Just because someone says something in a story doesn't make it true, even in the story.
Why "Star Trek" is not right...
- Thread starter Captain Mike
- Start date
Yes, YOU are pointing this out. OldSpock didn't, and even NuSpock only theorized something similar to this effect. None of the characters in universe have anywhere near enough information to know that for sure. Strictly speaking, YOUR knowledge (that is you, the viewer) of these events is also severely limited to the degree that none of us really know for sure either. We can guess, we can assume, but that's about it.
Why? There's no logical reason whatsoever why the presence of a paradox would have any ill effects at all, let alone ending the universe. The only thing we know is that a universe-ending paradox didn't occur; since it was never established that a universe-ending paradox is even POSSIBLE--even in a single timeline scenario--there's no reason to expect it would occur.
That's easy: the creation of an alternate timeline causes the original timeline to cease to exist, and the new one simply replaces the old.
"Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Time's Arrow" both established this beyond all reasonable doubt. It turns out that in the Trekiverse, causality violations can and do occur in which an effect actually precedes the event that caused it. This is apparently so common that by the 24th century Federation bureaucrats have an entire category for this kind of situation; they call it "predestination paradox," which--in a nutshell--explains how it's possible to travel through time, fuck your grandmother and become your own grandfather without either creating an alternate timeline or destroying the entire universe.
Bajor's "Wormhole Aliens" are in fact an entire civilization built around the premise that causality doesn't apply to everyone. Think about this: when Ben Sisko first encountered them, the concept of linear time was so alien to them that they had to probe his memories just to BEGIN to understand it. By season two and three it was clear they not only understood linear time, they knew enough about it to actually plan and act on the lives of linear beings over the span of several generations. This seems to be something of a contradiction, until you realize that since the wormhole aliens do not exist in linear time, then their first encounter with Sisko is in fact the first time they ever become aware of linear life forms in the first place; they do not become aware of Bajor until AFTER Sisko explains to them what linear time is. And here's the part that'll really fuck with your head: since the orbs, like the Prophets, are not subject to linear time, then the Prophets were able to take the knowledge they gained from Sisko and then retroactively act through the orbs and even through the wormhole to tinker around with Bajoran and even human history: they did, in fact, take it upon themselves to CREATE Ben Sisko in the first place, specifically for the purpose of serving as the emissary of the prophets and help them to understand linear time. IOW, 99% of what the prophets do actually occurs (from our perspective, at least) in the years and centuries BEFORE they have the means to do any of it. The prophets themselves are basically an entire species of walking causality violations.
It's not incorrect. It's just irrelevant, since it was never concretely established on screen and can therefore be modified or ignored at the writer's discretion.
Back To The Future Part II. Doc Brown explicitly says the original timeline no longer exists. There can only be ONE timeline, and once you create an alternate one it takes the place of the original.
For that matter, are these not generic proof that Star Trek supports the existence of a Multiverse?
Disagree completely, the writer's intent is utterly meaningless, only what makes it's way onto the screen or onto the soundtrack matters at all. Similarly, early drafts, interviews with the producer, dvd commentaries, cut scenes, etc., all are irrelevant.
The character's exposition is part of the continuity of the movie, It's part of the overall plot. Unless the character's statements are later in the movie proven to be in error (or a lie), the exposition is pretty much a fact.
Problem with the original timeline ceasing to exist is this, old Spock said in his mindmeld with nuKirk that Nero and the Narada were sucked through time first, after that point the original timeline (the one with old Spock in the "future") still existed.
Even though Nero was already in the past and he had already made all the changes he was ever going to in the past. If the original timeline was gone, Spock could never have subsequently been sucked through time. He wouldn't exist.
What I didn’t know is that the reason for Spock’s decision is known in canon (ie not books).
If later episodes do indeed establish that the reason Spock made this decision was out of respect for his mother and not for good logical reasons, then fair enough. But again that may be seen as supporting my view (on going humanisation) since it wasn’t known originally. I have to admit the idea of Serak being so upset because his son joins Star Fleet makes Vulcans seem a lot more emotional that I would have thought. But then the idea that they are racists isn't exactly expected either. Perhaps the rot set in early!
Then thanks for saving me the trouble of ignoring them. Not everyone is that considerate.
