Talk:Spock (alternate reality)

Stable and Unaffectionate
Spock was not at all completely unaffectionate to Uhura; in fact, he kissed her back quite a bit during that transporter scene. From what I can infer, he appeared to be trying to keep his all emotions (likely prevalently grief) under control, from what I could see. However, that inference would be original research/ my opinion. Summary: I think that sentence should be revised.76.186.99.165 02:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He also basically cried into her shoulder during the turbolift scene. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, yes, that's what I meant, the turbolift. My apologies; I am only a recent participant in Star Trek fandom. I mostly grew up on Voyager episodes whilst under my older brother's wing. But as you see, the point is the same: I don't think there was as much lack of emotion in the embrace as is inferred in the current article.Mizumeru 03:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I wasn't the one that changed the line, I do note that it's been changed again back to the unaffectionate bit. Aside from the fact that 'unaffectionate' isn't a word, I'm wondering why it keeps getting changed. Mizumeru 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate reality
I think that this page and other pages that refer to the alternate reality should be moved. I don't think that Spock (alternate reality) should not be its' own page. It should just be a subheading in the Spock article. Same with all of the other alternate reality articles. They don't belong in their own article because they are the same. Although this is Spock from an alternate timeline, he's still the same Spock, in other words, same man, same soul. It's different with Spock (mirror), because that's a totally different character. This is not a different character. He's the same Spock, he just grew up in an alternate timeline because of Nero. But he's not a different person. I think it's ridiculous to have a totally separate article for the "alternate reality" versions of the characters, because they are the same persons. Otherwise, why not make an alternate reality Picard, due to the events of "Yesterday's Enterprise." It doesn't make sense to me, and further more, it makes it seem like they are not the same person.

Kobyashi Maru
 * Too much information for the one page as it would increase the length of his article immensely - this has been discussed ad nauseum and this is really the best decision but you are welcome to take your issues there. &mdash; Morder 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Morder this a ridiculous request, least we forget not only is everything that happened in the movie an alternate timeline, its stated as one by the writers and producers. They also go on to state that nothing that happened in the movie has any bearing on star trek we know of from canon. In fact the only interactions between the alternate reality and the prime reality is with spock from the main reality. Its quite obvious that being from an alternate time line has changed many things. Such as spock having a relationship with Uahura or him programming the Kobyashi Maru. That never happened to spock in the prime reality and it had nothing to do with nero messing up the reality as Spocks timeline was only affected up to the point of his interactions with pike. so therefore they are not the same person. Salubri 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you're partially right. The Spock flashback took place in the normal timeline which includes the destruction of Romulus via a supernova and the use of Red matter to stop the nova. &mdash; Morder 03:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparison
I'd like to see a section on this page, in which we can identify and specify ways in which the new Spock differs from Spock Prime. I believe that this Spock will not restrain his emotions as much as Spock Prime did. Spock Prime encouraged the new Spock to "do yourself a favor: put aside logic, do what feels right." Even Sarek leaned in this direction: I doubt Spock Prime ever heard his father say, "which path will you choose? This is something only you can decide." He certainly never heard his father admit that "I married her because I loved her." We know from the first handful of TOS episodes (and from the admittedly non-canon TAS that when Spock Prime was young he had difficultly with his emotions; I strongly believe that with these new influences, the new Spock will not be nearly as motivated to restrain them as Spock Prime had been. --Keeves 20:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First off that wouldn't be in-universe POV and really isn't necessary. Second a lot of what is compared could just be speculation. &mdash; Morder 20:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Whore
Let's just get something straight. His mother was called a whore. Deleting it every time won't change that fact. In fact, Prostitution should be updated as well to reflect this fact. Every anon from day one will attempt to include it. Please stop removing it. There is nothing wrong with stating fact. Even if you don't like it...we don't pander to everyone's beliefs here otherwise Evolution might not exist. &mdash; Morder 21:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the update to Prostitution. &mdash; Morder 21:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is almost as bad as when people complained that their god might be upset that we had a picture of T'pol's butt :)   --- Jaz 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one I was really thinking of. &mdash; Morder 03:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, God created T'Pol's butt for all of us! --OuroborosCobra talk 03:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha...Morder, you are comparing "whore" to "evolution"? Great. I gotta absorb that one. But naw, I was the one who removed it, I just found it tasteless and tacky, even though it was mentioned in the movie - not that I got anything against whores/prostitutes/sluts etc...but I'm over it.  – Distantlycharmed 23:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Um...yeah, it was an example as to how just because people don't like something doesn't mean we don't post it here. &mdash; Morder 23:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Spohkh
Spohkh as an alternate spelling? why is this here? -- Captain MKB 12:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how T'Pau pronounced it. (Or am I thinking of T'Lar?) In any case, given that his name is unpronounceable, I think an alternate spelling attempt is not out of place. --Keeves 20:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

