tell me all your thoughts on Spock.

[laurajv]

There are a couple things I've seen floating around lots of places that I would like to talk about.

One thing is "AOS Spock is way more emotional than TOS Spock". I disagree -- somewhat. Here's a few things about that:

Firstly, TOS Spock is nearly a decade older than AOS Spock. We know very little about what TOS Spock was like in the 2250s, but he emotes like freakin' hell the one time we see him (The first pilot, The Cage, which became the TOS two-parter The Menagerie). Part of that is because the character wasn't fully developed when the first pilot was filmed, but the bits that were incorporated into TOS canon included that emoting. That Spock might've calmed the heck down in that span of time is hardly a reach; that the Spock we see in The Menagerie might engage in fisticuffs out of anger, or tell the Vulcans to go fuck themselves, is likewise hardly a reach.

Secondly, the way Nimoy plays Spock and the way Quinto plays Spock are both quite emotional, but the emotions in play are not the same. You can see echoes if you look in the right places in the two canons, but in general, Nimoy played Spock in a more understated fashion (which I think has to do with the first point above) and with a lot more humor. Prime canon Spock is very much given to wordplay and teasing and the occasional outright practical joke (he gave the Tribbles to the Klingons, seriously, in collusion with Scott and McCoy, which is the most screamingly funny thing in the entire run of TOS Go to around 47:45 to see what I mean!). Quinto's Spock is a lot more angry in what we see of him, but we're seeing him at points in his life that we never see Nimoy's Spock. (Really, the only times we see flashes of Quinto's Spock's humorous side all relate to Uhura. She is good for him. He needs that.) If we go looking for Nimoy's Spock being angry or simmering with rage in TOS canon, the similarities in portrayal are a lot more obvious -- there aren't that many of them, but they are there. Some of them occur quite late in Spock's life -- we can go to TNG canon and look at Unification (look about 1:45-1:55 of this clip: "I'm afraid I don't know too much about Romulan disruptor settings") -- it's not something that ever changes about him, when he's got something to be angry about (such as gosh-dang Romulan plots. I think he's doomed in all timelines to be involved with gosh-dang Romulan plots).

I enjoy both portrayals, and I do not think they're very different portrayals of the character. I think Quinto is playing a younger Spock, and portraying a lot of the high-stress moments in that Spock's life. Nimoy is playing an older Spock, over a much wider range of moments, but for me it's easy to see the places where they align.

Another thing: Spock's relationship with Sarek. Overall, I think AOS canon portrays a more functional, gentler relationship between father and son, but it's not entirely clear to me how many differences there are. For example, from what we saw on screen, I think it's possible that like TOS canon Spock & Sarek, they were not on speaking terms once Spock went to Starfleet. That, at a maximum, that silence only lasted 11 years instead of 18 is a big change -- engendered by genocide and Amanda's death, which if THAT is not incentive to try to heal a relationship, what the hell is?

I could also see AOS Spock and Sarek never having that serious breach, but we just don't know whether they did (unless we do and I somehow fell asleep for the part of the movie which addressed it?)

And the last thing: Spock's childhood. I've seen lots of people talk about how it was so much rougher than his childhood in TOS canon, and this again is something we just don't know. TOS canon is perfectly clear that Spock's schoolgoing days on Vulcan were miserable, for Spock (and for Amanda). Over at niqaeli's I said: "I mean, if you take TAS as part of Prime canon, his childhood was rough enough to start with that he almost died trying to prove how damn Vulcan he was."

I'm just not seeing the big difference there, aside from the insults of the Vulcan children being nastier in AOS (which I'm not wholly willing to attribute to in-universe timeline differences: TAS could certainly not've gotten away with calling Amanda a whore, while AOS -- a different time, a different medium -- could).

To sum up: the major difference I see between the Spocks is that Nimoy's Spock has calmed down with age. We don't know how different the relationship between Spock and Sarek is, and we don't know how different Spock's childhood was in general.

Comments

[thedrummertobeat]

I agree! I think Spock Prime and AOS Spock are pretty consonant--the *only* divisive point between the two from film/television media is that AOS Spock starts considering Kolinahr prior to acceptance in the Vulcan Science Academy rather than upon his retirement from Starfleet, and even that can be handwaved away by the subsequent events of that day. (That is, if he had been accepted to the VSA without comment, it seems likely that he would have undergone Kolinahr as yet further proof of his Vulcan-ness; but having instead gone into Starfleet it leaves it open whether he should still choose to pursue it consonant with the timeline in The Motion Picture.)

Beyond that, the only distinctive change in Spock's life divergent from the original timeline comes when Amanda dies. There is no quantifiable difference in his life as a result of the Romulan attack on the USS Kelvin, and to paint it otherwise is a mistake in characterization, I think.

...and wow, I totally can get my nerd on, can't I?