I should have thought it was out of character for any Vulcan. Surely if Vulcans need a means of repressing their feelings then the worst situations are when they need it the most. I will grant you Vulcans don’t seem as logical as their advanced publicity suggests. Probably because humans keep putting words in their mouths.
UFO said:Exactly. Well put.I don’t see a problem with TOS really, though there could be ups and downs. They started off with a great character and have been progressively watering him down ever since to fit in with human expectations.
Sure, according to you the only time Spock was being true to his character was in The Cage. His amused grin and irritation in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is just the first part of his slide into humanism.
I have already said I have no real problems with TOS (and not too many afterwards actually) so I guess you have another reason for "exaggerating" like that. For the record, I think Spock’s amused grin was soon recognised as not something his character would normally do. The rest of the episode looks pretty much standard Spock. In "The Cage" he was even more human so your comment is (let's say) confusing.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Yes, but only from the timetraveler's perspective; he can never go back to the timeline from which he originally came.
As I said earlier, the "Yesterday's Enterprise" timeline bagat the TNG one, in the same way the TOS/TNG/etc universe begat the STXI one.newtype_alpha said:
Just because we found Data's head in "Time's Arrow", and we saw a chain of events leading to Data's head being left in the past again, it doesn't mean for sure that events played out exactly the same in each cycle - i.e. each "cycle" may be a different branching timeline leading to different futures, which loop back creating endless more slightly different futures. Like drawing a circle vs. going nuts on a spirograph.
That's the way it looks to me.
Possibly. Possibly it's a plain old-fashioned time-loop, which ought to be familiar to any skiffy fan.
Arguing that there's anything in this film that negates or even diminishes the likelihood of such a thing is a non-starter on the evidence.
"Any Vulcan" isn't a character, and generalizations are not personality traits. Sarek's character is defined by a hell of a lot more than just the fact that he's a Vulcan.
Or maybe, as I have always believed, they habitually lie to themselves and everyone else to make themselves feel better about the fact that they're basically Romulans at heart?
Then you probably need to go back and re-watch it, paying closer attention to Spock's mannerisms and body language. Start with The Corbomite Maneuver, then skip to "The Menagerie" and tell me if you think these are "watered down" characterizations of Spock.
Think about what you just said here... "Each cycle." How many cycles are there, and how do you count them, and what prevents new cycles from being formed?
Unlss you're dealing with something like the Manheim Effect (in "We'll Always Have Paris" or "Cause and Effect") the loop only repeats once, beginning (if you can call it that) when the original causal factor is temporally displaced, continuing through when it comes into effect, and ending when it comes full circle and causes the original cause to be displaced again-for-the-first-time.
Yes, it's a paradox. Yes, you got it on with your grandmother and therefore you are your own grandfather. Yes, it's confusing and a little bit icky... I missed the part where that's supposed to destroy the universe.
Well, it never has before - why anyone, especially Spock Prime, would ever expect it to now is unfathomable and silly.
Never-the-less it seems a reasonable statement to say its out of character for a Vulcan.
I won't say there is no evidence for that, but I would suggest the best interpretation is that human writers were taking liberties to extract some drama from them and perhaps taking an easy path. I don't think Spock was lying to himself when he refused to give a transfusion to his father in "Journey to Babble". We can really only judge such things on results which are a little less conclusive than they might be.
I seldom need an excuse to watch TOS.
I wouldn’t say "Spock" never displays any hint of emotion but whether that is an intentional part of his character or the result of Nimoy being as human as the writers, is another question. I believe Shatner suggested Nimoy had a had job getting out of character so clearly he was not behaving like a human most of the time and as I said there are probably minor ups and downs. Where it counts he seems to be as I would expect, the majority of the time. I certainly don’t watch Spock searching for minor "errors" or irregularities. It’s the general concept of the character that interests me. Even if you take a purely canonish view of such things, a deliberate, thought out, decision not to control himself, especially on the advice of others, is going too far in my view. There is a chance of the character losing his primary "quality of interest" if that is the way they are going, not to mention doing unStar Trek like things.
No. Because "a Vulcan" is not a character. You might as well be saying it's out of character for "a black guy" not to like hot sauce. Characterization just doesn't work that way.