T'Pol
The article mentions T'Pol's enlistment, but throughout most of the series(s) she is not enlisted, as indicated by her uniform. She presumably had a "field" enlistment, and never actually attended the academy. Thus Spock would be the first Vulcan to actually attend the Academy and join that way. --User:Ensignzixxieclux 18:58, 15 August 2009 (GMT)
 * ...because in all the time from the founding of the Federation to Star Trek XI, no Vulcans would ever join Starfleet, despite being a founding member. T'Pol is irrelevant; the idea of Spock being the first one in either timeline is utterly ridiculous based on just the above. --Golden Monkey 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek XI is set within a few years(less than twenty) of the end of Enterprise (Indicated by suggestgion of Archer at launch, Potros/desendant etc) and the prime spock was first anyway, so this spock would logically be first. --User:Ensignzixxieclux 12:04, 16 August 2009 (GMT)


 * No.


 * The main part of is set in 2258. Enteprise ended in 2155 (main part) and 2161 (recreation in )
 * Spock Prime was never said to be the first Vulcan in Starfleet.– Cleanse 11:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some quick math of the above:
 * 2258 - Most of takes place in this year.
 * 2161 - When the event depicted in "These Are the Voyages..." happened.
 * 0097 years difference, or 103 years difference if 2155 is used.


 * Also, in what episode is it stated that Spock is the first Vulcan in Starfleet, as all information on MA needs to be cited. - Archduk3:talk 11:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

the novelization of wrath of khan (presume movie too?) states spock was first in starfleet. jj abrahams or similar said in interview that this movie was set earlier - kirk entered starfleet earlier than he should have, which explains why spock had not already served under pike. aslo makes it more likely he was first vulcan --User:Ensignzixxieclux 16:54, 16 August 2009 (GMT)


 * The novel is non-canon.  never commented about him being the first Vulcan in Starfleet. -- sulfur 15:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know this probably belongs on the Prime Spock page as well, but does no one remember the Intrepid from The Immunity Syndrome? That was an all-Vulcan crew, presumably including a captain. Presumably that Captain had been an officer before Spock, and as such had been promoted before Spock.
 * Good point, although it's also possible that the Intrepid was a ship commissioned by the Vulcan Science Academy, not by Starfleet. Though why it would have an English name like "Intrepid" in that case I have no clue. At any rate, it does seem rather unusual for Starfleet to commission a ship on which the entire crew is made up of only one race, unless that race is human.--Antodav 21:03, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, Kirk entered Starfleet later than he was supposed to in the film, not earlier. In the original timeline, he enrolled in the Academy in 2250 and graduated in 2254. In the film, he did not enter the Academy until 2255, graduating in 2258. The reason Spock did not serve under Pike in this timeline is because the Enterprise was not launched until 2258 and because both Spock and Pike were serving at the Academy. Just thought I'd clarify that. As for Spock being the first Vulcan to enter the Academy, that fact has never been established in canon, it is merely an assumption which fans have come to accept. It may have its origins in the production notes for the original series, I can't remember. --From Andoria with Love 21:21, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Sybok?
I noticed that Sybok is referenced in the sidebar of this article, is this really appropriate? What I mean is, has this Spock been referenced to having sibling(s)? If not, then perhaps we shouldn't include that information into the sidebar or the article itself until such confirmation occurs, because this could theoretically (or simply to say just as easy) not be a fact of this reality, as it is in the previous one. --Terran Officer 06:23, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sybok is older than Spock and since spock is the same spock from the default timeline then by extension he has a brother. &mdash; Morder (talk) 06:24, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

