Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x01 - "The Vulcan Hello"

[Quinton O'Connor]

The relative proximity of Earth and Qo'nos feels so weird to me somehow. Maybe it's the epic fantasy lover in me but I'd prefer it were a harrowing months-long journey to get from Point A to Point B.

Then again, maybe that's the point: they're practically in missile range at any given moment, and that's a hell of a lot more topical.

 

[cooleddie74]

It was a big surprise when 16 years ago this very evening we learned that the Klingon Homeworld was just four days away at maximum warp, and not just maximum warp but the fastest vessel of that time period. Kirk's Enterprise would probably be just a couple of days away from Qo'noS if the distance between the two worlds remains the same in canon, which we can probably assume it does.

Kelvin timeline starships traveled the 17 light-years from Earth to Vulcan in what seemed like just hours or even minutes! The galaxy, at least from a storytelling perspective, shrank and quite a bit between the late sixties and ENT.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It was a big surprise when 16 years ago this very evening we learned that the Klingon Homeworld was just four days away at maximum warp, and not just maximum warp but the fastest vessel of that time period. Kirk's Enterprise would probably be just a couple of days away from Qo'noS if the distance between the two worlds remains the same in canon, which we can probably assume it does.

Kelvin timeline starships traveled the 17 light-years from Earth to Vulcan in what seemed like just hours or even minutes! The galaxy, at least from a storytelling perspective, shrank and quite a bit between the late sixties and ENT.

Of course in TOS the Enterprise never visited 23rd Century Earth. So there's no point of reference. The area that Earth, the Q'oNos and Vulcan exist in might be similar to Europe with several major powers in close proximity.

 

[cooleddie74]

Fair enough, but it just goes to show how much the galaxy shrank in the minds of the creators of the franchise between the production of TOS and the launch of ENT.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

The shrinkage of a franchise's world is something I'll usually mourn. But it also correlates with the so-called shrinkage of our own world. Most places feel so much closer now than they would have felt back then. I get it, but. :P

 

[Nerys Myk]

Fair enough, but it just goes to show how much the galaxy shrank in the minds of the creators of the franchise between the production of TOS and the launch of ENT.

Need and speed of plot. It was smart for TOS to avoid Earth. I hope Disco does the same

 

[cooleddie74]

In TNG the Enterprise-D returned to Earth just once or twice over seven years, at least once or twice that we saw. DS9 wasn't all that much more frequent but the Defiant did visit Earth on at least several occasions including the time travel accident that sent the senior officers back to the Bell Riots, the buildup to the Dominion War and the war itself.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In TNG the Enterprise-D returned to Earth just once or twice over seven years, at least once or twice that we saw. DS9 wasn't all that much more frequent but the Defiant did visit Earth on at least several occasions including the time travel accident that sent the senior officers back to the Bell Riots, the buildup to the Dominion War and the war itself.

The movies were the worst culprits.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I feel like the TNG era was really good at making space feel vast. It isn't hard to do, though, when your flagship is boldly going in every direction and your space station is out on the fringe and your explorer ship is way, way, way beyond said fringe. They all gave Child!Me the impression that it would be weeks and weeks to get to some of those big empire capital worlds, and Child!Me ooh'd and ahh'd and wrote fanfiction.

 

[cooleddie74]

And the biggest culprit of them all is the Enterprise-A making it to the center of the galaxy in a matter of days if not hours. The J.M. Dillard novelization of Star Trek V explained that the entity on "Sha-Ka-Ree" planted knowledge in the mind of Sybok that allowed both he and his followers to modify the Enterprise's warp engines to make the otherwise impossible trip possible, but the actual shooting script mentioned absolutely none of this information.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Nerys Mx,

Which Klingons should I met - the Klingons from TOS, the Klingons from TNG, or the Klingons from Final Reflections?

 

[JRTStarlight]

And here I was just mildly annoyed DS9 and Earth had real time communications.

The space between must be filthy with subspace relay stations.

 

[Timewalker]

The same one where Sybok is mentioned.

Was Michael Burnham mentioned in STV? I must have missed that.

Or is STV a reboot too?

STV is a piece of crap that I prefer not to remember; the only remotely decent part of that movie was the scene where McCoy has to deal with the pain of helping his father die, then not long after that, knowing that a cure is available.

I'm still waiting to hear all about the Vulcan Monarchy.

What about STIV with its female Captain?