Of course not. He IS, however, lying whenever he says "Vulcans do not lie," or even the common whopper "I have no feelings about it" or otherwise denies having any emotions at all. He's lying when he says it, and he's lying to himself if he believes it, and part of the reason for both lies is that Vulcans have a reputation to uphold.
I think that's what it means to be reminded that Spock is half human. His Vulcan heritage is only part--in fact, EXACTLY HALF--of his birthright, and on some level he knows that humans also have a reputation to uphold (such as it is) and even at his most Vulcanness, could never bring himself to completely turn his back on that.
According to Nimoy, at least, it's quite intentional. Anyway, it can't be overlooked that Spock is human, to precisely the same degree that he is Vulcan. Why would it surprise you that his human characteristics are never far from the surface?I seldom need an excuse to watch TOS.
For that matter, to what extent are Spock's "human" attributes even unique to humanity? Again, there's nothing in the definition of "Vulcan" that makes for a working characterization, and of the Vulcans we've seen over the years, I'd have to say that NONE of them ever failed to display some visible if highly suppressed emotional responses, especially when prodded. "Emotionless" just doesn't seem to be a trait you can described to Vulcans. Detached, certainly, and Spock was always that, but even Sarek's emotions peak through his logical exterior, especially when it comes to his family.
What are you even talking about? There's no such thing as "error" where it comes to characterization, you either establish who this person is or you don't. If you establish two things about a character that seem contradictory--say, in Act I you find out he's a homosexual and in Act III you discover he's fallen in love with a girl from down the street--then you've got a contradictory character trait; if you've done your job right, that contradiction becomes a point of internal struggle in that character's makeup from two disparate forces battling for supremacy of his soul, and that conflict helps to define him as a person. The worst you can say is "This character makes no sense... he's confused, his motives are inconsistent..." and if the writers are really on top of their game, the FACT that he's confused and the inconsistency of his motives turn out to be the reason why he is the way he is, and his development AS a character depends on what he decides to do about it.
But character that never evolves beyond "general concept" isn't a character, it's a charicature, little more than a walking plot device whose sole purpose is to advance the plot by introducing a specific class of information during Red Alert (Travis Maywether, for example). Charicatures don't require or benefit from characterization, because they're not SUPPOSED to be real people, they're simply vessels onto which the reader/viewer is supposed to project his own inadequacies and desires as a way to identify with the story.
The point is "The guy who controls his emotions all the time" isn't one of Spock's most memorable character traits, anymore than "the guy who gets all the alien poontang" was one of Kirk's. Control is important for Vulcans, and it's important for Spock, but the thing you're supposed to understand from this scene is that Sarek and Spock both loved Amanda a hell of a lot more than they loved being logical.
If "all" "black guys" are reputed to like hot sauce and spend years training to like it, etc, then suggesting it is unlikely for a particular individual to hate hot sauce seems reasonable, whether "characterisation" is the correct way to put it or not.
Even if something is intentional, it doesn’t mean an audience will take it as intended. Also, why should we assume that genetics will behave that way (an equal distribution of all characteristics). Maybe he chose to identify as a Vulcan because his emotional responses were essentially Vulcan and that was his best response?
I’m talking about possible errors on the part of the actor or writers which may seem to contradict what the character is "supposed" to be like.
Well, if not all, then certainly most of the time, plus he’s known for being logical of course.
I'm not sure they are supposed to "love" being logical. They could view it as a necessary evil for all I know. I see it as an important point of difference and not one I like to see compromised in the name of character evolution. If they want to see how humans would handle that situation, why use Vulcans except maybe to take them down a step or two?
I take your point about charicatures but that is best avoided by making the character well rounded not by "evolving" one of his most important qualities in a direction that makes him less significant, IMO.
While we are on character evolution, why is this a part of Spock’s character that must evolve and why in the direction of greater humanity? Why is a so-called balance the correct solution? Internal struggles are fine, but why cannot it emerge that the best result is the status quo, at least in this department? These are probably not questions that can really be answered except as a matter of opinion.
Anyway, I prefer keeping Spock more at the Vulcan end of the spectrum however imperfect that is or has become. You, as far as I can tell, don't appear to. Since that doesn't look like it will change, I don't know that discussing peripheral or technical issues will help much.
Last edited:
Good show Buck, but sadly you're facing the Trek equivalent of Creationists here.
Unlikely is one thing, since it's just a statement of probability. It's just as improbable (reputedly) for Muslims to drink whiskey, but if you're introduced to a Muslim character with a drinking problem, "Out of character" doesn't fit the bill.
True. YOU obviously didn't, for example. But actors and writers can hardly be blamed by an audience that chooses to ignore THEIR characterizations and supply their own to make themselves feel better.
For one thing, it's not an assumption. If Spock was born to a human mother, it means that his X-Chromosome is identical to Amanda's and his Y chromosome (or V chromosome, or whatever it is Vulcans have) is identical to Sarek's.
Probably true, but character traits are defined at least as much (probably more so) by upbringing as by genetics.
And in doing so you imply that you know better than Gene Rodenbbery and Leanord Nimoy what Spock is "supposed" to be like. Realistically, you're not even ahead of Zachary Quinto at this point.
Wouldn't matter if it was ALL of the time. It's a background trait, not a character trait.
And I've already pointed out to you it is a character evolution that we have already seen before in TOS and the films. I seem to recall Sarek's EXACT words in TSFS "Forgive me, T'lan, but my logic is uncertain where my son is concerned." Those of us with an eye for subtlety will now how pissed off Sarek was at Kirk for failing to bring his body back to Vulcan.
Speaking of characterization, in the Novelization of TSFS (and, apparently, the original script) Kirk tells Sarek that the reason he didn't bring Spock's corpse back to Vulcan is because he specified in his will that he didn't want to be buried on Vulcan, and Kirk points out that the decision makes perfect sense in light of all the prejudice and vitriol he had to endure over the years.
Perhaps because that's exactly how two Vulcans--in particular, a Vulcan named Sarek and his half-Vulcan son Spock--WOULD handle that situation? Sarek, after all, maintains control through the entire situation, the whole time on Enterprise, and even when he tells Spock "just let it out," he merely ADMITS to having those emotions, never stoops to expressing them. Hell, even Spock only SHOWS his emotional state while quietly asking Kirk "Do we really have to save this guy?"
I repeat: "Suppressing my emotions all the time" is not one of Spock's most important qualities.
Because the writers (and Nimoy) decided to, forty years ago during the original run of TOS and all six movies. Moreover, every attempt Spock has made to move the OTHER way (closer to Vulcan, closer to Sarek) either left him unfulfilled, or was somehow derailed by his human heritage.
As far as concept character, Spock is not an alien. Spock is a biracial child from two VERY different cultures, trying to thread a needle between both of them. You'll notice that Spock never makes it all the way to human either; with the exception of a prolonged Spore bender, he's just as miserable trying to be a human as he is trying to be Vulcan.
Because for Spock, the status quo is and has always been a long painful struggle to reconcile two COMPLETELY incompatible cultural backgrounds. That's not a deviation or a mistake, that's who Spock is.
Saquist
Commodore
The only measure of fact in canon is through contradiction.Uh... yeah...
Anyway, the point is dialog and character supposition don't BY DEFINITION add up to canonical fact. Spock and OldSpock have a theory that happens to fit the facts, but at the end of the day only the facts are actually canon.
If there is no contradiction there is no means by which to defy the statements.
Not really. That there is only a single prototype bird of prey that can figure while cloaked is not a canonical fact; only Valeris' statement to that effect is canon.
Put that another way "Bob says that John murdered his wife" and "John Murdered his wife" are not equivalent. The former describes Bob's statement, the latter describes John's actions. In the context of a TV trope, "Bob says John murdered his wife" conveniently translates into "John murdered his wife" quite a bit more frequently than it does in reality.
Under Officialism the rules are different than in reality. Characters are presumed right until proven wrong. That doesn't maintain in reality but under canon it's the only position one can take.
The problem--if you could even call it that--is that the TV show is supposed to be reflective of reality, the characters are supposed to behave as if they're NOT operating under officialism. More than just "I have a theory that happens to fit the facts," in such cases that's the best anyone could hope for. It's more along the lines of "I have an incredibly sophisticated and elaborate plan based on a theory that happens to fit the facts" and have it turn out to work perfectly every time.
That STXI managed to avoid this tradition is something I find a bit refreshing, especially since it reminds us of the often overlooked fact that we don't necessarily NEED to understand everything that's happening in Star Trek, and neither do the protagonists.
Similar threads
- Poll
