Why did they bother...

[YARN]

They're obviously friends for no discernible reason in Where No Man... yet I've never seen anyone complain.

Actually, they are not obviously friends in that episode. They don't even appear to know each other that well. "Ah, another one of your Earth emotions..." -- Spock does not even yet have a robust theory of mind regarding humans to interpret the moods and attitudes of humans around him.

Kirk is more chummy with his male human counterparts (chatting about Spock's oddness). Spock is a subordinate in that episode. He is an outsider in that episode and it is his alien nature that allows him to see that Gary Mitchell must be killed or stranded.

 

[BillJ]

He's playing 3D chess with Kirk, calls him Jim, has the guts to tell him to strand Mitchell. They were friends.

 

[YARN]

He's playing 3D chess with Kirk, calls him Jim,

He's genuinely surprised when he loses.

He is not familiar with Earth emotions and he is not familiar with Kirk as a player.

He's familiar enough with Kirk to call him "Jim", but no one would watch that episode and conclude that they're bros.

has the guts to tell him to strand Mitchell. They were friends.

Dude, he's the XO and Mitchell is a threat not only to the ship but all sentient life he encounters. It's his job.

Finally, are we really going to apologize for nuTrek by attacking the earliest episodes of the original series?

Keep lowering the bar kids.

 

[BillJ]

Didn't realize recognizing something about the show was considered an "attack".

 

[YARN]

Didn't realize recognizing something about the show was considered an "attack".

You're excusing the new on the basis of the old, attempting to exculpate the former by deprecating the latter. Yes, it's an attack. It's not an OMG! Heretic! sort of thing, but it fits a well-worn pattern of nuTrek apologists; NuTrek is OK, because it is no worse than OldTrek. To pull this off, you have to smear old Trek with criticisms aimed at NuTrek. You're not pulling anything up, but pulling the opposition down.

 

[Kemaiku]

"Smear"? "attack"? it's a movie, bring the blood pressure down there a little.

 

[sj4iy]

Didn't realize recognizing something about the show was considered an "attack".

You're excusing the new on the basis of the old, attempting to exculpate the former by deprecating the latter. Yes, it's an attack. It's not an OMG! Heretic! sort of thing, but it fits a well-worn pattern of nuTrek apologists; NuTrek is OK, because it is no worse than OldTrek. To pull this off, you have to smear old Trek with criticisms aimed at NuTrek. You're not pulling anything up, but pulling the opposition down.

It's not an attack, it's an opinion. You can't "attack" a show, because it doesn't care if you like it or not.. You can attack a person's opinion, however.

 

[RAMA]

Spock had a relationship with a human woman six years prior to season one of TOS per "This Side of Paradise".

No, he didn't. Relevant quotes:


ELIAS: You've known the Vulcanian?
LEILA: On Earth, six years ago.
ELIAS: Did you love him?
LEILA: If I did, it was important only to myself.
ELIAS: How did he feel?
LEILA: Mister Spock's feelings were never expressed to me. It is said he has none to give.

...

LEILA: I love you. I said that six years ago, and I can't seem to stop repeating myself. On Earth, you couldn't give anything of yourself. You couldn't even put your arms around me. We couldn't have anything together there. We couldn't have anything together anyplace else. We're happy here. (crying) I can't lose you now, Mister Spock. I can't.
SPOCK: I have a responsibility to this ship, to that man on the Bridge. I am what I am, Leila, and if there are self-made purgatories, then we all have to live in them. Mine can be no worse than someone else's.

Clearly it was a one-sided 'relationship' in which Leila pined after Spock, but her affections were not returned due to his Vulcan stoicism.

I agree with the original poster. These characters do not resemble the originals. They are one-dimensional parodies and don't even get the basic character traits right.

Complete opposite for me, I like them because the casting was phenomenal, and instead of devolving into popular caricatures, they actually have a fantastic life of their own.

RAMA

 

[sj4iy]

Complete opposite for me, I like them because the casting was phenomenal, and instead of devolving into popular caricatures, they actually have a fantastic life of their own.

