Leonard Nimoy, Spock of ‘Star Trek,’ Dies at 83

[Deli]

Exactly. I abhor the neckbeards who act like old Star Trek was high art or something that couldn't be critiqued. They were CRAP for the most part. New Star Trek should be getting blown from all Star Trek fans for ensuring that Star Trek won't ever die out. 

I guess it's like Star Wars, very much a cult hit. Some of my younger colleagues really don't get what the fuss about, either the old and the new films. I think you have to be in that age to fully comprehend the cultural impact it generated.

[Trik'Stari]

@dalekphalm

I respect your opinion, and our opinions differ.  (We're not arguing, we're discussing.)  Perhaps the reason is because of our age differences; perhaps it's because of how long I've been a fan and watching Star Trek and my familiarity with it.   Probably will never know. 

 

Gene Roddenberry died about a third of the way through TNG and had everything to do with its set, setting, tone, atmosphere... everything.  And he worked with talented people (on-screen and off) that continued to be involved in the expanding Star Trek universe furthering the original theme of human endeavor and achievement.  Some of those same people were involved in every Star Trek TV series thereafter ensuring that theme didn't change.   

 

Sure, there are one-off's with episodes that weren't good and weird/dumb characters in each series, but they never ruined the experience of it because of the general continuity of the fictional universe thanks to the creators/producers/writers. 

 

The "new" Star Trek is not really Star Trek as Gene Roddenberry's vision.  It's very far off.  The new Star Trek is another series of science fiction movies with character names adopted from another man's creation.  JJ Abrams took the names and outer space setting to create some other universe where the characters didn't even behave the same.  It's a "reboot," sure, I get that.  But the reboot is superficial.  

Here's an example: Shatner's and Nimoy's Kick and Spock had a bond.  Their relationship was profound and it exemplified a partnership of two minds working together that could accomplish anything.   This was established through three seasons of adventures and trouble that the crew faced over and over in the original series, and then it stayed there through the next six movies.  When we watch Kirk fall apart at the end of The Wrath of Khan, viewers could understand it due to their history and the emotion made sense because it carried a lot of weight.  And then in The Search for Spock -- Kirk risked everything to save his friend.  He risked his ship, the lives of his willing crew, his career and even his own life to help Spock.  The entire movie was centered around this and Kirk didn't let anything stand in his way.   When Abrams adopted this idea into his "Khan" movie, none of that passion was there.  In fact, it was completely inverted with Kirk being the one that died, and it didn't even really matter because he was alive again within 15 minute of movie play-time.  The emotion that Spock felt with Kirk's death wasn't "earned."  It was empty and there simply for the sake of entertainment and making something new.  It doesn't hold true to what Gene Roddenberry wanted Star Trek to be.  

 

This is my opinion and view.  Ever since I was young, the universe that Roddenberry created resonated with me (and many other fans).  It is a collection of great stories and great character development. (Opinions may vary, I get that, too.) The interaction and chemistry between the character and actors is solid.   And the state of humanity in the Federation is something that today's Earth should try to achieve.  Unity and strength.  Some one above wondered why some hardcore fans are disgusted by these new movies, and I answered why.  

 

Then there's the other side of the same coin... the fact that the Abrams films just really aren't that good.  Plot holes, wtf-moments, bland characters, pointless scenes, barely-dressed women for no reason (other than to just look hot) and bizarre lighting.   Oh and lens flares.  C'mon, Abrams, you really gotta stop it with the lens flares.   They're really just "decent sci-fi movies."  They might be fun because they're have a lot of action and things that look high-tech and shiny... and then those explode... I like explosions, too. But I think most people, if they think subjectively about it for a while during another viewing, would realize that they're really not all that great. 

 

We can agree to disagree. I don't expect you to share my opinion, but I think I might have explained it well enough for you to understand and maybe even respect it. 

I'd say go back and watch it again. Spock's reaction to kirks death was a result of what he felt when admiral pike died, and the realization of what kirk had done for him, and for the ship and everyone one it. Just because they had less history then the kirk and spock from the original WoK doesn't make it any less valid. The movies are more of a way to re-create the original series in movie form, and in a completely different timeline (alternate reality, whatever).

 

I like em, they're good on their own, when you completely separate them from the original stuff, which is still good.

 

Edit: They could use a bit more depth, but I like that they are a bit more action packed than the typical star trek affair, can't run with the same thing ALL the time, it gets boring. That's why I really only like the TNG episodes when there is some action, or generally creepy sh*t going on (like the episode where they get stuck in that rift, and the scene when Dr. Crusher starts seeing bodies sitting up, total WTF moment for me the first time around)

[zacRupnow]

Live Long And Prosper.

 

 

 

 

will everyone shut the fuck up about the childhood!

