Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Spock

37,227pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Help icon
Spock/archive

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.



Spock's confision over Kirk's status in the alternate realityEdit

In the 2009 Star Trek film, Spock seems surprised that Kirk is not captain of the Enterprise. I would be more able to accept this if Spock didn't know when he was, but it was clear during the mind meld that he knew exactly how far into the past he was. Given this, he would have known that Kirk wasn't the captain of the Enterprise in 2258. In 2258 of the prime reality, Pike was still captain of the Enterprise and Spock was already aboard as science officer ("The Cage" had already happened in 2254 in the prime reality). However, despite being raised with Vulcan disciplines, he still has his human side and Vulcans let their emotional restraint slip at times (Spock had, so had Tuvok, Sarek, T'Pol, Soval, and many others). Spock had been accustomed to Kirk being captain of the Enterprise, and even with the facts Kirk not being captain might still surprise him, especially in his distraught condition after witnessing the destruction of Vulcan. Vern4760 15:47, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible that Spock didn't know for sure what year it was until he engaged in the mind meld. If you remember, he did not specify how far in the future he was from until he had already placed his hand on Kirk's face. While he had not started the transference of his own consciousness into Kirk's mind at that time, it's possible he was able to pick up some basic knowledge from Kirk's mind (i.e., the year) from simply preparing to begin the mind meld. --From Andoria with Love 15:54, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

OR, Spock was surprised at the fact that his younger self was the captain, as Kirk did mention that he threw him off for mutiny - Ooiue 11:22, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Saving the FederationEdit

In the opening paragraph someone has wrote that the Red Matter blackhole set off to save Romulus from the supernova was, somehow, saving the Federation??? Can someone with much more knowledge than I comment on this? I didn't believe Romulus was part of the Federation in 2387.--Italianajt 19:50, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Spock had to stop the supernova from expanding, or else it would have threatened many more worlds than just Romulus.Blair2009 20:36, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

But when is this explicitly stated? My understanding was that it would only affect Romulus. These are star systems millions of light-years apart. I mean, one supernova near Romulus would not affect the other Federation planets. I say this only becuase the wording states that, by saving Romulus, Spock was saving the Federation...which just doesn't make sense.--Italianajt 20:44, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

It may not make sense, but them's the movies. The star was nowhere near Romulus either... yet it destroyed the planet. Go figure. -- sulfur 20:48, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
Spock says, during the mind meld sequence, that the supernova threatened the entire galaxy. In the prequel comic book Countdown, it is explained that the nova converts all matter it destroys into energy to fuel its constant expansion. Admittedly, it doesn't make very good science, but it sure is dramatic! Blair2009 20:51, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'd also point out that star systems aren't millions of light years apart, the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across. Not that it helps the science of it. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:56, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
Well, not that this is the same as the supernova in the movie but...we've been affected by supernova's from across the galaxy. We tend to get a burst of gamma radiation which affects satellites and evidence of which could also be found in the rocks at the time of the impact. Citation may be given if I can find one. But the BBC has done at least one show about it. :) I think I've gone off topic enough though. — Morder (talk) 21:13, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
I admit the "millions" statement was a bit overexaggerated but thank you all for your further explanations. Maybe in the next move an asteroid will be heading towards Qo'Nos which affects the very existence of all Andorians???? Now there's a plot for you.--Italianajt 19:15, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Spock's year of birth Edit

I'm reopening this discussion since the original is in the archives. The basis for revising Spock's year of birth from 2230 to 2232 is very weak, since the initial statement in the TAS episode concerning 20-30 years refers to Vulcan years specifically, making it more likely that the later 30-year statement by Spock was also in Vulcan years. It's just an unnecessary inconsistency with official sources, especially since the 2230 date (stardate 2230.06) almost became canon in Star Trek (2009) and was in fact used in the official movie comic. Also, while it may be an acceptable source on MA, TAS has hardly had more influence on the canon than sources like the Star Trek Chronology or the Star Trek Encyclopedia. I'm just not sure what is to be gained by creating this inconsistency. – 86.49.116.43 08:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, if he's born in 2232, then the pon farr seven year cycles make sense for him to experience it in 2267 (Amok Time) and it matches up with various dates of how old he was when entering the Academy, when he entered the Academy, how long he's been in Starfleet, etc. I support that Spock Prime was born in 2232 and Alternate Spock in 2230, if we consider the deleted scene from the 2009 film applicable. This is almost getting into a whole other argument, but it seems plausible that the universe depicted in the 2009 film was already an alternate quantum reality before Nero's incursion -- things already seem different between the two. 68.145.219.95 00:35, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Request for MA Community Consenus on Spock Naming Convention Edit

In some of the articles I've read on MA, the term "Spock" is used to refer to both The Original Series Spock and Star Trek 2009 alternate reality Spock. I propose the use of a modifier in addition to Spock's name in articles that refer to both Spocks, to allow readers to easily differentiate between them.

Let's use the Kolinahr article as an example. Although the hyperlinks for each reference to Spock do link to the appropriate articles, it isn't particularly clear, at-a-glance, to which Spock the article is referring.

For instance, if the 4th paragraph in the Kolinahr article began with, "Spock Prime" or "Original Series Spock" instead of just Spock, the information that followed would be clearer and more easily understood, particularly by newcomers to the Trek universe(s). Put another way, if The Original Series Spock is the subject of a sentence, it shouldn't take the reader to the end of the sentence or paragraph to figure out which Spock he is reading about. The use of a modifier with Spock's name would resolve this issue.