RAMA

So do I. I feel like I can relate these characters better than I ever knew the other characters. There are more layers. For example, they make mistakes- even Spock. I also enjoy the unexpectedness of it all. I knew what would happen in TOS- I honestly have no idea what will happen here, there are so many possibilities.

 

[YARN]

Didn't realize recognizing something about the show was considered an "attack".

You're excusing the new on the basis of the old, attempting to exculpate the former by deprecating the latter. Yes, it's an attack. It's not an OMG! Heretic! sort of thing, but it fits a well-worn pattern of nuTrek apologists; NuTrek is OK, because it is no worse than OldTrek. To pull this off, you have to smear old Trek with criticisms aimed at NuTrek. You're not pulling anything up, but pulling the opposition down.

It's not an attack, it's an opinion. You can't "attack" a show, because it doesn't care if you like it or not.. You can attack a person's opinion, however.

1). Attack and defense is part of reasoned discussion. It is not "bad" to attack something. It is only bad to attack something illicitly. The never-ending Tu Quoque (You're Trek was bad too!) is an illicit attack.

2). That was not simply an "opinion" but a move in a discussion.

a. I endorse RLM's claim that there is no apparent reason why Kirk and Spock are friends.

b. BillJ responds by stating that there was no apparent reason that they were friends in a very early episode of the show.

"b." is a response to "a." BillJ is leveraging his "opinion" as a "reason" challenging my perception of the film. This was not a simple random observation, but a move in an argument.

NOTE: BillJ has not been qualifying his opinions as mere opinions, but stating them as fact-assertions.

EX:

They're obviously friends for no discernible reason in Where No Man... yet I've never seen anyone complain.

He's playing 3D chess with Kirk, calls him Jim, has the guts to tell him to strand Mitchell. They were friends.

Since facts are rationally binding, this implies that his claims are also binding on anyone in a reasoned discussion. That is, he is not saying, "This is my opinion, take it or leave it," but rather challenging my point of view. And good for him for doing so. Again, my only complaint is that his reasoning is wrong, not that he is attacking or that he is attempting to use reasons. It's not just that he's factually wrong in terms of interpretation (we can argue about that), but that his reasoning pattern is illicit. Attacking my reasons - good. Attacking Old Trek to "equalize" or deflect attention from the the New? That's bad.

 

[BillJ]

Didn't realize recognizing something about the show was considered an "attack".

You're excusing the new on the basis of the old, attempting to exculpate the former by deprecating the latter. Yes, it's an attack. It's not an OMG! Heretic! sort of thing, but it fits a well-worn pattern of nuTrek apologists; NuTrek is OK, because it is no worse than OldTrek. To pull this off, you have to smear old Trek with criticisms aimed at NuTrek. You're not pulling anything up, but pulling the opposition down.

Its called a comparison. I have no problem with Kirk/Spock being friends in "Where No Man...", I have no problem with them being friends in Star Trek Into Darkness.

Picking on the film because Kirk and Spock are friends is one of the dumbest criticisms I've seen yet.

 

[Pauln6]

It is my considered opinion that casting actors according to their ethnicity is the worst part of Affirmative Action. Not casting the best actor for a role because he is not the right race is the definition of racism.

Disagree if you like, but it won't change my opinion.

Um okay, but if the character you're casting is supposed to be black or Asian or whatever, then wouldn't someone who is black or Asian or whatever be the best actor for a role?

Look, in some cases, yes, race is trivial to a character and anyone of any ethnicity can be cast. Others, race is essential. If you were doing a Martin Luther King biopic, you wouldn't cast a white guy as Martin Luther King, would you?

I assume casting the best actor for the role is why so few of the characters in Star Trek are played by women. Women are widely known to be terrible, terrible actors. Luckily there are plenty of superior men to play the parts instead.

