, sometimes really want to have it both ways but it's impossible (and frustrating).

 

[WebLurker]

disingenuos.
you made specific arguments about an aspect of the reboot that you dislike in a thread that is essentially directed at people who like this aspect of the series and asks them which movie is better. But, apparently, you didn't expect someone could disagree, or that your comments could initiate a debate one way or another?

I should've thought more about what kind of thread this was and what kind of discussion would be appropriate to it. Believe it or not, I actually thought that my very first post would just be one of the others that was read and forgotten. Isn't hindsight funny?

I think that was the second posting that I started responding to specific points in debate form. You're right, though, my "explanation" was misleading, even if I never intended to get into a fight. Sorry.

reboot?
regardless you still want to call it adaptation because it might have elements of it, we are still talking about an alternate reality and that changes a thing or two when we talk about the characters and their interpersonal relationships. Sure, one could say that a lot of adaptations can be considered AU, but here this aspect is actually part, canon, of the narrative itself.

Okay.

However, even if the changes make sense in the new context, how do we, in a fair way, explain if we think a change is a bridge too far or doesn't work as well as something that came before, if we were to choose to compare them?

It doesn't help that the whole film series -- to me, subjectively, please note -- feels very strongly AU in a literal sense and somewhat "anti-canon," if that makes any sense. So, this is a film series that I find very hard to examine, given that, in many ways, I don't feel that the final product -- a canon continuation in another reality -- was delivered. Your mileage may vary, but I will concede that I may be unfairly biased to the subject of this thread, given that I have major problems considering this film series being a legitimate part of the Star Trek world (the fictional WORLD, not the franchise itself) due to the premise, underlying framework, and execution of it all. (FIY, I'm not trying to prove something with this confession, just trying to explain where I'm coming from so that I can be as clear as possible and at least allow a framework for understanding where I'm coming from and how that affects me in this discussion, for better and/or worse.)

Okay. However, even if the changes make sense in the new context, islike I said, you are projecting on a new dynamic (s/u) flaws that can be found in your preferred dynamics and characters too (the old tos ones being forced in this series)

I guess I thought the first two movies laid enough groundwork to set up that old TOS dynamic. Is there a reason that they didn't that I'm missing?

(Also, to be fair, way back in 2009, I was expecting a much closer recreation of the TOS TV show than what we got. I will admit that that did sour me considerably on the TV series and one of the reasons I liked Beyond was because of the closer tone to the source material. That may or may not be fair, but I did think Beyond's setup did work as a continuation of the previous two movies by showing the characters maturing from the experiences in the past, hence being a win-win. Your mileage may vary.)

e.g., (edited to elaborate a summary)
You essentially seem to want (and consider it great) McCoy (and the main guys in general) to be more defined by his relationships with the main dudes (thus Spock's screentime being dominated by other dynamics), than Uhura is..but you still concern troll about her having screentime with Kirk and Spock more than with others;

To be frank, I've found Uhura to be the least interesting character of the bunch in the new movies, so yeah, fair or not, I find less screen time with her more preferable. That's not fair, I'm sure, but there it is.

You are praising a movie for having a dynamic that dominated most of one of the main characters' screentime (and one of the secondary dudes), all the while criticizing the first movies for the same reason;

Fair point. All I can say is that I feel that, acting wise, the latter worked better. We get into subjectivity there, of course.

You saying that the new dynamics are overdone, in the same breath you are asking dynamics that are 50 years old to dominate another trek series and its representation of interpersonal relationships at the expense of new dynamics that are part of this canon now;

I think I can understand what you're saying. My counterpoint would be that the 50+ year old dynamics were new to this specific film series and I liked having a change of pace, same as I liked seeing "Montgomery Scotty" with someone other than Keesner or Chekov playing wingman to Kirk. I don't know, I did feel a lot of the cast outside of the new "big three" were really underused in the past and I liked seeing stuff moved around a little.

I guess all I can say is that the relationship between Spock and Uhura didn't click with me for whatever reason (unfair expectations, the writing, whatever), whereas the latter did in this series, so naturally I would like to see that be given more exploration. Also, I don't see any reason why the movies forward couldn't work with both.

You implying that Spock is OOC in regards to his relationship with Uhura, and you asking the narrative to provide all the explanations why they are a couple, in the same breath you gloss over the fact that 1) by tos standards this Spock is pretty OOC with the dudes too THEN, and even more than with his girlfriend 2) the narrative provides no objective reason, or realistic and fully developed story, why Spock should be friends with these guys he has absolutely nothing in common with, and who generally treat him bad. All things you give a free pass to (his dynamics with the dudes) on the basis of those dynamics being, unlike s/u, tos dynamics and basically the tos dynamics must be there no matter what (cue your comments about this being an adaptation of the old thing)

Yeah, I suppose. I will concede that Quinto's Spock has quite a few differences from the original (and I'm not sure how many of them make sense, given Vulcan culture, but that's something else).

for me, someone who can buy the bromances in this trek only on the basis of tos nostalgia, and in spite of those dynamics not having the narrative qualities they seek in the new dynamics, has no room nitpicking about Spock/Uhura or any other dynamic developed in this reality. Not by using the above mentioned reasons. Also, and to repeat myself, I find it hypocritical that someone would deem s/u useless in the same breath they appreciate scenes for other dynamics that wouldn't exist without s/u, and thus want that dynamic to be developed only in the measure it benefits your faves by giving them stuff they couldn't get in tos where Spock was different.

