Was there a need for an alternate timeline?

[Greg Cox]

Sometimes a little "revisionism" is not a bad thing.

Granted, any scenario that relies heavily on "The Cloud Minders" and "The Way to Eden" is a little suspect.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I won't argue that that interpretation improves those episodes, in those aspects. It had certainly never occurred to me.

However, it did occur to me that someone must have thought that Spock was too stiff, and loosened him up for the sake of the audience (as opposed to the sake of the character) in The Cloud Minders. I understand that David Gerrold wasn't happy with how the episode turned out, but I don't know how he felt about this particular detail.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It is hardly surprising that human authors would write stories that draw those kind of conclusions or have those attitudes to Spocks character. The fantastic thing for me was that at least Spock represented the alternative view.

But that alternative view is only presented to show it's faults. Spock was created to do this. His views are not actually non-human or alien but just one aspect of humanity's. Humans are complex. We can be as cold and logical as Vulcans, as violent as Klingons, as paranoid as Romulans, as greedy as Ferengi, as Spiritual as Bajorans and as oppressive as Cardassians. It's our battles between those urges that Star Trek tries to illustrate.

And what I'm saying is that we need Spock to continue to advocate the reasonable conponent of human nature. I certainly don't believe Spock was created to show how faulty reason is. It may not always be the way to go but I don't want Kirk trying to convince Spock to be logical!

Ah, but Spock doesn't represent reason.

 

[Greg Cox]

I won't argue that that interpretation improves those episodes, in those aspects. It had certainly never occurred to me.

However, it did occur to me that someone must have thought that Spock was too stiff, and loosened him up for the sake of the audience (as opposed to the sake of the character) in The Cloud Minders.

Maybe somebody just wanted to take advantage of the fact that, unexpectedly, Spock had become a sex symbol!

 

[UFO]

Although the RL reason may be simply not having his character traits figured out yet (Spock was basically human with pointed ears in "The Cage", then had Number One's personality grafted on in "Where No Man..." when that character was dropped), flashbacks in "The Minagerie" show Spock smiling at pretty space flowers. They could have edited that and other emotional bits out if they wanted. Spock's ultracool personality was well-established by then in the series proper, but they intentionally kept those glimpses of emotion in to show how he'd changed and matured in the past 13 years.

Many novels set during the pre-TOS era, like D.C Fontana's Vulcan's Glory feature a more vulnerable young Spock, whose emotions are closer to the surface.

You make a good case for the intentions of the producers etc, but you may be going too far to state it as a fact unless you have a good source. However that still doesn't make much sense to me. In "Journey to Babel" the young Spock is made to seem even more Vulcan that he is in ST09 (where his emotions did finally get the better of him). Certainly I can't imagine young ST09 Spock smiling as he does in both of the pilots. To me it does make sense that Spock will be at his most "Vulcany" fresh out of school (apparently its all down hill from there ).

If they intentionally left that scene in, rather than it just being filler, I think they made a poor choice. As for the novels, wouldn't they take the hint from that choice rather than being independent comfirmation?

Plus, being stuck on a starship with emotional humans for a five-year mission is bound to rub off a bit, or at least encourage you to explore your human side more than you would among Vulcans.

Yeah, humans are very corrupting critters. However that does run counter to the idea that young Spock was already pretty laid back and became less so.

Ah, but Spock doesn't represent reason.

Only because "Reasonble" didn't sound as cool as "Logical".

Maybe somebody just wanted to take advantage of the fact that, unexpectedly, Spock had become a sex symbol!

Enough with the raping of my childhood already!

 

[Therin of Andor]

They should have just made a new TV series about Voyeger

Really? Why? DS9's ratings were lower than TNG's. VOY's were lower than DS9. ENT's were lower than VOY's. How low did you want to see them go?

Shatner will always be Kirk, Chris Pine is not.

I didn't hear you screaming when five actors played Spock in ST III?

 

[Desert Kris]

I didn't hear you screaming when five actors played Spock in ST III?

Someone was screaming all the way through that movie. Frank Welker, I think. That sounds right. Spock's screaming.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Ah, but Spock doesn't represent reason.

Only because "Reasonble" didn't sound as cool as "Logical".

But logic is not always "reasonable" or even right. Spock represents the facts. The cold hard facts. McCoy compassion, empathy and heart. Kirk is the one needs to find the reasonable compromise between the two extremes.

 

[UFO]

Ah, but Spock doesn't represent reason.

Only because "Reasonble" didn't sound as cool as "Logical".

But logic is not always "reasonable" or even right. Spock represents the facts. The cold hard facts. McCoy compassion, empathy and heart. Kirk is the one needs to find the reasonable compromise between the two extremes.

Well I accept that using the word "reasonable" wasn't quite right because "reasonable" goes beyond reason! I should have simply disagreed with your view that Spock doesn't represent reason. After all logic isn't about facts, it's a form of reasoning. So already we know he is more that just a font of data.