I realize that he is older then Spock, and wasn't so sure about it being the "same" Spock, I just felt that nothing should be assumed with this new timline/reality. It doesn't really matter though, whatever the general concencius feel should be included. --Terran Officer 18:23, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Terran Officer to a certain extent: this article assumes way too many things about Spock in the new timeline based on what we know about Spock in the original timeline. However, it's probably still safe to assume that Spock does indeed have an older half-brother, Sybok, who was born to a Vulcan princess to whom Sarek was married before Amanda Grayson. The deleted scenes (for what they're worth) suggest that Spock was born around the same time as Kirk, So Sarek's first marriage and the birth of his first son must have happened well before Nero's incursion and the destruction of the Kelvin. Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman don't necessarily have to introduce or mention Sybok for us to be certain of his existence in this timeline; he and Spock are supposedly estranged anyway, and even in the Prime reality, Spock apparently never mentioned him before Star Trek V.--Antodav 20:56, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the deleted scene of Spock's birth was set in 2230 (as I recall, the exact stardate in the scene was 2230.08), while Kirk's birth took place three years later. Regarding Sybok, the assumption on Memory Alpha (based on the filmmakers' stated intentions) is that everything prior to the arrival of the Narada took place in the original timeline. This means that Sybok does indeed exist in both timelines (though whether he is still alive in 2255/2258 is another matter). --From Andoria with Love 21:31, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

"the deleted scene of Spock's birth was set in 2230 (as I recall, the exact stardate in the scene was 2230.08), while Kirk's birth took place three years later. Regarding Sybok, the assumption on Memory Alpha (based on the filmmakers' stated intentions) is that everything prior to the arrival of the Narada took place in the original timeline."
 * In that case, I think the background box saying where the name came from should link to the "original" Sarek - if the temporal disturbance hasn't happened yet, that's effectively who the character is.--Ten-pint 00:54, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way, the sideboxes and such are, I believe, meant to be from the point of view of Star Trek XI, so it would be logical to use the alternate universe versions of any of the links there, if there is one. &mdash; Blackbird 4 09:39, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not accurate. Our MA:POV is from a person in the distant future looking back at the Prime Star Trek universe(where the new movie is an alternate universe), not from the POV of a certain movie.--31dot 09:39, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. actually this is from the point of view of the audience. What I mean is, if someone has seen Star Trek 2009 and gets to this wiki and uses the links (i.e. Sarek link in the Spock article), then he likely wants to read about the characters in that film, not the original 1960s characters they're based on. 91.19.224.57 12:56, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Previous Relationship with Uhura
Where is it established that Spock and Uhura became romantically involved while he was an instructor? I feel that the scene with them at the shuttles is ambiguous enough that this is an unfair assumption to make.--75.87.223.63 18:59, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * How ambigious is it? Do you think, they got involved while they were on board the Enterprise? 91.19.224.57 12:58, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Removed
I've removed the following note, regarding one of the quotes:

"This is the first time you hear Uhura's first name (which Kirk had been trying to learn, without success, for three years), as it is never mentioned in the Original Series."

