Vulcans and Marraiges

[xavier]

There was no reason why they could not make it a trinity of kirk, spock and bones and still have a leading female character.

Agreed

On a critical constructive stand point. I wish they had handled the romance better, the romance is poorly written as well.

I think Star Trek has always done romance badly - mainly because eventually someone has to die (in a series format).
I don't even dislike Spock/Uhura. Just keep it in the background a bit more.
I wouldn't mind if the next movie started or ended with their marriage.

I wish they have given Bones more to do. I wish they had not forced up to accept the kirk and spock friendship like they way they were in TOS, No one can compete with TOS. TOS Kirk and Spock have like 40+ years worth of friendship and adventure. new kirk and spock do not compare and you should not be trying to compare, they should just do their own thing and be original. this is what into darkness did not do and that is why, it is one of my least favorite trek films.

I'm old school TOS. What makes TOS magic for me is the Kirk-Spock-McCoy bromance.
Not the fancy spaceships, the transporters, the space battles. Thats just icing on the cake for me.

If JJ Abrams wants to do his own thing the last thing I'd eliminate was the best part of TOS IMO.

I don't even think that his behavior in the volcano and post volcano with her is that much about him being 'alien' than it's about him possibly experiencing that very human thing called PTSD. And if that was the case, his significant other couldn't pretend that his death wish wasn't a thing (that could actually be a problem for that mission itself and put them all at risk) In that, a lot of people can relate to both sides in that scene between them...

I disagree that Spock had a 'death wish' from his actions in the Volcano. He believes in the PD (whatever it is in nuTrek) above his own life. If Uhura is going to complain whenever Spock puts his life in danger because of 'how it affects her' then she is the one endangering the missions.
And as McCoy says, Spock would have left Kirk behind in the volcano.

the romance was done excellently well in the first film.I also agree with you. its like the writers did not bother to watch the old films or show, all they talk about is kirk and spock.

They hardly mention Bones at all. To the writers, star trek is a duo. it is not a trio like most fans beleive it to be and in a way I do not blame them. The media and popular culture does rememeber TOS as Kirk and Spock, it is fans that remembers Kirk, Spock and Bones.

This is why I have always preferred TNG. In TNG, the whole cast which was Picard, Worf, Ricker, Troi, Dr. Crusher, Data and Geordi were in a way all equal to each other and the story always had all of them contributing to it.None of the characters can be sidelined.


In the long run, I beleive the alpha male seting of TOS has come back to hurt it because eveyone is complaining about their favorite characters been sidelined especially Bones and Uhura fans and even Sulu fans. the new films focuses on kirk and spock without caring about other characters and it should not be that way.

 

[Ithekro]

The old formula was that McCoy and Spock were at Kirk's shoulders. Spock for the logic/cold facts, and McCoy for the emotion/compassion. Kirk would weight both opinions while dealing with whatever what going on that week.

The bad part about it missing in the new Star Trek films is not so much the trio of the id-ego-super ego of the three of them, but because Karl Urban is really good at playing McCoy like DeForest Kelly was. Of all the actors playing their characters, the one that stood out as easiest to believe was the same character was Karl Urban as McCoy.

 

[borgboy]

I agree completely. Urban is fantastic as McCoy, it's a shame he's given so little to do. He is the best at capturing the spirit of his character.

 

[Sector 7]

The old formula was that McCoy and Spock were at Kirk's shoulders. Spock for the logic/cold facts, and McCoy for the emotion/compassion. Kirk would weight both opinions while dealing with whatever what going on that week.

The bad part about it missing in the new Star Trek films is not so much the trio of the id-ego-super ego of the three of them, but because Karl Urban is really good at playing McCoy like DeForest Kelly was. Of all the actors playing their characters, the one that stood out as easiest to believe was the same character was Karl Urban as McCoy.

I agree completely. Urban is fantastic as McCoy, it's a shame he's given so little to do. He is the best at capturing the spirit of his character.

As I was preparing what to place in my post, I came across both of yours.

IMHO, Karl Urban is the most under-utilized actor in the new films. He channels Dee Kelley so well, it makes me yearn for him to be at Kirk's side providing the emotional part of the Trinity of Trek. Even Spock's logic seems clouded by emotion these days. It makes the chemistry... off... somehow.

I enjoy the new movies immensely, yet this is one point with which I am strongly disappointed.

 

[xavier]

The old formula was that McCoy and Spock were at Kirk's shoulders. Spock for the logic/cold facts, and McCoy for the emotion/compassion. Kirk would weight both opinions while dealing with whatever what going on that week.