Glad you like it. (Also, I do think you can not like something overall and still find some element of it to appreciate, but I will grant you the "useless" part of your response.)

you are being, again, disingenuos.
Through your whole commentary, there are several points you make that are obviously based on tos and you projecting it on this series in order to establish which dynamics make more sense by default. I don't need to quote back every point because every of your comments is still here and recent.

Um, yes and no. I think I have let my preferences for the original iteration color my perceptions. I will concede that point. However, as I've said before, I don't think the relationship works even when the movies are taken into context of themselves. Is that opinion influenced by my fondness for the TV show? Yes, probably. However, the problems I have with it (I don't find the actors sell it, it's seemed pretty static, so I find it getting stale, I don't feel it really adds to the characters), are ones that would exist even if we got these films and the past five decades of Star Trek backlog didn't exist. (So, no, I'm not projecting when I cite these problems.)

You did that to justify Spock's bromances compared to his relationship with Uhura (in spite of, again, this version of his bromances being as out of character for him, by tos standards, and barely developed as the romance is for you) and, in fact, one of your main criticism about s/u is you saying it doesn't make sense with what you know about them from tos (which is itself up to debate, but irrelevant still because we are still talking about them in another reality)

Okay, I see. I think what I was trying to say was the decision, when the movies were being created, to put Spock and Uhura together seemed to come out of left field to me. I'm still a little puzzled on why that decision was made, since the TV show itself doesn't really support that idea in its own story. But, that, I will concede, is a different topic and I probably mangled and mixed things due to not thinking everything out.

You even said that Kirk romancing Carol would make more sense simply because that happened in tos, in spite of there being even less evidence - in both series - that a relationship could work better for them than one between Spock and Uhura.

More of the same as above. Something I could have an easier time getting the filmmakers deciding to explore.

Maybe for you I'm the one being obtuse here but everything I read so far confirmed my first impression of what is your main issue here. My back and forth replying was, if anything, an attempt to actually try to give you pretexts to elaborate some points more.

Okay, I guess I did miss that. However, I have to say that I feel like you're being a but obtuse on the point I keep making: I find the relationship hard to buy and underwritten based on what we get in these movies alone. You keep returning to some variation that I'm trying to overlay the TOS TV show over that despite my saying that I'm not taking the TV show into account when I think of these problems.

My thing here are two points that I think I mix together, the movie's relationship as a retelling of TOS and as a movie relationship separate from the rest of the franchise. The former makes no sense to me as part of a TOS reboot. I don't understand why the filmmakers did that. I don't understand what they were drawing from in that. It feels to me like it's all a "wouldn't it be cool if...?" idea rather than something well thought out.

And, of course, as I have said before, the writing and acting in the movie itself doesn't sell me on it, as I would expect any movie/TV show to do regardless of what I think about the characters as a couple. I don't have to like seeing them together, but I at least want to believe that they're in a real relationship. I don't here. The comments you've made about me projecting TOS onto the movies I think stem from the former issue I have. I think, reviewing my previous postings, I have mixed the two questions together and that hasn't been good for discussion.

Not sure if I'm being fair to the movies, but that's kind of where it sits for me. I have the double problem of not only feeling like the relationship doesn't work on its own merits, I'm not sure I even buy into the concept itself. If one of those two things clicks (IMHO), I can probably accept it as is (although I find the former more important). When I have issues with both, I have extreme trouble accepting the status quo; I can't suspend disbelief when I don't believe a thing about it.

I don't know. Am I being fair about it all? Does anything I say make sense, or is it just the ramblings of a jaded fan who's complaining about something that's not for him anymore? I don't know. Just that I should start putting a disclaimer that everything I write (unless quoted or cited from somewhere else) is IMHO and your mileage may vary.

If you want to retroactively change your original point and tone NOW that's your prerogative, doesn't mean I'm the 'bad guy' just because I replied to you according to the arguments you have originally created.

no one said that.

and I think that between adult people, calling an argument hypocritical (and explain why one finds it hypocritical) is not calling you names or making you the 'alleged bad guy'

I never called you bad names, if I did you are welcomed to go back and quote these supposed insults I apparently wrote.

I think I misread your postings, and on top of that was feeling a little frustrated. I wasn't angry when I made the inital "calm down" comment, but I did pretty quickly get a wrong impression of what you meant, and that lead to me writing when I really wasn't in good shape or mindset to be doing that.

I called your arguments hypocritical (which is rude yes, but not calling you names) and called you 'hater' (<--- written like that in a manner suggesting irony as I don't think hater is the right word, but it's the simplest expression I could find) which I don't think is exactly an insult either, especially in context of me thanking you for your opinion and actually saying that I find it useful for the thread (and I wasn't being sarcastic. That should be clear when I explain why your opinion, even if I disagree, is useful)

Herein lies the problem, I think. I completely misread the tone. I took the "hypocrite" comment personally (probably shouldn't, esp. since you never called me one -- I erroneously inferred that), and I didn't realize you were being sarcastic about the "hater" comment and sincere that you found it helpful (I really read that as being in a sarcastic way "thanks for proving how stupid you really" are way).

Look, I'm sorry for letting things get off the rails and for being less than polite. This's all not worth getting into a fight over.