Not only does this not seem quite irrelevant to the character of Spock (and therefore inappropriate for this page), it's also technically incorrect, as a slightly earlier mention of the name (by Spock himself, no less) is actually the first canonical use of the name. --Defiant 18:49, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

The Spock/Uhura's Relationship
Ok... I understand that some fans want to pretend that the relationship doesn't exist but it's canon and it isn't one sided (from her part) like the articles make it seems here. I find it a bit ironical that there's a section specifically made for Spock/Kirk's relationship even though in this universe it doesn't exist yet (furthermore the article already implies/explains the nature of Spock's relationship with Kirk and we don't have so many separated informations to add that could justify a separate section dedicated only to that. So it's redundant and useless.) and none about his established relationship with Uhura that is one of the things that truly makes this Spock a different version and further justifies the need to create another page for him as well and for future references. When I opened the page I expected to find a small section about that since it's such a popular topic when talking about this Spock and for the writers themselves. You could paste the few informations we have about S/U and the interwiews by the writers where they explain why they decided to put them together. We also have some quotes from the dvd's commentary when Abrams commented that the fact that S/U are "in love and they have an intimate relationship is the gutsiest thing they did after destroying vulcan". But i guess that writing about things that we already know is more important than truly explain all the differences between the two universes and who this character is /sarcasm. IHaveADream 11:15, March 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that something is missing or not worded how you might prefer does not mean there is some deliberate effort to exclude the information, or that it is a statement about how fans feel about a particular plot aspect. It just means it hasn't been written yet.  If you feel something is missing, feel free to add it yourself, or if you are not comfortable doing so, post your relevant information here and others can do so.  The sarcasm was not necessary. --31dot 11:21, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Apparently in the other comments in this page (refer: Stable and Unaffectionate, in particular) it's been brought up to the attention that someone "might" have deliberately downplayed this aspect of the character adding a personal POV to the plot rather than truly describing what really happened (that can also be done using the published script of the movie) so this particular issue clearly exists/existed here, thus my sarcastic tone (and yes, it was my poor attempt to light things up a little around here). I didn't want to modify the article myself because I question if whatever those separated sections are actually needed in the article (including the K/S one) and if the informations we have can be implemented in the article without being redundant with the rest. IHaveADream 11:50, March 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * The post you refer to alleged that the information being referred to there was felt to be original research because it was in the in-universe portion of the article. I think the concern was about drawing too many conclusions, though I can't recall exactly right now.  If there are quotes from Abrams or other Trek staff about their relationship, they should certainly be written about in the Background section; and if there are better ways to discuss their relationship in the in-universe portion, it should be done as well.
 * Just FYI, our convention is that talk page indents should be kept consistent throughout the section; if you were the first poster, always have no indent, if you were second, always have one indent, etc.--31dot 12:01, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I added a section about the relationship with quotes from writers and cast and the sources. I made a separate section mainly because the portion of informations to include may be too big for the generic character summary at the beginning. Feel free to improve it and if necessary implement those relationships sections in the other parts of the article. --IHaveADream 17:44, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of the informations from the bg info I paste them here in case someone wants to add them to the background section

--IHaveADream 11:44, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Killing This Spock in relation to Spock Prime
Say in Star Trek into Darkness (Spoiler) they killed Spock instead of Kirk, granted they do bring him back at the end with Khan's blood, would this have wiped Spock Prime from existence as killing a young Spock might affect his own future or would it not make a difference as these new films go out of their way to make sure the audience know that this is a new reality separate from the original? This is a question that bugs me, I understand that this is not a place for general discussion but I think it is worth noting for the reason of explaining Alternate Timelines and rules of Time Travel in Star Trek. Matt Seay (talk) 18:54, May 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * Think of time as a tree here. The current timeline has "branched off" from the old one, so it won't lead to the future where Spock Prime came from. Killing New-Spock would not change the live of the Spock from the other branch, so he would continue to exist. --Cid Highwind (talk) 19:02, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

That is what I thought. Like I said they go out of their way to make people understand that this is separate form the prime timeline. Matt Seay (talk) 19:04, May 13, 2013 (UTC)