[Xorbot]

When Abrams adopted this idea into his "Khan" movie, none of that passion was there.  In fact, it was completely inverted with Kirk being the one that died, and it didn't even really matter because he was alive again within 15 minute of movie play-time.  The emotion that Spock felt with Kirk's death wasn't "earned."  It was empty and there simply for the sake of entertainment and making something new. 

 

This is my opinion and view.  

 

I absolutely disagree with this opinion and view.  I am a viewer of the new Star Trek movies, but have never watched any other Star Trek content including TV shows and movies.  I am not a young person either, I just happened to never get into TNG at my younger age.

 

Therefore the new Star Trek series is my first viewing of anything Star Trek.  At the moment when Kirk died in the second movie, I definitely felt the emotion conveyed by Spock.  I thought this was genuinely the best moment of the movie.

 

Now saying this, I feel that viewers of this scene who also previously viewed the similar, reversed scene likely thought the new scene did not have as much impact.  Some may even rolled their eyes because it was an exact copy of the previous scene.  I would disagree with this sentiment because to me, it shows that no matter what happens on your timeline of life, certain things would remain the same.  This is perhaps analogous to the concept of soul mates.  In this case, it did not matter if it was Spock who died or if it was Kirk who died, either character feels the same feeling toward one another.  This scene shows that no matter what happens in life, the feeling is mutual regardless of the events that lead to the moment.

[watts300]

I'd say go back and watch it again. Spock's reaction to kirks death was a result of what he felt when admiral pike died, and the realization of what kirk had done for him, and for the ship and everyone one it. Just because they had less history then the kirk and spock from the original WoK doesn't make it any less valid. The movies are more of a way to re-create the original series in movie form, and in a completely different timeline (alternate reality, whatever).

 

I like em, they're good on their own, when you completely separate them from the original stuff, which is still good.

 

Edit: They could use a bit more depth, but I like that they are a bit more action packed than the typical star trek affair, can't run with the same thing ALL the time, it gets boring. That's why I really only like the TNG episodes when there is some action, or generally creepy sh*t going on (like the episode where they get stuck in that rift, and the scene when Dr. Crusher starts seeing bodies sitting up, total WTF moment for me the first time around)

Well, the perspective I was attempting to illustrate is that the history needs to be there for a "Star Trek" movie.   The character development and story behind it is the essence of Star Trek.   Without it, it could be a fine movie, it just won't be "Star Trek" and would be something else entirely.  It's spirit is gone. 

 

Reboots of things like Robocop (don't hurt me, I havent seen the new one) or anything else with a less-established profile is easier because the lore isn't as expansive. 

 

 

I absolutely disagree with this opinion and view.

.

..

Therefore the new Star Trek series is my first viewing of anything Star Trek.  At the moment when Kirk died in the second movie, I definitely felt the emotion conveyed by Spock.  I thought this was genuinely the best moment of the movie.

 

 

To expand on what I said in the above reply, that's all fine that you like the new movies, but they are such a departure from the 10 previous movies and 5 television series that it's an entirely different entity.    To say that they're "better than the old Star Trek" movies is voided because it's like comparing Law and Order to Lethal Weapon.  They just aren't the same thing.  As you are new to "Star Trek" I guess you would just have to take it as black that a multi-decade Trekkie has enough familiarity with the franchise to recognize when a new addition shares the theme of the original that it claims to reboot.   If you chose not to, then that also is fine.  I'm not offended that any one likes Into Darkness or the one from 2009.  Like whatever you want.  

[Trik'Stari]

Well, the perspective I was attempting to illustrate is that the history needs to be there for a "Star Trek" movie.   The character development and story behind it is the essence of Star Trek.   Without it, it could be a fine movie, it just won't be "Star Trek" and would be something else entirely.  It's spirit is gone. 

 

 

 

 

To expand on what I said in the above reply, that's all fine that you like the new movies, but they are such a departure from the 10 previous movies and 5 television series that it's an entirely different entity.    To say that they're "better than the old Star Trek" movies is voided because it's like comparing Law and Order to Lethal Weapon.  They just aren't the same thing.  As you are new to "Star Trek" I guess you would just have to take it as black that a multi-decade Trekkie has enough familiarity with the franchise to recognize when a new addition shares the theme of the original that it claims to reboot.   If you chose not to, then that also is fine.  I'm not offended that any one likes Into Darkness or the one from 2009.  Like whatever you want.  

Not really. TOS didn't have the history behind it, they were building the history, and that's what they are doing now with these movies. So in that sense, it is TOS in a way.

 

You are looking at it as "they lack the TV series behind the movies", which is sort of true, the history is still there (in our minds), but the point is really that this is an alternate universe. if you were to compare the timelines, kirk and spock have really only just met, compared with the original movies where they had served together for years. It's a movie version of the TV series (in a way), but in an alternate reality where history has changed. Try to think of it as a completely new story, rather than a reboot of the older story.