The bad part about it missing in the new Star Trek films is not so much the trio of the id-ego-super ego of the three of them, but because Karl Urban is really good at playing McCoy like DeForest Kelly was. Of all the actors playing their characters, the one that stood out as easiest to believe was the same character was Karl Urban as McCoy.

I agree completely. Urban is fantastic as McCoy, it's a shame he's given so little to do. He is the best at capturing the spirit of his character.

As I was preparing what to place in my post, I came across both of yours.

IMHO, Karl Urban is the most under-utilized actor in the new films. He channels Dee Kelley so well, it makes me yearn for him to be at Kirk's side providing the emotional part of the Trinity of Trek. Even Spock's logic seems clouded by emotion these days. It makes the chemistry... off... somehow.

I enjoy the new movies immensely, yet this is one point with which I am strongly disappointed.

I believe everyone is disappointed. I want to see more bones too. he was very used in the star fleet academy novels which is why I do not understand why the writers keep going on and on about kirk and spock. orci and co said their goal is to tell a kirk and spock story. why not tell a star trek story with the characters who are more than two.

 

[Malaika]

The 'problem' is that in these movies Kirk is the McCoy, especially in terms of his dynamic with Spock. Which leaves Uhura and McCoy as the voice of reason in between Spock's logic and Kirk's impulsivity and emotion. They changed the dynamic. (And no wonder why)
As much as Urban is good keeping the spirit of original Mccoy , it had never been a requirement for these characters to be too similar or emulate the previous actors too much. Much of the way tos was written was a result of its time (and its biases, limits, sexism). Nowadays writers don't have to follow that same "roles" formula like the TOS characters were (and having 3 main characters who are all men would feel like going backwards nowadays and not embraced by a modern audience).
In this context they might not know what to do with original Bones because he's a plus (again, Kirk is the one here who has that logic_emotion conflict with Spock ). Urban must find his own McCoy with his own place in this story and he will never find it if people insist in wanting the writers to give him a role that doesn't and can't exist in this story anymore.

 

[Commishsleer]

(and having 3 main characters who are all men would feel like going backwards nowadays and not embraced by a modern audience).

The "Avengers" were accepted by a modern audience.

 

[xavier]

(and having 3 main characters who are all men would feel like going backwards nowadays and not embraced by a modern audience).

The "Avengers" were accepted by a modern audience.

Avengers is an ensemble team. they do not have three main leads in fact the avengers are more like TNG .

Picard, Geordi, Troi, Ricker, Dr Crusher and Data are the equivalent of Iron Man, Captain America, Hawkeye, Black Widow,Hulk and Thor are an ensemble cast.

This new new trek films, the story is about two characters which is kirk and spock.

 

[Commishsleer]

(and having 3 main characters who are all men would feel like going backwards nowadays and not embraced by a modern audience).

The "Avengers" were accepted by a modern audience.

Avengers is an ensemble team. they do not have three main leads in fact the avengers are more like TNG .

Picard, Geordi, Troi, Ricker, Dr Crusher and Data are the equivalent of Iron Man, Captain America, Hawkeye, Black Widow,Hulk and Thor are an ensemble cast.

This new new trek films, the story is about two characters which is kirk and spock.

Was the Avengers really an ensemble? Wasn't it really the Iron Man show? Did Black Widow or Arrow Man do anything really? They were like Crusher and Troi and Geordi in the TNG movies - just there.
The TNG movies were the Picard and Data show. Just like the TOS movies were the Kirk and Spock show.
I think Orci et. all are wrong if they think they can improve/modernise on the TOS chemistry by getting rid of McCoy and making Kirk and Spock like Lennon and McCartney.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Even referencing Lennon and McCartney, who the hell in their target audience even knows who they are. And is Sir Paul McCartney a creative consultant about that relationship? For them to even bring that up sounds weird and pretentious, anyway. In a way, I like that the Kirk/Spock/Bones triad isn't the cornerstone of these new movies. Yes, they could probably duplicate that chemistry with the new cast, I have no doubt of that. But it really should try to be its own thing, seeing as it's a reboot.

I disliked Deforest Kelley's "Bones," because he was just so needlessly loud and cranky all the time. When he wasn't, he kept harassing the living shit out of Spock in a way that sometimes reflected poorly on The Good Doctor. "You pointed eared Hob Gobblin!" and all that. Bones, come on ... I myself find Political Correctness to be nothing more than tyranny with manners, but the Spock/Bones relationship never played. Even though real-life friends do bust on eachother, it just didn't seem to be the way to go, because they were in uniform, most of the time. In the Mess Hall, or in Kirk's Quarters, maybe it would fly then, but almost all of the time, we saw them when they were on the job ...