In the specific case of the Kolinahr article, the use of internally-linked section headings within the article, e.g. Original Timeline Spock and Alternate Reality Spock would provide clarity without having to change each occurence of Spock's name. However, because the use of section heading may not be advisable in every article, I still think the issue of a naming convention should be addressed.

I have not made changes to any articles, because I think that there should be a consensus on the naming convention before changes are made. Once more experienced contributors decide on (or refer me to) a policy, I will be happy to help with the changes as per the new guidelines.

To be clear, I am not advocating the use of one term over the other - I have no preference for using either Spock Prime or Original Series Spock when referring to the incarnation played by Leonard Nimoy. My primary concerns are clarity of communication and internal consistency, so I would be in favour of the terminology that would best achieve those goals. I defer to senior Trekkies/Trekkers on the matter of what name "sounds" best.

If this issue has already been addressed, please forgive me, as I am new to the MA community.

Thank You for your time. --PalindromicAnagram 10:23, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Some of our conventions typically allow to discern which Spock is talked about. In the Kolinahr article, for example, no specific article header (see the template page {{at}}) exists, which means that the article is written from a "prime universe" point of view and typically refers to "old Spock". One paragraph of the article uses italics, which means that some other reality is being talked about - in this case, the "new universe".
We're trying to avoid the type of modifier you suggest, because it would most often break the "in-universe point of view" we're trying to use throughout. However, there has been a lengthy discussion about how to name articles about objects from the different timelines/universes. That discussion hasn't really come to a consensus and was eventually sidestepped by some editors, leading to the (in my opinion wrong) use of the term "alternate reality" when referring to objects from the ST11 timeline. -- Cid Highwind 10:42, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what Cid said, excepting the "sidestepped" and "wrong" parts, since I defiantly think the term alternate should be used in any disambiguation. That said, generally hovering over a link will display the destination article title, which in the case of Spock would be either: Spock, Spock (alternate reality), Spock (mirror), Spock 2, etc. - Archduk3 17:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar images Edit

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we usually place the most recent image of a character above the first appearance in the sidebar, as in Jean-Luc Picard, William T. Riker, Benjamin Sisko and Kira Nerys, to name but a few? It's not something that particularly bothers me, if there's a reason we've decided to do it this way. I just ask in the interest of consistency. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:42, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. I do not feel like putting on the picture of Spock from Star Trek 2009. Altough it is the same player I'd rather put up a picture of Spock from one of the TOS Movies or TOS itself. --Greeetz from xKirk32 (talk) 12:07, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Spock's eyebrow raise Edit

I realized this article doesn't mention Spock's characteristic of only raising an eyebrow to express emotion. Was this something shared by other Vulcans (sorry, never watched much VOY or ENT). I can remember Spock raising his eyebrow when afraid he was going to be executed in "The Omega Glory". Alientraveller 23:14, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

His name Edit

Is Spock his fore- or surname? Aboard the Enterprise he is addressed either as Mr. or Commander Spock. And on one occasion he states that his first name can hardly be pronounced by humans. Why is his fathers name not also Spock but Sarek? In case there is a canon explanation it should be included in the article.80.141.190.8 18:31, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

That's correct- which is why there isn't such an explanation in the article- it's wasn't specifically said in canon. --31dot 18:36, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
I think so too.96.248.19.186 15:08, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

New Universe movies Edit

Since he is going to be in the next movie (2013 Star Trek) and was in the last movie (2009 Star Trek) should a new article called Spock Prime be created that details his new life in the new universe since that universe new has two Spock's in it?

I know it's the same person (Spock and Spock Prime), played by the same actor but to be fair MA has a page for the Android B-4 and by the end of the movie B-4 is Data in a new body (as seen in the comic book prequel to Star Trek) 156.33.195.254 13:19, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Spock is still Spock, despite now joining a new timeline. B4 is still B4 at the end of Nemesis, as Countdown is not canon. -- sulfur 14:25, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then since the JJ Universe has 2 Spock's in it how about calling one Spock (Quinto), Spock (1st officer) or Spock (younger) and the other one Spock (Nimoy), Spock (Ambassador) or Spock (older) since both are Spock and both are in the same universe Nimoy's Spock is no longer Prime Spock unless he goes back to his universe is he?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.33.195.254 (talk).

The name of the Spock articles has been settled for some time, we have one for the alternate reality Spock and one for the Prime Spock. No other articles or naming scheme is necessary. 31dot 20:00, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
He is also still the same "Prime Spock" as previously. Just happens to have wandered elsewhere for a period of time. -- sulfur 20:06, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
Creating a page sounds like a good ida to me.96.248.19.186 15:11, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

"Just happens to have wandered elsewhere for a period of time" - like forever since it is doubtful that anything will take place in the main universe, plus Spock (prime) seems to be a main character in the JJ'Virse just like Spock (Alternate) 156.33.195.254 18:31, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Spock's Position as First Officer Edit

The main article on Spock claims that Kirk acknowledged Spock as First Officer AFTER Mitchell died, but this is incorrect; Spock was First Officer from the very beginning of Kirk's captaincy.

In "Where No Man Has Gone Before," Spock bellows orders like "Deflectors full intensity" that would not be the province of the Science Officer but of the First Officer.

In addition, both Leonard Nimoy's autobiography I Am Spock, AND The Making of Star Trek -- which was co-written by Gene Roddenberry -- make it clear that Spock was First Officer during the events of "Where No Man Has Gone Before." 108.7.213.75 06:02, February 16, 2014 (UTC) WLS

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki