Why "Star Trek" is not right...

[UFO]

Even if something is intentional, it doesn’t mean an audience will take it as intended.

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.

Let's try to sort this out: Blame is hardly and issue either way. Characters can take on a life of their own. Most writers are mature enough to admit that audiences will take their own view without getting bitter and twisted or attributing their audience with deliberate waywardness. Why viewers may take a different view could simply be due to accepting the dominant and most important part of the character. After all its his differences from the human norm that make him iconic.

I don’t see the occasional "flash" of emotion as an issue so long as he generally behaves in a logical way. Even the lack of emotional display or action is really a means to an end. An important end and one that may work for Vulcans however imperfect at times. Spock is showing us an aspect of ourselves of course. I don’t want to see that undermined.

Also, why should we assume that genetics will behave that way (an equal distribution of all characteristics).

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.

Your knowledge of genetics must be a lot greater than mine to be so sure of your view. My understanding is some traits can be regressive and I was merely suggesting that might be the case with emotions in Spock’s case. That doesn’t seem impossible.

Maybe he chose to identify as a Vulcan because his emotional responses were essentially Vulcan and that was his best response?

Probably true, but character traits are defined at least as much (probably more so) by upbringing as by genetics.

I believe that's still highly questionable even with humans. However clearly Vulcans have a genetic predisposition for emotional violence etc or they wouldn’t need to try to suppress it so strongly. At least that’s the assumption we are working with.

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.

That seems an aggressive and illogical conclusion. I merely allow for them being human or having a bad day. Being emotionless must be hard for an actor. It apparently was for Nimoy. I make no claim for Trekkies, but I am hardly alone in my general view of Spock whatever was intended.

Wouldn't matter if it was ALL of the time. It's a background trait, not a character trait.

Obviously it could be both and it is certainly one of two traits most people remember. What other traits did you have in mind?

And I've already pointed out to you it is a character evolution that we have already seen before in TOS and the films.

And I've already pointed out to you it is a character evolution that I don’t favour, although it seems more of a practical problem in this movie. Don’t know why we are going over this again?

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?"

Again old ground. Serek gives Spock advice and you admit it had an effect. Its not the showing of emotions, but the acting on them that is important anyway. Not showing them is like an indicator tag.

I repeat: "Suppressing my emotions all the time" is not one of Spock's most important qualities.

I have already allowed that you remove the "all". Anyway it must be nice to have opinions that are always facts.

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?

Because the writers (and Nimoy) decided to, forty years ago during the original run of TOS and all six movies.

Is that why you have been hammering away at minor issues? So you can claim that there is no difference between TOS and this movie, when in fact there has been an obvious progression, whatever they may have intended at the start (and despite flashes of emotion even if intentional). Anyway that is not a reason. Its just a statement and a dubious one since it implies they knew how they wanted the character to develop from day one. Its also irrelevant to my argument since I am just expressing my opinion of why its not a good idea.

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.

He is not a real person so that could have been different if it wasn’t thought necessary for dramatic purposes.

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.

Same answer as above.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Under Officialism the rules are different than in reality. Characters are presumed right until proven wrong.

Then it's long past time to do away with Officialism: fuck it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Even if something is intentional, it doesn’t mean an audience will take it as intended.

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.

Let's try to sort this out: Blame is hardly and issue either way. Characters can take on a life of their own. Most writers are mature enough to admit that audiences will take their own view without getting bitter and twisted or attributing their audience with deliberate waywardness. Why viewers may take a different view could simply be due to accepting the dominant and most important part of the character. After all its his differences from the human norm that make him iconic.

It's difference from human norms that make ANY character iconic, whether or not they are actually human. But "cool, he's an alien!" simply doesn't cover it.

Anyway, at the end of the day what the audience reads into a character is the choice of the audience. Whether or not that character "takes on a life of his own," he is still the creation of the writers and the actors who played him. How that character develops is the choice of the writers; success is measured simply by to what extent that development keeps the audience interested.

So you're not interested in Spock anymore because you think he's too human? Fine. Since you prefer a character whose memorable trait is "Being Vulcan," you can always watch Voyager.

Your knowledge of genetics must be a lot greater than mine to be so sure of your view. My understanding is some traits can be regressive and I was merely suggesting that might be the case with emotions in Spock’s case.

Which doesn't change the fact that he is still GENETICALLY half human, since being the offspring of a human woman means exactly fifty percent of his DNA is identical with that of his mother. Whether his emotional responses were included in that half is debatable, but it remains the fact that Spock is as much a Vulcan as he is a Human.

I believe that's still highly questionable even with humans.

Only insofar as general predispositions. The vast majority of human behaviors, however, are learned behaviors.

However clearly Vulcans have a genetic predisposition for emotional violence etc or they wouldn’t need to try to suppress it so strongly. At least that’s the assumption we are working with.

True, but then theoretically so do Romulans, and THEIR emotional responses are not appreciably different from humans.

I would actually venture a guess, given what we've seen of Romulans, that the whole "control of my emotions" thing is sort of Vulcan euphemism designed to hide the fact that they are prone to PROFOUNDLY strong mating drives. It's likely the old Vulcan social order was based on some kind of sexual politics: the guy with the most heirs is king, so the only way to enhance your power is to rape as many women as possible and then collect the offspring as your own private army. Suffice to say, Surak's embrace of total logic managed to replace a system of sexual politics with a code of strict utilitarianism with "logic" at the center, not exactly outlawing those strict mating drives, but getting Vulcans to accept that power and politics are not appropriate avenues to express them.

The Romulans, apparently, took a different approach, replacing sexual politics with with simple fascism to the point of "I don't care how many sons you have, I've got all the guns, so shut the hell up!" There is still, it seems, an echo of this in Romulan culture, given the odd propensity of Romulan officers to impregnate enemy captives and then raise the offspring as their own.

The only disparate emotional response between humans and Vulcans may very well be the latter's enormous sex drive. I certainly can't think of a better explanation for the anomalous preference of Vulcan men for human women.

Obviously it could be both

But it's not.

What other traits did you have in mind?

Supreme competence and intelligence, for one. And the humbled confidence of a guy who ALWAYS knows what he's doing, even when he's doing something completely absurd that he himself doesn't think is going to work. It is the quality most frequently summed up as "coolness." Worf occasionally demonstrates this quality as well, sans intellect, with quite a bit more aggression.

And I've already pointed out to you it is a character evolution that I don’t favour

So go watch Voyager then. Don't complain just because the writers aren't writing Spock to your specific tastes.

Anyway that is not a reason. Its just a statement and a dubious one since it implies they knew how they wanted the character to develop from day one.

They didn't know anything of the sort. They made the decision over the course of the series and all six movies to develop the character that way. Orci and Kruzman evidently made the decision to have NuSpock's character evolve along similar lines, especially since they CLEARLY took the Trek Novel/Animated Series into account in building that characterization. In terms of background material, you can do ALOT worse than D.C. Fontana (in fact, I'm not sure you could do better).

He is not a real person so that could have been different if it wasn’t thought necessary for dramatic purposes.

But it wasn't different. And from what we actually know of Spock, it WOULD be out of character for him to do so.

Same answer as above.

All you're really saying is that Spock doesn't have to be Spock. And you're right, he doesn't. But I'm just a tad dubious to what extent his morphing into White Tuvok will really engage the audiences in future productions.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

All you're really saying is that Spock doesn't have to be Spock. And you're right, he doesn't. But I'm just a tad dubious to what extent his morphing into White Tuvok will really engage the audiences in future productions.

Could we be any more in-ish? That whole line of reasoning would be unintelligible to most people who buy tickets to these things. "White Tuvok?" Really?

Spock was Spock in this movie - both versions. This is the guy I liked in TOS.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Wow. Crazy discussion going on here.

My two cents: I didn't like the new film. I don't think anyone can deny that the characters aren't quite right (varying by character, with Quinto's Spock being pretty damn weird). The only exception is Urban's McCoy (still not enough to save the movie for me).

The whole alternate universe jumble is SNAFU, I'd have preferred an honest reboot. And not blowing up Vulcan.

But we should keep in mind that Trek movies were ruined by Nemesis, I don't blame Paramount for bringing in more lens flare and explosions to attract a general audience. We all should have seen that coming.

 

[DonIago]

I just wish a lot of the critics of the new film would at least limit their criticisms to the new film rather than summarily writing off anything that might come of it. I'm reasonably sure TPTB know that Trek '09 isn't beyond any and all reproach, so why assume any sequels couldn't possibly be any better?

If I'd taken the first Harry Potter book/movie as an indication of what was to come I would have ended up missing out on something that turned out to be much better than I anticipated.

For that matter, the first X-Men movie couldn't hold a candle to the sequel, IMHO.

 

[number6]

I wish the critics could limit their criticisms to statements that actually make sense.

Didn't happen for this film. And I doubt we'll see any for the sequel.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't think anyone can deny that the characters aren't quite right (varying by character, with Quinto's Spock being pretty damn weird).

The characters were just fine, thanks. It's true that Urban was the only actor to attempt to impersonate the previous actor in his role rather than play the character as written, which was mildly distracting rather than impressive. He was all right, though.

 

[Subcommander R.]

I don't think anyone can deny that the characters aren't quite right (varying by character, with Quinto's Spock being pretty damn weird).

The characters were just fine, thanks. It's true that Urban was the only actor to attempt to impersonate the previous actor in his role rather than play the character as written, which was mildly distracting rather than impressive. He was all right, though.

Thats the strangest stance I've encountered. So you're fine with Spock being as emotional as a middle-school girl who just got dumped by her boyfriend, Kirk being a jerk who picks fights in bars, and Uhura being a party-chick who wants to boff Spock?

But you don't like Urban staying true to the character.

That is pretty damn messed up. You do realize that these are actual characters from the show? They aren't Commander Schmitty, Captain Snuffy, and Lieutenant Smith. Established character identities means there is a benchmark.

 

[Mach5]

It's true that Urban was the only actor to attempt to impersonate the previous actor in his role

No, it really isn't.

I don't care what anyone says, Pine was totally doing Shatner in that final scene.

Just pay attention when he says "BONES!" and "Maneuvering thrusters, Mr. Sulu!"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Thats the strangest stance I've encountered. So you're fine with Spock being as emotional as a middle-school girl who just got dumped by her boyfriend, Kirk being a jerk who picks fights in bars, and Uhura being a party-chick who wants to boff Spock?

If that were an accurate and honest characterization of the movie, it would be worthy of an effort to address. As hyperbole and trivializing nonsense from someone who disliked the film, it's a waste of my time.

Nine out of ten Trek fans liked this movie. Guess they saw a different movie than you.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Thats the strangest stance I've encountered. So you're fine with Spock being as emotional as a middle-school girl who just got dumped by her boyfriend, Kirk being a jerk who picks fights in bars, and Uhura being a party-chick who wants to boff Spock?

If that were an accurate and honest characterization of the movie, it would be worthy of an effort to address. As hyperbole and trivializing nonsense from someone who disliked the film, it's a waste of my time.

Nine out of ten Trek fans liked this movie. Guess they saw a different movie than you.

I use hyperbole because it accents the truth in a quite an entertaining way. I'd like to see what you have to say about established characters being turned into something totally incompatible.

Also, got a source for that statistic? Because every group of fans I've asked have said either 'meh' or 'boo.' The ones who do seem to like it are generally not that into Trek. Same thing goes for people who like Nemesis.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Thats the strangest stance I've encountered. So you're fine with Spock being as emotional as a middle-school girl who just got dumped by her boyfriend, Kirk being a jerk who picks fights in bars, and Uhura being a party-chick who wants to boff Spock?

If that were an accurate and honest characterization of the movie, it would be worthy of an effort to address. As hyperbole and trivializing nonsense from someone who disliked the film, it's a waste of my time.

Nine out of ten Trek fans liked this movie. Guess they saw a different movie than you.

I use hyperbole because it accents the truth in a quite an entertaining way. I'd like to see what you have to say about established characters being turned into something totally incompatible.

Also, got a source for that statistic? Because every group of fans I've asked have said either 'meh' or 'boo.' The ones who do seem to like it are generally not that into Trek. Same thing goes for people who like Nemesis.