What about it? That has nothing to do with events that happened decades before, when Janice Lester was whining that Starfleet didn't allow women to be captains. If Discovery is canon and this is "how it's always been, we just didn't see it on screen in TOS", why didn't Kirk tell Janice the equivalent of "Starfleet has always allowed women to be captains, but the reason you didn't get to be one is because you just aren't good enough"?

Instead, he spouts some sexist drivel about how Janice's life "could have been as rich as any woman's" - presumably if she'd just have given up the silly notion of wanting a man's job.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Michele

Born 1966. How unrealistic.

So that was a common thing? I've met people with unisex names, but changing names around isn't something I'm familiar with, unless it's something like a nickname or a foreign name.

Agreed. And don't forget that she was a black female captain.

So what? I'm talking about events that occur long before that point. You're twisting my post to say something I didn't say.

I'm not saying there weren't any female captains in Starfleet; obviously there were, but we didn't see them until after the TOS TV series ended. Janice Lester said there were no female starship captains, and if Discovery is supposed to be "how it always was" then Kirk should have set her straight. He didn't.

Let's be honest here: The difference between TOS and DIS is AT LEAST as big as the difference between TOS and TMP. If you're okay with TOS and TMP being in the same universe, despite all the differences in tone, visuals, storytelling and aesthetics, even though they are officially even closer in time, you shouldn't have a problem with DIS being in the same universe as well.

It's amazing how people persist in missing the point.

TMP took place AFTER the TOS series. Not before. So I don't have a problem with the change in uniforms, more advanced ship, etc. And the characters are played by the same people and display the same basic traits, speech patterns, motivations, abilities, etc.

But having tech in a TOS prequel that is more advanced than what can be done in TOS (never mind what it looks like for the moment) is bad storytelling. It's like you're saying that historical TV series (ie. Rome or The Tudors) should have all the characters running around with smart phones just because modern audiences are used to smart phones and can't imagine how anyone could ever manage to live without them.

Which is the oficial, canon position btw. Everyone is free to have his 'head-canon' (hell, I have mine regarding certain things), but that doesn't change the official, canon position from being: DIS is part of the prime timeline.
Every inconsitency between those two is just another part for the pile of already existing canon inconsistencies. Period.

And some inconsistencies are big enough to drive ten freight trains through, and it's just too much to take seriously. It reminds me of the shenanigans the Doctor Who writers did during the Matt Smith era. When they realized they'd written themselves into a corner, they just had the Doctor trot out, "I lied. Remember: The Doctor always lies." And then they'd wave away the corner and expect the audience to accept the new version.

Sorry, I expect better, no matter which franchise it is.

Did Sarek disapprove of Starfleet as an organization, or just of his (half)Vulcan son joining it (as opposed to the Vulcan Science Academy) and wasting his potential, in Sarek's opinion? Perhaps his objections would not apply to a fully human adoptive daughter joining.

I think it's both. Sarek is a diplomat who is dedicated to preserving peace, and of course as a peaceful, logical, Surak-following Vulcan he would approve of peaceful means to achieve his diplomatic missions, rather than threatening to shoot with a phaser.

I think it's time to acknowledge that Starfleet is a military organization, at least in part. To a pacifist, military = violence, and violence = Bad Thing.

As for the Vulcan Science Academy, just look around in RL at all the parents who want their kids to carry on the family tradition of attending a certain university, and they may be highly annoyed if their kid chooses to go somewhere else, or chooses a different career entirely.

There's no reason why Sarek couldn't disapprove of both Starfleet and the fact that Spock turned down the offer to attend the Vulcan Science Academy.

Can't comment on the Turnabout Intruder angle as I've never heard any justification for actually watching that episode

Not even to witness what may be Shatner's greatest feat of hammy overacting in the entire series?

There's an interesting account of some of the behind-the-scenes stuff to do with that episode in the book Star Trek Lives!. It's Joan Winston's account of spending a week on the set during the filming of "Turnabout Intruder" (partly as Deforest Kelley's guest, which is why she was allowed onto a closed set at times when no other fans were). It's very fannish, but also quite interesting.

Was it in some dialogue I missed, or in part 2, that Michael Burnham is confirmed as Sarek's ward, or adopted daughter, or whatever? Couldn't it just be a remarkably close student-teacher relationship that survived past graduation? Mentor/Mentee? Even friends? Or is this legal guardian or ward thing carved in stone somewhere?
I see no particular reason why Spock would be or should be made aware of her, given where he is. I don't see any hypocrisy or inconsistency in Sarek having a good relationship with a former student in Starfleet.