 

[Nerys Myk]

The "Avengers" were accepted by a modern audience.

Avengers is an ensemble team. they do not have three main leads in fact the avengers are more like TNG .

Picard, Geordi, Troi, Ricker, Dr Crusher and Data are the equivalent of Iron Man, Captain America, Hawkeye, Black Widow,Hulk and Thor are an ensemble cast.

This new new trek films, the story is about two characters which is kirk and spock.

Was the Avengers really an ensemble? Wasn't it really the Iron Man show? Did Black Widow or Arrow Man do anything really? They were like Crusher and Troi and Geordi in the TNG movies - just there.
The TNG movies were the Picard and Data show. Just like the TOS movies were the Kirk and Spock show.
I think Orci et. all are wrong if they think they can improve/modernise on the TOS chemistry by getting rid of McCoy and making Kirk and Spock like Lennon and McCartney.

Hawkeye fans all over the world are sad right now.

McCoy was always Harrison, even in TOS.

 

[Ithekro]

Oddly, Ringo is the center of most of The Beatle's movie plots.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Of course, he's Ringo.

 

[Commishsleer]

Weren't McCartney and Lennon OK until a woman came in between them? Is that what Orci and Abrams want to portray? I wouldn't want Uhura to be a Yoko Ono.

And I agree that the target audience probably don't even know who Lennon and McCartney are, maybe they don't even know there was a band called the Beatles?

 

[xavier]

Weren't McCartney and Lennon OK until a woman came in between them? Is that what Orci and Abrams want to portray? I wouldn't want Uhura to be a Yoko Ono.

And I agree that the target audience probably don't even know who Lennon and McCartney are, maybe they don't even know there was a band called the Beatles?

Yoko came between no one.Uhura is no Yoko. she gets along and has the respect and affection of both kirk and spock. I swear the whole Yoko broke up the Beatles thing is ridiculous.

Orci said he was inspired by Lennon and McCartney to write the kirk and spock friendship. Lennon and McCartney had a very deep bond, their song book collection is a perfect example of such bond. they just naturally grew apart over time but it does not mean their bond of love and affection was broken.

I wish the same for kirk and spock in AOS. TOS kirk and spock already have that because TOS Spock still speaks highly of kirk and talks about a great bind of friendship even now that TOS Kirk is long dead in the prime universe where TOS Spck comes from. Paul does the same for John as well. he still speaks highly of his late dear friend and is on good terms with Yoko.

So I totally get Orci comparing Lennon and McCartney to Kirk and Spock. It makes total sense to me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Weren't McCartney and Lennon OK until a woman came in between them? Is that what Orci and Abrams want to portray? I wouldn't want Uhura to be a Yoko Ono.

And I agree that the target audience probably don't even know who Lennon and McCartney are, maybe they don't even know there was a band called the Beatles?

What's the "target audience"? I know who the Beatles are. My 14 year old Goddaughter knows who the Beatles are.

 

[Malaika]

oh my.... the Lennon/McCartney parallel to Kirk and Spock is something Orci said in reference to the fact, too, that they saw a bit of their own friendship (the one between him and Alex) in the K/S friendship and they related to the whole two guys who are best friends and work together.
I see nothing wrong with that.

Don't take the comparison literally... It's like when Orci says he, as a latino man of cuban/mexican heritage living in the usa, related to Spock more as a kid because Spock was a bit the 'person of color' in the story and an outsider.

Weren't McCartney and Lennon OK until a woman came in between them? Is that what Orci and Abrams want to portray? I wouldn't want Uhura to be a Yoko Ono.

funny enough, Orci had actually commented on this assumption people make about the beatles and he did parallel it to the sexism in the hate Uhura gets in the star trek fandom...

231. boborci - January 29, 2012 If you think Uhura was sexualized because that is all we could think of to make her relevant, then you are having sexist thoughts for not wondering the same about Spock

233. boborci - January 29, 2012 Reminds me of the sexism inherent in blaming Yoko Ono for the break up of the Beatles.

you just proved his point right, it seems.

people blame Yoko Ono for the break up of the beatles because it's easier to blame the malefic asian woman who was his wife and encouraged him do to what felt right for him in that moment (and shared similar interests with him) than acknowledge the simple fact that John had started to change way before he even met her and he wasn't and couldn't be the same boy that created the beatles with Paul. He wanted different things and had different needs as an artist and a man that his friends in the group didn't agree with. He probably fell for Yoko and found a kindred spirit in her precisely because he had already become that man and met her in that moment and not before.