[rhaegal]

I completely agree. But then I have to admit I go 'huh?' when people describe Spock as unemotional. He may not be demonstrative (most of the time), but in many ways he's the most emotionally-driven character on the show. I mean, he hijacks the Enterprise to go to a forbidden planet out of loyalty to a former captain! He abandons his pacifism and starts yelling 'Kill! Kill' any time Kirk's life is threatened. Not to mention the obvious, that when his inhibitions are magically lowered his reaction is to shut himself away and sob his little Vulcan heart out.

So honestly, the only difference I can see is that Quinto's Spock is more likely to lose control when he gets emotional, not that's he actually feels more emotion (if that makes sense). And of the two occasions on which we see him lose control, one of them was when his mother was called a whore (which we can believe happened in TOS-verse too but was never shown), and the other was right after his planet was destroyed, he'd lost his mother, and then Kirk said he never loved her. TOS Spock was sensitive about that point too - after all, that's what he was sobbing over! - but he never had it thrown in his face right after she - and most of his species - died.

[seperis]

I think the difference, at least for me, between TOS canon and STR canon is the lengths taken to make sure the audience was aware how much Vulcans sucked and how much, in turn, how Spock was affected by this. It wasn't just the teasing scene, or Spock getting into fights, or rejecting the science academy, wanting to take up kolinahr at a fairly early age, or showing something of a vindictive streak in his pursuit of Kirk for academic dishonesty; it's the fact that all of these things combined were supposed to make the audience get "Spock has issues." And since they seemed to want the timelines distinct, I think they went through those scenes to build a slightly different Spock.

It's impossible to prove that the reboot childhood was more difficult than the TOS one, true. But the set up of the movie, starting with George Kirk's death, seems to intend to show alteration in the characters from their canon known lives. So to me, it would be--odd to give Jim Kirk an entirely new backstory, Scotty basically in Starfleetesque exile, and Bones going to the Academy with Jim Kirk, Spock having a relationship with Uhura while she was a student, but then leave Spock entirely unaffected in his backstory as well.

I could also see AOS Spock and Sarek never having that serious breach, but we just don't know whether they did (unless we do and I somehow fell asleep for the part of the movie which addressed it?)

Because there's nothing in the canon to suggest there was one in this timeline. And I don't mean that in a prove a negative way; they weren't shy about a sucky childhood, the academy, et al--if there was supposed to be a breach, which was in TOS a fairly huge part of Spock's life, and one of the things that canon gave an entire episode to cover, there's no good reason to leave it out of the movie.

(The novelization also implied Sarek approved of his son's choice, implicitly because it was in reaction to insulting Amanda. So not entirely canon, but that is there.)

This isn't to say that you aren't right; taken apart, there's no way to say that Spock's life here was harder, but I can't quite reconcile that the reboot would alter the lives and personalities of everyone but Spock in a movie that was created on the premise that everything changed the day the Kelvin was destroyed.

[laurajv]

TOS Spock was sensitive about that point too - after all, that's what he was sobbing over! - but he never had it thrown in his face right after she - and most of his species - died.

Seriously! Spock adores his mother and has traumas about it in all timelines.

[laurajv]

I don't think the movie DID alter the lives and personalities of everyone but Spock, other than as necessary.

I mean, was Uhura's childhood any different? Not that we know of. McCoy's life up until the point of joining Starfleet? Again, not that we know of. People's lives mostly changed where they intersected Kirk's.

I agree that AOS went into a bunch of background detail, setting up Spock's issues, but they didn't bother to tie those issues into the timeline change. That they could be tied into the timeline change is certainly true -- but they are not necessarily so. There's nothing in them that contradicts any of Spock's background as given in Prime canon.

[seperis]

Not that we know of. McCoy's life up until the point of joining Starfleet?

Well, he went to the Academy. I double checked, and I didn't see that listed at Memory Alpha for TOS, but I could have missed it.

Other notes: Chekov's age.

There's nothing in them that contradicts any of Spock's background as given in Prime canon.

His age changed in reboot. His position as programmer of the Kobayashi Maru, which is a pretty big departure, because I'm almost sure in TOS he actually took that test. He was also Uhura's instructor. His--as far as I know--stated canon reasons for choosing Starfleet. His rank is one degree higher as Commander. None of thees things occurred after he met Kirk; all of them are part of the shift in the timeline. Up to and including a thirty year early revelation of the existence of Romulans and their relation to Vulcan.

In regard to personality, this is subject to interpretation: his prosecution of Kirk for academic fraud, his behavior during the hearing, his use of George Kirk as a non-sequitir during the debate, and while I get that emotionally he is vulnerable with the death of his mother and destruction of his planet, there is a pretty big difference in temperament that leads to making a conscious choice to send a member of his crew to a frozen, deserted planet with rather large natural predators after knocking him unconscious and before reliving him of duty and later mocking Dr. McCoy when he mentions it.

The latter is interpretable, agreed, and all taken in pieces is perfectly in line with TOS canon when apart. But the same holds true as above; the impression of Spock is *supposed* to show a difference between him and TOS Spock, and not just due to age, but also to how Spock and Kirk, who are presented as the two major characters, took different roads to arrive at the same place.

[laurajv]

A few points:

1. In TOS, he canonically did not take the Kobayashi Maru. From his death scene in TWOK: "I never took the Kobayashi Maru test, until now. What do you think of my solution?"