Yeah, lets just ignore all the old fans who said they liked the new film.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^And ignore all the money it made that Nemesis didn't.

That's pretty damn messed up. You do realize these are actual characters from the show?

They were modern interpretations of the original Star Trek characters. I found them all instantly recognizable and likable.

Christian Bale's Batman isn't identical to Micheal Keaton's - yet they're both Batman. Chris Pine's Kirk isn't identical to William Shatner's, but they're both Kirk.

On the flip side, Kirstie Alley is Saavik. Robin Curtis isn't.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Yeah, lets just ignore all the old fans who said they liked the new film.

There's always someone who will like anything. I know people who liked Nemesis.

They were modern interpretations of the original Star Trek characters. I found them all instantly recognizable and likable.

Christian Bale's Batman isn't identical to Micheal Keaton's - yet they're both Batman. Chris Pine's Kirk isn't identical to William Shatner's, but they're both Kirk.

On the flip side, Kirstie Alley is Saavik. Robin Curtis isn't.

Yeah, but the interpretation is so incredibly distorted its hard for many people to swallow. I'll admit I got off on the wrong foot. I assumed it was just a reboot. I had no idea it was some wacky AU thing where they'd blow up Vulcan.

So yeah, I can recognize the characters. Kirk is white and kinda smarmy, Spock has pointy ears and the signature haircut, Uhura is Black, Sulu is Asian, Chekhov is Russian, Scotty is Scottish...

The only one who made me sit up and like the recast was McCoy. Thats because he was the most like the character. And since the characters were clearly defined through decades of tv/film... There's a clear benchmark. And I don't like excessive deviation.

Also, I kinda liked the totally awful '80s hair on Curtis' Saavik. It made for great comic relief, as if III wasn't funny enough. Heh heh.

 

[DonIago]

You do realize that in most cases the actors were trying to reinterpret the characters, not present us with carbon copies/imitations of the originals, right?

Much like the movie was reinterpreting material from TOS rather than serving as a carbon copy/imitation of it.

How strange that they would try to be inventive.

All the critics of the film have done for me is establish that the production was damned no matter how it approached the material. Given that precondition, I'd say they were as successful as one could reasonably expect, if not moreso.

 

[Subcommander R.]

You do realize that in most cases the actors were trying to reinterpret the characters, not present us with carbon copies/imitations of the originals, right?

Much like the movie was reinterpreting material from TOS rather than serving as a carbon copy/imitation of it.

How strange that they would try to be inventive.

All the critics of the film have done for me is establish that the production was damned no matter how it approached the material. Given that precondition, I'd say they were as successful as one could reasonably expect, if not moreso.

Reinterpreting is fine within reasonable parameters. But the core of the character shouldn't change. Thats why I liked Urban and Pegg's performances. They were different, but they were convincing.

The material was flawed. The plot needed a big overhaul and I'm not pleased with the way the characters turned out. But thats almost secondary to their set design and lens flare obsession.

It didn't look right, and it didn't feel right to me. You may have your opinion of course, but its wrong.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, lets just ignore all the old fans who said they liked the new film.

The naysayers pretty much have to do that in order to advance any argument at all on the "it's not really Star Trek" front.

And so they do.

Even most trekkies were more than ready for a different take on the Franchise, it appears. Even most long-time TOS fans, in fact.

In 1987 there was a lot of fuss from a limited but loud group of TOS fans that TNG "wasn't really Star Trek." They didn't necessarily change their minds or go away, but the eventual success of modern Trek both with most TOS fans and in growing the Trek audience simply rendered their objections irrelevant.

And so it goes once again.

 

[kkozoriz1]

For me, the characters that totally worked were:
McCoy
Uhura
Sulu

Those that were close but still "off"
Spock
Chekov

And those that made me say WTF?
Kirk
Scotty

Kirk needs to learn to lead rather than simply being right while everyone else is wrong. Kirk made mistakes before. He should have been shown as making one or two since it was the very beginning of his career. Leading by coincidence doesn't make one a leader.

Scotty needs to calm down.

 

[Corwwyn]

On the flip side, Kirstie Alley is Saavik. Robin Curtis isn't.