Voyager fans.. are you disappointed about Discovery?

[UnknownSample]

Vulcans consider those terms to be insulting when applied to them.

And thus Vulcans can also serve humans as sources of amusement...

 

[Trekkin]

And thus Vulcans can also serve humans as sources of amusement...

And retroactively ruin somber moments from prior movies!

Kirk: *sobbing* He was the most...human.
Spock-In-The-Afterlife-or-McCoys-Head: AAAAARGH!!!

However, this is wrong:

Vulcans were created with meaning behind them. Instead of the typical 50s sci-fi movie treatment of unemotional aliens as being evil for that reason, the tables are turned, and defeat of emotion is presented as (only) one possible way out of humanity's problems. The unemotional alien is admirable. He's strong, stable, and on our side.

Besides being a wee bit harsh on the uniformity of 50's Sci-Fi, Spock and the Vulcans originally were envisioned as being passionate and having emotions. It was the human Number One who was intended to to lack them.

When they scrapped the latter character, Spock (and therefore the rest of the Vulcans) got her 'emotionless and logical' gimmick.

Which is for the best. Besides the pointed ears, he was a bit of a nothing character without it.

 

[Refuge]

Vulcans were created with meaning behind them. Instead of the typical 50s sci-fi movie treatment of unemotional aliens as being evil for that reason, the tables are turned, and defeat of emotion is presented as (only) one possible way out of humanity's problems. The unemotional alien is admirable. He's strong, stable, and on our side. It's not one-sided. Problems are presented with being like a Vulcan, they're flawed like anyone, but they're certainly more "human" and "humane" than present day humanity.
----------------------
24th century Vulcans were anal sticks-in-the-mud generally...

I tend to think in a similar frame of mind. That the depiction and impression of a Vulcan varied with who was telling the story. How they were created exampled by Spock. How they came across in another telling..

 

[Refuge]

However, this is wrong:


Besides being a wee bit harsh on the uniformity of 50's Sci-Fi, Spock and the Vulcans originally were envisioned as being passionate and having emotions. It was the human Number One who was intended to to lack them.

When they scrapped the latter character, Spock (and therefore the rest of the Vulcans) got her 'emotionless and logical' gimmick.

Which is for the best. Besides the pointed ears, he was a bit of a nothing character without it.

What the??

 

[Trekkin]

What the??

Point to the confusing part. I'll translate it into one syllable words for you.

 

[Refuge]

'However, this is wrong'

 

[Trekkin]

The stuff in the quote box is wrong.

Not a fact.

False.

All in all, not right.

 

[BillJ]

Spock was trying to out-Vulcan the Vulcans, but was half-human, was raised by a human mother and spent most of his adult life with humans in TOS.

The full-blooded Vulcans we see in TOS, I don't know how anyone could see nobility in them. I won't go over the point-by-point analysis yet again, but they were very poor people. Berman got the Vulcans spot on, whether people like it or not.

 

[Refuge]

The stuff in the quote box is wrong.

Not a fact.

False.

All in all, not right.

I thought the stuff in his quotation box was his observation, impression, opinion and it read pretty good to me..

 

[UnknownSample]

Spock and the Vulcans originally were envisioned as being passionate and having emotions. It was the human Number One who was intended to to lack them.

When they scrapped the latter character, Spock (and therefore the rest of the Vulcans) got her 'emotionless and logical' gimmick.

Lately, one "Mr. Technical" after another has been pointing out obvious things to me that I've been very much aware of for about fifty years. I know all this. And what I said was right. It's irrelevant that the concept of a Vulcan as we understand it now was not the very first version of them.

 

[Refuge]

Spock was trying to out-Vulcan the Vulcans, but was half-human, was raised by a human mother and spent most of his adult life with humans in TOS.

The full-blooded Vulcans we see in TOS, I don't know how anyone could see nobility in them. I won't go over the point-by-point analysis yet again, but they were very poor people. Berman got the Vulcans spot on, whether people like it or not.

Live long and prosper

 

[BillJ]

It's irrelevant that the concept of a Vulcan as we understand it now was not the very first version of them.

All the conversation has been about is TOS Vulcans.

 

[Trekkin]

It's irrelevant that the concept of a Vulcan as we understand it now was not the very first version of them.

1. You invoked the 'was conceived as' card. It's hard to get more 'first version' than conception.

2. If you knew you were misrepresenting history, why do it?

3. 'Our understanding now' (aka. Post-Fifty years of franchise) wasn't under discussion. We were discussing the 'original' depiction of Vulcans in TOS.

 

[UnknownSample]

You brought 'was conceived as' into this. Without citing a source, I might add.

And 'our understanding now' (aka. Post TNG-ENT) wasn't under discussion. The depiction of Vulcans in TOS was.

Have fun in your world of meaningless, nitpicky technicalities.
========
Vulcans were conceived of in one way, for The Cage, and then conceived of in a different way for subsequent episodes.

Source? I wasn't writing a news item. My source is the viewing of Star Trek. They did a pretty good job of presenting their ideas of what a Vulcan is supposed to be. Very talented writers devoted a lot of good writing to that.

I was talking about the understanding we have now, of what a Vulcan is, based on decades of viewings. Not some understanding from long ago. Now get your teeth out of my leg, little technicality pit bull.

 

[Trekkin]

Have fun in your world of meaningless, nitpicky technicalities.
========

A 'nitpicking technicality': The art of matching words to intended meaning, in order for clear communication of ideas between multiple parties.

Source? I wasn't writing a news item. My source is the viewing of Star Trek.

So it's not so much 'the writers intended,' and more 'I interpreted the message as...'

Auteur theory is not a 'one size fits all.'

 

[BillJ]

A 'nitpicking technicality': The art of matching words to intended meaning, in order for clear communication of ideas between multiple parties.

Hippy, commie, liberal. Egghead who thinks what words mean and actions convey are somehow important when defining and discussing something.

It is just how I feeeeeeellllll!

 

[Trekkin]

Hippy, commie, liberal. Egghead who thinks what words mean and actions convey are somehow important when defining and discussing something.

It is just how I feeeeeeellllll!

*stashes weed in a hollowed-out copy of the Communist Manifesto, and throws both under the bed*

How did you kno- Er, I mean...You can prove nothing!

 

[Refuge]

Have fun in your world of meaningless, nitpicky technicalities.
========
Vulcans were conceived of in one way, for The Cage, and then conceived of in a different way for subsequent episodes.

Source? I wasn't writing a news item. My source is the viewing of Star Trek. They did a pretty good job of presenting their ideas of what a Vulcan is supposed to be. Very talented writers devoted a lot of good writing to that.

I was talking about the understanding we have now, of what a Vulcan is, based on decades of viewings. Not some understanding from long ago. Now get your teeth out of my leg, little technicality pit bull.

Welcome to my world.. sorry you've had to be subjected to all this nonsense.

We all have a right to interpret and view the show as we do.

 

[Trekkin]

We all have a right to interpret and view the show as we do.

And when communicated to others, we have the right to disagree with our own.

That's how rights work. Protections and powers offered to all.

 

[BillJ]

.. sorry you've had to be subjected to all this nonsense.

Yep. Sorry you had to be subjected to differing ideas.

IDIC indeed.