Moreover it does Spock a huge injustice to imply he is only about "cold hard facts". We also saw in "Journey to Babel" that he is an individual of honour and principle when he refused to give blood to his own father despite his mother's urgings, because he was in command of the Enterprise. You may view that as cold, but it's not without reason.

I agree though, that he represent reasoning (as opposed to reasonableness) taken close to an extreme at times. Where upon McCoy supplies the balance you indicate. But Spock isn't always wrong or even in need of compromise etc, as we saw in WNMHGB.

Why is it OK to water down the reasoning of a character in such a way that it at least intermittently fails at the worst possible times, but its fine to leave McCoy as is? If Spock becomes another Kirk, it’s two against one!

My main complaint is that the one character who was tasked with defending reason and reasoning (if not being "reasonable") is being encouraged "by all and sundry" (OK, at least two) to give it up completely, and just do what feels right, when it counts. Bad enough if he just cracks, without others egging him on. As I've said, this will be one of the interesting parts of the next movie for me: which Spock will he be?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Isn't that often what Spock winds up doing in many episodes centered around him? "The Galileo Seven" comes to mind. WNMHGB places him it a different role, that of adviser. He may have been right about killing Gary on the spot. But that wouldn't serve the story, which required Kirk taking on Gary mano-a-mano and giving a nice little speech about humanity.

Spock is a complex character and serves many functions in a Trek story. He can be the standard bearer for reason, logic and science. He can also represent the outsider who can comment on human foilbles. He also can be used to show that compassion and emotions are important in decision making.

 

[M'Sharak]

Only because "Reasonble" didn't sound as cool as "Logical".

But logic is not always "reasonable" or even right. Spock represents the facts. The cold hard facts. McCoy compassion, empathy and heart. Kirk is the one needs to find the reasonable compromise between the two extremes.

Well I accept that using the word "reasonable" wasn't quite right because "reasonable" goes beyond reason! I should have simply disagreed with your view that Spock doesn't represent reason. After all logic isn't about facts, it's a form of reasoning. So already we know he is more that just a font of data.

Moreover it does Spock a huge injustice to imply he is only about "cold hard facts". We also saw in "Journey to Babel" that he is an individual of honour and principle when he refused to give blood to his own father despite his mother's urgings, because he was in command of the Enterprise. You may view that as cold, but it's not without reason.

I agree though, that he represent reasoning (as opposed to reasonableness) taken close to an extreme at times. Where upon McCoy supplies the balance you indicate. But Spock isn't always wrong or even in need of compromise etc, as we saw in WNMHGB.

Why is it OK to water down the reasoning of a character in such a way that it at least intermittently fails at the worst possible times, but its fine to leave McCoy as is? If Spock becomes another Kirk, it’s two against one!

My main complaint is that the one character who was tasked with defending reason and reasoning (if not being "reasonable") is being encouraged "by all and sundry" (OK, at least two) to give it up completely, and just do what feels right, when it counts. Bad enough if he just cracks, without others egging him on. As I've said, this will be one of the interesting parts of the next movie for me: which Spock will he be?

OK, now compare & contrast Spock's reaction to the death of his mother and destruction of Vulcan with his reaction to the "death" of Intrepid and her Vulcan crew in "The Immunity Syndrome".

 

[UFO]

Isn't that often what Spock winds up doing in many episodes centered around him? "The Galileo Seven" comes to mind.

If Spock were really that poor at commanding others how did he get to be a first officer let alone the best in the fleet? "The Galileo Seven" comes across as a cheap shot on the part of the writer(s) to me. A reasoning being would be able to take into account the fact that others see things differently. This should be no surprise to Spock.

OK, now compare & contrast Spock's reaction to the death of his mother and destruction of Vulcan with his reaction to the "death" of Intrepid and her Vulcan crew in "The Immunity Syndrome".

Actually you raise an interesting point. If Spock is almost doubled over by the pain (which had an almost physical aspect) of the death of 400 Vulcans in "The Immunity Syndrome", we would think the death of six billion Vulcans at a much closer range over a period of perhaps a few minutes should have had nuSpock hospitalised for the duration! Yet I don’t think we see nuSpock displaying any "macro" physical symptoms. Of course in TIS Spock does recover pretty quickly and is again ready for duty, so that bit is the same. Well until Kirk needs an excuse to grab the big chair.

But I’m not sure I have covered the point you may have intended?

*** Edit: Actually it would have been an honourable way for Kirk to assume command if Spock had been put out of action by the death of Vulcan. A missed opportunity perhaps.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Isn't that often what Spock winds up doing in many episodes centered around him? "The Galileo Seven" comes to mind.

If Spock were really that poor at commanding others how did he get to be a first officer let alone the best in the fleet? "The Galileo Seven" comes across as a cheap shot on the part of the writer(s) to me. A reasoning being would be able to take into account the fact that others see things differently. This should be no surprise to Spock.

Sometimes you have to remember its just a TV show and the writers are just creating drama. Spock is the way he is because he's written to provide a certain POV or to create the aforementioned drama. Which is better than when he's just Commander Exposition.