2. Once you're talking about Starfleet, you're talking about direct issues related to the Kelvin. In some cases, we don't know what the situation was in Prime canon, so we cannot say that it was different in AOS. But if we are talking about Spock's childhood and background issues, what happens past his joining Starfleet is not relevant.

3. Kirk's age changed (by a few months) in AOS canon; Spock's did not (as near as I can tell -- both Spocks were born in 2232; we don't have exact birth dates for either of them).

4. Chekov is a major difference, because THAT Pavel Chekov cannot be Prime's Pavel Chekov. It's not possible. We're not talking a difference of a few months; we're talking about years. They're clearly different people with the same name. Why that is would be a fun timeline question!

The thing for me is, because of what we know about Prime Spock's upbringing, we can't argue that AOS Spock's upbringing is so all-fired different. What AOS shows us of AOS Spock's childhood, background, and emotional issues are entirely consonant with Prime Spock's. Whether or not AOS Spock and Prime Spock have the same personality, well, no, I don't think they do, exactly. But neither do I think that AOS Spock is so all-fired different from Prime Spock.

The Delta Vega thing is weird for lots of reasons (hi, the ship has a fucking brig, story writers), but not for Spock characterization reasons.

[seperis]

The Delta Vega thing is weird for lots of reasons (hi, the ship has a fucking brig, story writers), but not for Spock characterization reasons.

I don't understand this statement. That *is* a component of Spock's characterization in canon where he chose to throw a crew member onto an ice planet in an escape pod to punish insubordination instead of in the brig. Even if it was for destiny purposes. Which is--well. Insane.

This also brings up the point that no one bothered to say "Spock, that's crazy," or make a vague effort to avert homicide but that's when I started getting a headache and also find it hysterical.

What AOS shows us of AOS Spock's childhood, background, and emotional issues are entirely consonant with Prime Spock's.

I don't think it's different in circumstance so much as degree. Vulcans were implied to be xenophobic in TOS, but I'm really not feeling they were anywhere near the level the Vulcan Science Academy suggested during that interview with Spock. That in itself wouldn't necessarily mean that the experiences in REB were worse, but that the motivation of the children, of the academy, came from a much more dangerous place, and the effect on Spock would be different due to that difference.

And that's also where the Sarek thing came in. I'd have to buy that in TOS, Sarek allowed his wife to be publicly labeled as an inferior being while he is sitting there listening, a woman he admits he loves. And that the head of the Vulcan Science Academy didn't think there was a problem making those kind of statements to her husband and her son. And that following that bit of complete crazy, Sarek was still unable to understand why his son might not be hot to stay around. And that Amanda didn't leave like, the next day.

Chekov is a major difference, because THAT Pavel Chekov cannot be Prime's Pavel Chekov. It's not possible. We're not talking a difference of a few months; we're talking about years. They're clearly different people with the same name. Why that is would be a fun timeline question!

I like frozen ova with a later implantation, myself. Yes, it does make me giggle.

[laurajv]

re: delta vega

There are a number of things I had to assume to make that sequence make any sense.

a) that this Enterprise, for some reason, doesn't have a brig. (which is like a WORLD of wtf!)

b) that, in the absence of brigs, shooting dudes out onto planets is in fact protocol.

c) if possible, said planets should have Starfleet outposts, and you should aim the dude you are shooting out in such a direction that he can be picked up.

The entire sequence is so nonsensical, and not just from a Spock characterization viewpoint. From start to finish, it is so completely stupid that my assumptions around it are that the characters are acting like reasonable individuals in the face of f'ed up reality -- not that both characters AND reality are f'ed up. If that makes sense.

[seperis]

c) if possible, said planets should have Starfleet outposts, and you should aim the dude you are shooting out in such a direction that he can be picked up.

You know, I keep forgetting Scotty was right there.

That just takes it to a whole new level of surreal. I like it.

[ratcreature]

a) that this Enterprise, for some reason, doesn't have a brig. (which is like a WORLD of wtf!)

I interpreted the iceplanet thing to mean that Spock thought that the brig would not be able to hold Kirk, while Kirk is convinced that he has to change Enterprise's course and will do anything to achieve that. Maybe because the brig could be hacked, or because he would be able to convince others to join his mutiny, after all he already got onto the ship in the first place without permission, because he had support. And maybe Spock is not sure he can really count on the crew to follow him, while a charismatic Kirk agitates that his course of action would be the only thing that can save Earth.

[(Anonymous)]

Ratcreature, yours is the first explanation for the marooning that makes sense to me.

[kernezelda]

I'd buy that explanation.

[ratcreature]

Comic fandom gave me years of training to fanwank nonsensical canon into slightly less brain-explodey order.

[dswdiane]

I love this discussion. And I agree with what you're saying, Laura. And what ratcreature offered as an explanation of the planet marooning. What does AOS stand for?

[laurajv]

AOS = Alternate Original Series, which is what Stephen put into the a.s.c. FAQ for the reboot timeline canon.