Why "Star Trek" is not right...

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Spock Prime admits to implying that a dangerous Paradox would occur were Kirk to reveal Spock Prime's existence to anyone.

For Spock Prime to know this implication to be false, a Paradox must be impossible.

Wrong.

For Spock to know this implication to be false, he must know that such a paradox would not be hugely dangerous - "universe-ending" is the exact phrase he uses.

And of course Spock knows this - temporal paradoxes occur all the time in Star Trek. He's been party to causing one or two. All of his experience indicates to him that the universe is not threatened by the existence of temporal paradoxes, though the fates of individuals and societies might be.

There's just no direct statement or strong implication anywhere in this movie that oldSpock and Nero are from anywhere but the future of nuSpock and nuKirk. Indeed, what little sense Nero's behavior makes quite depends on that...and virtually no one watching this movie without being told that it takes place in some "quantum alternative universe/reality" could or would infer that the story is about anything other than time travel.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Serak effectively did by mentioning what he thought Spock’s mother would have said. Then SpockP advises him to put aside logic on this occasion having just made a logical argument that should have clinched matters without resorting to emotion! It’s a human conspiracy I tell you!

I don't suppose it occurred to you that Spock had already done that in choosing to join Starfleet in the first place? He certainly had no LOGICAL reason to snub the Science Academy, except for the perfectly HUMAN reason that after all the work he'd put in to prove himself worthy he still had to put up with other Vulcans looking down on him for being half human, he finally decided "fuck this!" and went to the one place in the universe where everyone would treat him with the respect he deserved.

I agree Spock’s character is a point on the human/vulcan spectrum. I just think he has gone too far toward the human end and this movie continues that slide.

Not so much. A matter of seconds after loosing his temper and beating Lieutenant Kirk within an inch of his life he quickly composes himself, cites the relevant regulations and excuses himself. The most you can say is this is a younger and less mature Spock than we have ever seen, but the same is probably true of the entire crew at this point.

If it keeps up you won’t have much of an internal conflict because he will just operate like a human when he "feels" like it.

Except he always did that. The issue wasn't what he did, but WHY he did it. Finding out when it was appropriate to express his human side and when to suppress it in force was one of Spock's journeys to maturity. Yet even an older and more seasoned Spock has said on more than one occasion, "Logic and reasoning are not enough."

Take the better example of his relationship with Uhura. She asks him in the turbolift "What do you need?" a clearly grief stricken Spock simply replies "I need for everyone on this ship to continue performing admirably." Uhura doesn't seem the least bit offended by an otherwise cold, mechanistic response, and neither does the audience. What else would you expect Spock to say?

I would see that as part of the slide...

I wonder if you realize that by those standards, Spock spent the majority of TOS and all six movies slowly sliding out of character.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

newtype_alpha,

One flaw in this is that you are assuming that at the end, Spock and Spock Prime are incorrect.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply pointing out that IN THE REAL WORLD, just because a character makes a statement of fact does not mean he is correct, even if he happens to be incredibly intelligent. They could both be very wrong about what's happening with the timeline, or they could both be completely correct. Facts are independent of a character's knowledge of them.

Even the circumstantial evidence, setting aside dialogue directly related to theory, point to a Multiverse.

True, but at the end of the day it IS just circumstantial evidence. Plot alone determines fact, not exposition.

In the real world it's improper to come to a judgment that testimony is false based merely on the possibility in stead of the probability error.

Which--considering nobody made a judgement that any testimony is false--is sort of irrelevant. Again, the only thing you can take away from exposition is the character's beliefs about what is happening, but ultimately plot alone determines if those beliefs are correct. Take TUC, for example: the Enterprise crew were able to figure out pretty quickly that a modified Bird of Prey torpedoed Gorkon's ship. This only verified at the end of the film, at which time it is established as fact that the audience has already taken for granted. That the Enterprise crew turned out to be completely wrong for some reason--say, Chang is actually flying a stolen Federation prototype--is one example of a "plot twist."

 

[Saquist]

Which--considering nobody made a judgement that any testimony is false--is sort of irrelevant. Again, the only thing you can take away from exposition is the character's beliefs about what is happening, but ultimately plot alone determines if those beliefs are correct.

Then subsequently your efforts to highlight that possibility are equally irrelevant. But then you attempted to deflect the accusation of assumption by means of that possibility.