[watts300]

 but the point is really that this is an alternate universe. .....   Try to think of it as a completely new story, rather than a reboot of the older story.

I don't think these dots can be connected.  

 

But at any rate... I will concede to a difference of opinions.  As I originally said, I can do nothing more than agree to disagree with you.   I'm not trying to change your or any one else's mind, I'm simply trying to explain and help others understand why hardcore Trekkies don't like the new movies; because they're not Star Trek.  

 

Since the explanation seems to be lost in translation, I don't think I have any more words to try harder to help instill that understanding.  

 

I politely tip my hat to ya'll and bow out of the conversation before it turns into an argument.  

 

 

 

Live long and prosper. 

 

Good bye, Mr. Nimoy.  We all love you.  

[Trik'Stari]

I don't think these dots can be connected.  

 

But at any rate... I will concede to a difference of opinions.  As I originally said, I can do nothing more than agree to disagree with you.   I'm not trying to change your or any one else's mind, I'm simply trying to explain and help others understand why hardcore Trekkies don't like the new movies; because they're not Star Trek.  

 

Since the explanation seems to be lost in translation, I don't think I have any more words to try harder to help instill that understanding.  

 

I politely tip my hat to ya'll and bow out of the conversation before it turns into an argument.  

 

 

 

Live long and prosper. 

 

Good bye, Mr. Nimoy.  We all love you.  

One last thing:

 

They're doing something that's new to the franchise, going where they've never been before, is that not the spirit of Star Trek?

[Totallycasual]

Is it strange that the first person i thought of when hearing this news was Sheldon?  :lol:

[Donut417]

I am a big fan of the original star trek films. Star Trek 2 The Wrath of Khan is my favorite. Leonard Nimoy will be missed. 

[Trik'Stari]

Is it strange that the first person i thought of when hearing this news was Sheldon?  :lol:

I think a lot of use did. And said the exact same thing.

"Oh no!"

[sgloux3470]

 

The new Abrams Star Trek took a dying franchise, and gave it life. It reimagined it in a way that the modern audience could resonate with. Gave it an edgy "gritty" feel to it. Some people don't like that. And that's fine. But don't you dare claim that they are bad "on behalf" of Trek fans.

 

 

They were mediocre action movies with nonsense plots(Which those screenwriters are famous for doing with all sorts of big budget movies.  Fucking hacks that wrote Transformers and The Amazing Spiderman ) but with great casting to make it likable. 

 

They're not bad movies, but they're bad Star Trek movies.    

[Bicketybam]

LLAP

 

You will be missed.

[Lewellyn]

 

27 sec

[MoonSpot]

Remember, remember Sentinel Prime's betrayers. Long live (the original) Galvatron!

 

 

As a Trekkie I'm saddened by this news, despite the bittersweet declarations that Leonard lived a good life.  Ours, or mine, is lessen in his absence.  Though I don't want to get into the debate about which star trek was "the best", and the reboot movie stuff.  I will say that my opinion mostly aligns with those of the older long term fans.  To perhaps better illustrate the impact that TOS had, I'd like to show, or remind, y'all of this.

 

[Humbug]

barely-dressed women for no reason (other than to just look hot)

That's a Star Trek tradition going bad to TOS.

[Trik'Stari]

That's a Star Trek tradition going bad to TOS.

If she had been green, no one would have said anything

[Carde]

No kidding?  What have you been writing?  

A ton of Star Trek RPG stuff (sims we call them), hundreds of characters for that.

 

And some projects I am still working on

[dalekphalm]

I'd say go back and watch it again. Spock's reaction to kirks death was a result of what he felt when admiral pike died, and the realization of what kirk had done for him, and for the ship and everyone one it. Just because they had less history then the kirk and spock from the original WoK doesn't make it any less valid. The movies are more of a way to re-create the original series in movie form, and in a completely different timeline (alternate reality, whatever).

 

I like em, they're good on their own, when you completely separate them from the original stuff, which is still good.

 

Edit: They could use a bit more depth, but I like that they are a bit more action packed than the typical star trek affair, can't run with the same thing ALL the time, it gets boring. That's why I really only like the TNG episodes when there is some action, or generally creepy sh*t going on (like the episode where they get stuck in that rift, and the scene when Dr. Crusher starts seeing bodies sitting up, total WTF moment for me the first time around)

 

 

I absolutely disagree with this opinion and view.  I am a viewer of the new Star Trek movies, but have never watched any other Star Trek content including TV shows and movies.  I am not a young person either, I just happened to never get into TNG at my younger age.

 

Therefore the new Star Trek series is my first viewing of anything Star Trek.  At the moment when Kirk died in the second movie, I definitely felt the emotion conveyed by Spock.  I thought this was genuinely the best moment of the movie.