A parallel with S/U could be the fact that people blame Uhura for getting in the way of Kirk/Spock when in reality such relationships shouldn't be mutual exclusive and it's quite immature to act like if a man can't have friends only because he has a significant other (even in the beatles case, the working relationship between Paul and John ended but not their friendship). Spock shouldn't need to be a monk and have his whole existence revolve around Kirk only otherwise fans get 'jealous' someonelse is getting his attention too. It's problematic and a bit unrealistic too to assume that people can get everything they need from friends alone. Nothing wrong about being single but there are different kinds of relationships and there is nothing wrong in wanting to have a significant other as well as a best friend and no one should make a choice between the two because it's simply stupid.

--------------

eta: speaking of John and Paul 'just naturally grew apart over time but it does not mean their bond of love and affection was broken.' a bit of that happened to Kirk and Spock too in tos.
Unpopular opinion here but I always thought that while they were definitely friends and cared a great deal for each other, their friendship had a lot to do with their working relationship and at one point, the latter would end.
There are many things that Kirk, even knowing him since decades, didn't know about Spock and viceversa. That was obvious in the motion picture as well as other movies. They didn't share everything with each other and I don't think their relationship could, alone, give them everything they needed and wanted from life. Above all, they were different people and they probably didn't think the other could understand some personal things. They were a great team and friends, but if I compare them to my own real life friends I find that they were lacking something... and it's that whole being each other confidante and the first person you go when you have a personal problem (not related to work or missions).

 

[Commishsleer]

Unpopular opinion here but I always thought that while they were definitely friends and cared a great deal for each other, their friendship had a lot to do with their working relationship and at one point, the latter would end.
There are many things that Kirk, even knowing him since decades, didn't know about Spock and viceversa. That was obvious in the motion picture as well as other movies. They didn't share everything with each other and I don't think their relationship could, alone, give them everything they needed and wanted from life. Above all, they were different people and they probably didn't think the other could understand some personal things. They were a great team and friends, but if I compare them to my own real life friends I find that they were lacking something... and it's that whole being each other confidante and the first person you go when you have a personal problem (not related to work or missions).

Well I of course disagree.
In TOS Kirk and Spock often just had to give each other a look to know what each other was thinking. They would give their lives for each other and not because it was orders. Kirk was prepared to sacrifice his most precious thing for Spock - his career.

As for best friends telling everything to each other I can relate to Kirk and Spock more.

If I were Kirk (and basically a deadbeat Dad - not by choice) I wouldn't tell anyone about it. It would burn me. I would never want to discuss it. To be reminded of what I'm missing out. And say I was Spock and basically my brother was equivalent to a convicted criminal I would hate to discuss it with anyone. Also if I killed my father I wouldn't be telling anyone about that either.

That's why I don't understand the flak Trek V gets a bit for Kirk not knowing about Spock's brother. It was shown in 'Journey to Babel' and 'Amok Time' that Spock's not going to discuss his disapproving family, bitch-ex and bad childhood.

 

[Malaika]

You disagree and yet, you made examples yourself that agree with my point when I said that they were indeed friends but they obviously didn't share some big personal things with the other because they probably thought the other couldn't help and understand them. A part of them still made them both very lonely people who obviously couldn't get everything from their friendship alone. This no matter how we see it, put them in a different category of friends(perhaps a more realistic everyday kind ) than the one some fans put them into.

 

[Commishsleer]

You disagree and yet, you made examples yourself that agree with my point when I said that they were indeed friends but they obviously didn't share some big personal things with the other because they probably thought the other couldn't help and understand them. A part of them still made them both very lonely people who obviously couldn't get everything from their friendship alone. This no matter how we see it, put them in a different category of friends(perhaps a more realistic everyday kind ) than the one some fans put them into.

I got a friend who tells me when they're on their period and an another who I don't know their brothers or sisters names. That doesn't make me less friends with one than the other.

If you want to see how close Spock and Kirk are (off the top of my head) see "The Tholian Web" (McCoy and Spock in Kirk's cabin), "Requiem for Methuselah" ( Spock's Mind Meld), "The Paradise Syndrome" (entire episode), "Return to Tomorrow" -(Kirk when Spock 'died'), "Amok Time" (Spock's reaction when he found out Kirk was alive.
There are more.
My ultimate proof is Spock's death scene and funeral in TWOK