Take TUC, for example: the Enterprise crew were able to figure out pretty quickly that a modified Bird of Prey torpedoed Gorkon's ship. This only verified at the end of the film, at which time it is established as fact that the audience has already taken for granted. That the Enterprise crew turned out to be completely wrong for some reason--say, Chang is actually flying a stolen Federation prototype--is one example of a "plot twist."

The crew was working with known possibilities.
At the time apparently no other ships in the Empire were equipped with cloaking devices.
Remember it was a Romulan Bird of Prey at first and this would be consistent with what they all know 15 years ago in Balance of Terror.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which--considering nobody made a judgement that any testimony is false--is sort of irrelevant. Again, the only thing you can take away from exposition is the character's beliefs about what is happening, but ultimately plot alone determines if those beliefs are correct.

Then subsequently your efforts to highlight that possibility are equally irrelevant. But then you attempted to deflect the accusation of assumption by means of that possibility.

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.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Spock Prime admits to implying that a dangerous Paradox would occur were Kirk to reveal Spock Prime's existence to anyone.

For Spock Prime to know this implication to be false, a Paradox must be impossible.

Wrong.

For Spock to know this implication to be false, he must know that such a paradox would not be hugely dangerous - "universe-ending" is the exact phrase he uses.

And of course Spock knows this - temporal paradoxes occur all the time in Star Trek. He's been party to causing one or two. All of his experience indicates to him that the universe is not threatened by the existence of temporal paradoxes, though the fates of individuals and societies might be.

There's just no direct statement or strong implication anywhere in this movie that oldSpock and Nero are from anywhere but the future of nuSpock and nuKirk. Indeed, what little sense Nero's behavior makes quite depends on that...and virtually no one watching this movie without being told that it takes place in some "quantum alternative universe/reality" could or would infer that the story is about anything other than time travel.

So, it comes down to whether the word "dangerous" or "paradoxes" or both in Spock's sentence is the important word.

We don't know either way, based on that incident in-and-of-itself.

Nero's actions make sense to his point of view, and are not an indication of anything.

Irreconcilable events in the movie, without the universe ending, tells me that either a) cause and effect has been violated, or b) a multiverse scenario.

I see no indication in the move that it is not an Alternate Reality (Multiverse) scenario.

Parallels, The Alternative Factor, Mirror Mirror et al. prove that the Multiverse in general is Canon.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Which--considering nobody made a judgement that any testimony is false--is sort of irrelevant. Again, the only thing you can take away from exposition is the character's beliefs about what is happening, but ultimately plot alone determines if those beliefs are correct.

Then subsequently your efforts to highlight that possibility are equally irrelevant. But then you attempted to deflect the accusation of assumption by means of that possibility.

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.

OldSpock is quoting knowledge, not theory, at the end of the movie.

 

[ST-One]

The Kelvin sequence alone is filled with plot errors, mistakes and canon-issues.

Okay, I'll bite...

Canon-issues are irrelevant since the First Contact/Enterprise-timeline isn't the same as the TOS-timeline. - that's the fanboi-explanation

Canon-issues are irrelevant since this movie is a (soft-)reboot.

Mistakes - okay Robau's turbolift goes down when it should go up and the "weapons are offline" only to fire a second later again - are there more?

Plot errors - I don't see any.

 

[Pauln6]

The Kelvin sequence alone is filled with plot errors, mistakes and canon-issues.

Okay, I'll bite...

Canon-issues are irrelevant since the First Contact/Enterprise-timeline isn't the same as the TOS-timeline. - that's the fanboi-explanation

Canon-issues are irrelevant since this movie is a (soft-)reboot.

Mistakes - okay Robau's turbolift goes down when it should go up and the "weapons are offline" only to fire a second later again - are there more?

Plot errors - I don't see any.

Yeah, I think you do have to elevate plot holes above continuity errors. Trek has always been full to bursting with continuity errors - that's part of its charm for the nerds. Changes to the way tech looks are just continuity errors and part of the reboot.

Changing the way tech works is a slightly greater continuity sin and the infamous lack of conststency over time travel mechanics is one of the murkier aspects of the franchise as a whole.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Okay, I'll bite...

Canon-issues are irrelevant since the First Contact/Enterprise-timeline isn't the same as the TOS-timeline. - that's the fanboi-explanation

I hate that excuse. Doesn't it make a million times more sense to say "it's just a TV show"? I doubt a "real" Gorn would look like a guy in a rubber suit, and I don't think computers are going to de-evolve to the point where they can only display blinking coloured squares in 250 years' time. What's STXI got to compare with that?