Don't be deluded. Talented though Cumberbatch is, he was cast because they wanted him. There are plenty of other actors, including many Indians, who could have played the part just as well. The Eddie Murphy movie Boomerang made the point very effectively.

Ethnicity can be mutable but sometimes that can ring hollow when every character ends up being played by a caucasian actor. Angel Coulby played a fantastic Gwenivere in Merlin, there have been two black Felix Leiters, and Naomi Harris was a breath of fresh air in the last Bond movie.

 

[RAMA]

Didn't realize recognizing something about the show was considered an "attack".

You're excusing the new on the basis of the old, attempting to exculpate the former by deprecating the latter. Yes, it's an attack. It's not an OMG! Heretic! sort of thing, but it fits a well-worn pattern of nuTrek apologists; NuTrek is OK, because it is no worse than OldTrek. To pull this off, you have to smear old Trek with criticisms aimed at NuTrek. You're not pulling anything up, but pulling the opposition down.

Its called a comparison. I have no problem with Kirk/Spock being friends in "Where No Man...", I have no problem with them being friends in Star Trek Into Darkness.

What's more there is growth, obviously the end of STID is leading them to a much deeper friendship that they acknowledge somewhat more openly. I honestly can't wait till the next movie.

RAMA

 

[YARN]

Its called a comparison. I have no problem with Kirk/Spock being friends in "Where No Man...", I have no problem with them being friends in Star Trek Into Darkness.

But you see no reason why they would be friends in the former. You, apparently, do not care if there is any plausible reason why characters would have a bond of friendship in a story.

OK, but some of us actually do care if it makes sense that people would actually care about each other.

Picking on the film because Kirk and Spock are friends is one of the dumbest criticisms I've seen yet.

It would be, if that were the criticism. But it isn't, so there's that.

 

[sj4iy]

You're excusing the new on the basis of the old, attempting to exculpate the former by deprecating the latter. Yes, it's an attack. It's not an OMG! Heretic! sort of thing, but it fits a well-worn pattern of nuTrek apologists; NuTrek is OK, because it is no worse than OldTrek. To pull this off, you have to smear old Trek with criticisms aimed at NuTrek. You're not pulling anything up, but pulling the opposition down.

It's not an attack, it's an opinion. You can't "attack" a show, because it doesn't care if you like it or not.. You can attack a person's opinion, however.

1). Attack and defense is part of reasoned discussion. It is not "bad" to attack something. It is only bad to attack something illicitly. The never-ending Tu Quoque (You're Trek was bad too!) is an illicit attack.

2). That was not simply an "opinion" but a move in a discussion.

a. I endorse RLM's claim that there is no apparent reason why Kirk and Spock are friends.

b. BillJ responds by stating that there was no apparent reason that they were friends in a very early episode of the show.

"b." is a response to "a." BillJ is leveraging his "opinion" as a "reason" challenging my perception of the film. This was not a simple random observation, but a move in an argument.

NOTE: BillJ has not been qualifying his opinions as mere opinions, but stating them as fact-assertions.

EX:

They're obviously friends for no discernible reason in Where No Man... yet I've never seen anyone complain.

He's playing 3D chess with Kirk, calls him Jim, has the guts to tell him to strand Mitchell. They were friends.

Since facts are rationally binding, this implies that his claims are also binding on anyone in a reasoned discussion. That is, he is not saying, "This is my opinion, take it or leave it," but rather challenging my point of view. And good for him for doing so. Again, my only complaint is that his reasoning is wrong, not that he is attacking or that he is attempting to use reasons. It's not just that he's factually wrong in terms of interpretation (we can argue about that), but that his reasoning pattern is illicit. Attacking my reasons - good. Attacking Old Trek to "equalize" or deflect attention from the the New? That's bad.

See, it's not "challenging your point of view" to state that they didn't like what you liked. It's just their opinion. I read nothing in the disagreement that sounded like an attack on your position. And it has nothing to do with "equalizing" it, it simply is saying "I didn't like this, but I liked this." You don't like the movie and you've picked it apart, but no one claimed you were attacking the movie. Disliking the movie doesn't validate the series, nor does disliking the series validate the movie. It's all a matter of preference, and many people like both (my husband) or hate both (several people I know).

 

[YARN]

See, it's not "challenging your point of view" to state that they didn't like what you liked.

Depends on how it is framed. Evaluations may be offered a "mere opinions" which do not imply a burden of acceptance/rejoinder or they may be framed strongly, in which case there is such an implication.

Also, BillJ wasn't simply talking about what he liked, but was rather offering a competing interpretation. That is, what he did was make a statement about "the facts of the case" (i.e., did they or did they not have any discernible reason to be friends?).

This interpretation, of course, is implicitly connected to disrupting evaluation - See, Old Trek shares the same properties as New Trek, so you cannot criticize it for having the same properties.

Also, when BillJ announces that criticizing Kirk and Spock for being friends is the "dumbest criticism ever," would you say that is a challenge or merely an innocent opinion?

Besides this. Crucially. Besides this, there is nothing wrong with challenging another person's point of view. This is why we invented language.

It's just their opinion. I read nothing in the disagreement that sounded like an attack on your position. And it has nothing to do with "equalizing" it, it simply is saying "I didn't like this, but I liked this." You don't like the movie and you've picked it apart, but no one claimed you were attacking the movie.

How do you know that I didn't like the movie? Liking a movie and criticizing a movie are two different things.

Indeed, I have attacked the film for having faults. But this is all part of reasoned discussion. Again, I can attack the faults of a film that I "like." What I object to are illicit attacks.

To have a robust discussion of the film we have to be able to freely interpret, evaluate, and describe. All of these will involve making arguments. The clash of arguments always involves attack and defense.

 

[sj4iy]

See, it's not "challenging your point of view" to state that they didn't like what you liked.

Depends on how it is framed. Evaluations may be offered a "mere opinions" which do not imply a burden of acceptance/rejoinder or they may be framed strongly, in which case there is such an implication.

Also, BillJ wasn't simply talking about what he liked, but was rather offering a competing interpretation. That is, what he did was make a statement about "the facts of the case" (i.e., did they or did they not have any discernible reason to be friends?).

This interpretation, of course, is implicitly connected to disrupting evaluation - See, Old Trek shares the same properties as New Trek, so you cannot criticize it for having the same properties.

Also, when BillJ announces that criticizing Kirk and Spock for being friends is the "dumbest criticism ever," would you say that is a challenge or merely an innocent opinion?

Besides this. Crucially. Besides this, there is nothing wrong with challenging another person's point of view. This is why we invented language.

It's just their opinion. I read nothing in the disagreement that sounded like an attack on your position. And it has nothing to do with "equalizing" it, it simply is saying "I didn't like this, but I liked this." You don't like the movie and you've picked it apart, but no one claimed you were attacking the movie.

How do you know that I didn't like the movie? Liking a movie and criticizing a movie are two different things.

Indeed, I have attacked the film for having faults. But this is all part of reasoned discussion. Again, I can attack the faults of a film that I "like." What I object to are illicit attacks.

To have a robust discussion of the film we have to be able to freely interpret, evaluate, and describe. All of these will involve making arguments. The clash of arguments always involves attack and defense.

You're accusing people of attacking the show just to make the movie look better, and I don't see that at all. I see people supporting their arguments by using examples from the show to prove their points. If I say "Kirk in TOS was a womanizer" and then show a video of every woman he kissed or fooled around with to support my point, it's not criticizing the show. It's using the evidence to support my claim. That's what other people are doing, and I don't see how it makes the movie better, or vice versa. It's the essence of debate.

 

[BillJ]

Do we really have to flag every comment as an opinion now? Of course they are opinions!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Do we really have to flag every comment as an opinion now? Of course they are opinions!

Pfft. My posts are the Voice Of God.

 

[BillJ]

Do we really have to flag every comment as an opinion now? Of course they are opinions!

Pfft. My posts are the Voice Of God.