 

Now saying this, I feel that viewers of this scene who also previously viewed the similar, reversed scene likely thought the new scene did not have as much impact.  Some may even rolled their eyes because it was an exact copy of the previous scene.  I would disagree with this sentiment because to me, it shows that no matter what happens on your timeline of life, certain things would remain the same.  This is perhaps analogous to the concept of soul mates.  In this case, it did not matter if it was Spock who died or if it was Kirk who died, either character feels the same feeling toward one another.  This scene shows that no matter what happens in life, the feeling is mutual regardless of the events that lead to the moment.

 

@watts300 Respectfully, I also disagree heavily with you. I'm a die-hard Star Trek fan. I've seen every single Star Trek series. I've seen every single episode from every series. I've even delved a bit into the "EU" books, comics, and of course, video games (Not that there are too many good Star Trek video games).

 

I'm a die-hard fan. And I love the new Abrams Trek movies. Yes they are different, but they still capture the awe of going into the unknown. They still have deep connection. I understand if you disagree on those parts, but you don't speak for all die-hard fans.

 

I agree with both @Trik'Stari and @Xorbot. These movies are essentially reboots of TOS. They're forging the connections anew. In Season 1 of TOS, Kirk and Spock were still developing those deep connections. The Abrams Trek movies were the equivalent of Season 1 in character development. Sure, the connections weren't as deep as they were in ST II: WOK, but they were still there. @Xorbot does a really good job of explaining it.

 

For me, TNG was the best trek. Better than TOS. I feel like it took all the great things about TOS, and improved upon them, and got rid of the less good parts (Cheap sets, stilted acting). Sure, TNG wasn't perfect, but no Trek is ever perfect. I actually feel that the TOS movies were far superior to the TOS series. The TOS movies were some of the best star trek movies. But if you notice with any of the Star Trek movies: The ones that were the most successful, and often the "best" (Subjective of course), tended to be the most action packed, and the most exciting to watch.

 

When I see a Trek movie, I don't want it to just be a 2-hour long episode. I want it to be special. I want an adventure worth 2 hours of my time, otherwise it might as well just be a 2-parter in one of the series.

 

I think the new Trek movies have great promise to turn into something really special. They're still getting their legs wet, still experimenting with what works (and what doesn't) with a modern audience. Also, about the lens flares: Who cares? Honestly, Star Trek 2009 was one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. The lens flares could be toned down a bit, but they really make the movie pop, visually. Really make you feel like you're right there with them on the bridge.

[Trik'Stari]

@watts300 Respectfully, I also disagree heavily with you. I'm a die-hard Star Trek fan. I've seen every single Star Trek series. I've seen every single episode from every series. I've even delved a bit into the "EU" books, comics, and of course, video games (Not that there are too many good Star Trek video games).

 

I'm a die-hard fan. And I love the new Abrams Trek movies. Yes they are different, but they still capture the awe of going into the unknown. They still have deep connection. I understand if you disagree on those parts, but you don't speak for all die-hard fans.

 

I agree with both @Trik'Stari and @Xorbot. These movies are essentially reboots of TOS. They're forging the connections anew. In Season 1 of TOS, Kirk and Spock were still developing those deep connections. The Abrams Trek movies were the equivalent of Season 1 in character development. Sure, the connections weren't as deep as they were in ST II: WOK, but they were still there. @Xorbot does a really good job of explaining it.

 

For me, TNG was the best trek. Better than TOS. I feel like it took all the great things about TOS, and improved upon them, and got rid of the less good parts (Cheap sets, stilted acting). Sure, TNG wasn't perfect, but no Trek is ever perfect. I actually feel that the TOS movies were far superior to the TOS series. The TOS movies were some of the best star trek movies. But if you notice with any of the Star Trek movies: The ones that were the most successful, and often the "best" (Subjective of course), tended to be the most action packed, and the most exciting to watch.

 

When I see a Trek movie, I don't want it to just be a 2-hour long episode. I want it to be special. I want an adventure worth 2 hours of my time, otherwise it might as well just be a 2-parter in one of the series.

 

I think the new Trek movies have great promise to turn into something really special. They're still getting their legs wet, still experimenting with what works (and what doesn't) with a modern audience. Also, about the lens flares: Who cares? Honestly, Star Trek 2009 was one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. The lens flares could be toned down a bit, but they really make the movie pop, visually. Really make you feel like you're right there with them on the bridge.

^this exactly.

 

A Trek movie should not be a 2 1/2 hour long diplomatic convention with Picard debating the merits of free speech.

[dalekphalm]

^this exactly.

 

A Trek movie should not be a 2 1/2 hour long diplomatic convention with Picard debating the merits of free speech.

Yeah lmfao. That might be awesome for 5-10 minutes of a TNG episode, but that would be boring as old hairy Picard balls on the big screen