Canon-issues are irrelevant since this movie is a (soft-)reboot.

Mistakes - okay Robau's turbolift goes down when it should go up and the "weapons are offline" only to fire a second later again - are there more?

That lift shaft may have gone from the bridge deck down to the (hollow?) core of the saucer.
As more more, the red alert siren goes off a second before Robau calls for it

Plot errors - I don't see any.

The closest I can think of is fitting 800 survivors into 16 shuttles, but since Winona's shuttle was #47, it's probable there was another group of shuttles ahread of the one we saw in that final shot.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The "800 survivors" thing doesn't rise to the level of a plot error. It's just a statement that's inconsistent with what we might sensibly expect.

A plot error would require some restructuring of the way the story is told in order to correct; this would be a real simple dialogue edit.

If some subsequent events in the story required the number to be eight hundred and no other, then it might be a plot error.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Then subsequently your efforts to highlight that possibility are equally irrelevant. But then you attempted to deflect the accusation of assumption by means of that possibility.

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.

OldSpock is quoting knowledge, not theory, at the end of the movie.

And "We are now in an alternate timeline" is NOT one of the things he professes to know. He only implies through his actions that "universe ending paradox" will not occur through the meeting of his younger self. Moreover, he seems to know or thinks he knows enough about Kirk and Spock to firmly believe they'll have the same relationship that he did during his timeline. That means he either doesn't know this is an alternate timeline, or he doesn't care.

 

[UFO]

I don't suppose it occurred to you that Spock had already done that in choosing to join Starfleet in the first place? He certainly had no LOGICAL reason to snub the Science Academy, except for the perfectly HUMAN reason that after all the work he'd put in to prove himself worthy he still had to put up with other Vulcans looking down on him for being half human, he finally decided "fuck this!" and went to the one place in the universe where everyone would treat him with the respect he deserved.

Your hypothesis helps support my case that the writers are humanising him and continue to do so later in the movie. But why isn’t it a logical decision to go where he think he will have greater opportunities due to the absence or reduction of prejudice? Wouldn’t it be just as HUMAN to stick it out and SHOW the buggers? The film makes it look like he is giving them the finger for our benefit.

Not so much. A matter of seconds after loosing his temper and beating Lieutenant Kirk within an inch of his life he quickly composes himself, cites the relevant regulations and excuses himself.

After saying he is emotionally compromised (or similar), whatever that means for a (half) Vulcan.

The most you can say is this is a younger and less mature Spock than we have ever seen, but the same is probably true of the entire crew at this point.

I can say more than that, and I did when I pointed out SpockP's and Sarek’s (out of character) advice.

If it keeps up you won’t have much of an internal conflict because he will just operate like a human when he "feels" like it.

Except he always did that. The issue wasn't what he did, but WHY he did it.

No, he very occasionally lost control, often through external factors (whether we call them excuses or not). After the advice he gets in this movie, from people who should know better (well Sarek anyway), to let his feelings go and stop being logical, from now on he may just choose to do so and his humanisation will be pretty much complete. You might as well hire another Bones if he starts deciding consciously when to turn his emotions on and off (not to mention his logic). I believe it is only worthwhile for the character if that happens rarely, accidentally or he is provoked against his will. Please don’t give me that human-centric "maturing", "finding himself", "Logic and reasoning are not enough." business. Anyway, these days we need a character that focuses on reason and logic more than ever. You may not like it but its good for you!

I would see that as part of the slide...

I wonder if you realize that by those standards, Spock spent the majority of TOS and all six movies slowly sliding out of character.

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. A shame, but probably inevitable.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't suppose it occurred to you that Spock had already done that in choosing to join Starfleet in the first place? He certainly had no LOGICAL reason to snub the Science Academy, except for the perfectly HUMAN reason that after all the work he'd put in to prove himself worthy he still had to put up with other Vulcans looking down on him for being half human, he finally decided "fuck this!" and went to the one place in the universe where everyone would treat him with the respect he deserved.

Your hypothesis helps support my case that the writers are humanising him and continue to do so later in the movie.

Yeah... because that's what the original writers did. Remember, Spock's infuriating and controversial choice of careers was established in Babel, where Amanda points out that Sarek was so pissed at Spock that they hadn't spoken to each other for years. Later episodes and some of D.C. Fontana's novels went into it in detail (as did TAS "Yesteryear" IIRC) establishing in more detail that the REASON Spock made this decision was essentially because his mother (and her culture) had always accepted him while his father (and his culture) did not.

But why isn’t it a logical decision to go where he think he will have greater opportunities due to the absence or reduction of prejudice?

Because he doesn't make the decision out of logic. He makes the decision out of respect for his mother and her contribution to his life that Vulcan society has/will always scorn.

After saying he is emotionally compromised (or similar), whatever that means for a (half) Vulcan.

It means the same thing it would for a full-blooded Vulcan. Just ask this guy.

No, he very occasionally lost control, often through external factors (whether we call them excuses or not).

That as well, but TOS is replete with Spocky one-liners, barbs, quips, puns, sarcasm, and the occasional bon mot. I'm referring here only to INTENTIONAL flashes of humanness delivered with a remarkably Vulcan flash.

I'd give you examples, but that would interrupt your personal mythology about who you think Spock to be and you probably won't read them anyway.

After the advice he gets in this movie, from people who should know better (well Sarek anyway), to let his feelings go and stop being logical

How is that out of character? We've known ever since TNG that Sarek married Amanda because he loved her. Apparently, he loved her ALOT. In the prime timeline he kept that under his hat for a hundred and fifty years and never told anyone; in this timeline, he effectively tells Spock in the transporter room "Fuck logic, go kill that guy!" As most of us know, there are few things in this universe other than the love of a woman that can drive a Vulcan into a homicidal rage, and Sarek is apparently reconnecting with Spock to the extent that both of them want Nero dead and only one of them is willing to do something about it.

If anything it humanizes Sarek for only the third time in Trek history. OTOH, it's never been established that having emotions is a human attribute and not a Vulcan one. It is a Vulcan CULTURAL attribute if anything, one that Spock has not always followed even when he wasn't in shock.

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.

 

[Saquist]

Which--considering nobody made a judgement that any testimony is false--is sort of irrelevant. Again, the only thing you can take away from exposition is the character's beliefs about what is happening, but ultimately plot alone determines if those beliefs are correct.

Then subsequently your efforts to highlight that possibility are equally irrelevant. But then you attempted to deflect the accusation of assumption by means of that possibility.

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.

The only measure of fact in canon is through contradiction.
If there is no contradiction there is no means by which to defy the statements.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

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.

OldSpock is quoting knowledge, not theory, at the end of the movie.

And "We are now in an alternate timeline" is NOT one of the things he professes to know. He only implies through his actions that "universe ending paradox" will not occur through the meeting of his younger self. Moreover, he seems to know or thinks he knows enough about Kirk and Spock to firmly believe they'll have the same relationship that he did during his timeline. That means he either doesn't know this is an alternate timeline, or he doesn't care.

That is true to a degree, but by simple deduction, I have pointed out repeatedly that a Linear Timeline is simply not happening here.

Events cannot be reconcoled with TOS. Fact.

Therefore, we either have a Paradox, or a Multiverse.

Since dialogue and events depicted do not show the Universe ending, or establish that it is, then we have to discount the Paradox as a possibility.

Therefore, we are dealing with a Multiverse scenario.

RE: The term Alternate Reality.

Although not explained further, Alternate Reality obviously implies an Alternate Universe to most audiences.

In order to disprove this prevailing theory, one must:

1) Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Alternate Reality does not imply a Multiverse.
2) Prove that cause and effect factually does not apply.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

1) Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Alternate Reality does not imply a Multiverse.
2) Prove that cause and effect factually does not apply.

1) Sorry, burden of proof is on the argument asserting something that's not explicit in the movie, not on folks pointing out that it's not in there. If I say "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Alternate Reality does not imply that Vulcan is made of bacon" that's as reasonable as what you're asking.

2) Again, asking for a kind of negative proof. Cause and effect is violated habitually in time-travel stories, including previous Star Trek. Prove that there's a good reason to ignore all of that and pretend that this story is "special."

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Dennis,

If there is no evidence to the Contrary, and the evidence implies a Multiverse, and Causality in fact makes the linear timeline scenario impossible, then the burden of profe for a linear timeline then falls to you.

If the evidence either way is not clear, then we must fall back upon the writer's intent, until Canon provides an answer.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

In short, prove to me that the writer's assertion about the Multiverse is factually incorrect.

Also, please tell me of any instance in Main Stream Science Fiction where Alternate Reality as a term is not implied to mean a Multiverse of some description.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Then subsequently your efforts to highlight that possibility are equally irrelevant. But then you attempted to deflect the accusation of assumption by means of that possibility.

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.

The only measure of fact in canon is through contradiction.
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.