What am I missing?

Sarek disapproves of Starfleet. Sarek disapproved of Spock joining Starfleet, after taking his higher education at Starfleet Academy instead of the Vulcan Science Academy. Sarek was so pissed off about these things that he refused to speak to Spock for EIGHTEEN YEARS.

This is all explained in the TOS episode "Journey to Babel."

So it's just really incredibly jarring and hypocritical of Sarek to get chummy with a girl he helped raise, who also joined Starfleet - the organization that the peaceful, logical, civilian diplomat Sarek disapproves of.

There's no such thing as "the reboot camp".

Considering that there are several of us here who are adamant that it is a reboot, yes, there is a "reboot camp."

Your denial isn't going to make our posts disappear.

Pft. Don't be silly.

Everybody knows Captain Georgiou and Michael are in love. #ForeverShippingEverything

The fanfic writers are slow. I just checked fanfiction.net, and there aren't any slash stories posted yet. In fact, they haven't created a category for Discovery stories.

But I predict there will be one within the next couple of weeks, and sooner rather than later there will be Georgiou/Michael stories.

Yeah, that's why it's wrong. They're many light-years away from Earth. The stars shouldn't be the same.

How did the Klingons get the beacon in there, then? Did they build a super-powerful beacon with it's own guardian to be used once and then discarded?

The boots in Discovery are totally different from the ones in TOS, so it's a re-boot!

Yeah, otherwise Uhura and Spock will never...Oh, wait...Wrong timeline.

Perhaps she's why Spock and Uhura never got together in the Prime timeline!

Prime Spock was bonded to T'Pring when they were both 7 years old (after Spock passed his Kahs-wan test).

So do you think his penis is too big for one woman or not?

3 inches per wife.

Actually, if I can be serious about Vulcan mating rituals, as a 7 year old, Sarek was betrothed to a Vulcan princess, and because their kid was batshit loony toons, their union was (maybe) annulled, and never spoken of again.

1. That girl from when he was seven grew up to be an asshole, but if he doesn't do it with her every seven years Sarek will die. So he can either be very unhappy trying to share a life with an asshole or Sarek can look for a mistress. That being said a Vulcan's mistress (or the male equivalence), is about everything except sex. They are looking for a friend, between moments when they have to have sex with someone that they loath.

2. If the psychic connection is is annulled along with the marriage (imagine if they still had to bone every seven years, still even after a messy divorce), maybe Sarek doesn't do Ponfar anymore? If his psychic connection with that princess is cut, then it's possible that there is no dating pool to look for sex after marriage, because everyone compatible is still paired off with someone which they've been mentally stapled to since they were 7. No Vulcan woman (who is wife material) will marry Sarek, or ease him if they are already spoken for.

3. You may be expected to die from Pon far if your mate dies.

4. Sarek is defective. No Vulcan woman wants to have laughing children.

5. The Royal family is a pack of spiteful bitter assholes, and they punish any one who thinks about touching Sarek's penis, because although he does not belong to that princess anymore, it doesn't mean that they, or she, is cool with anyone else having him.

6. Remember how gays used to get married in Vermont, and then return home (across the country) to where their marriage was not legal? Without the telepathic bonding, which may be beyond a humans deficits, is it really an honest and legal marriage by Vulcan standards? Legally on Vulcan, Amanda may be Sarek's girlfriend, even if they have human paperwork to say otherwise.

7. If Sarek married an alien from the world he was the ambassador to, maybe he's done it before, and maybe even it's a DEMAND of the Job, that every Vulcan ambassador marries into the culture of the species that they are assigned to.

8. Sarek married Amanda to get the job. "Why should I get this post? Have you met my wife?" If the marriage was more tactical than loving (in the beginning), then maybe he needs another woman to take care of his other needs, like stimulating conversation form someone who doesn't have half his IQ. (This would mean that Spock must have "married" a Romulan... Which according to the novels, he did.)

9. We saw Vorrik who was almost 30 bond with a grown woman. What if the psychic bond is not one to one, but a group thing (it clearly is, but they winnow down the numbers with murdersports) so every time a Vulcan husband and wife can't quite get all the way home to bump fuzzies, a new person is added to the group, and then in seven years they all have to have a threesome/orgy or they will all die, so after a century of marriage, there could be 12 people, or more in the wedding bed.

10. Vulcans do it once every 7 years. Humans can do it 5 times a day, every day, until their knees give out. The human sex drive, even though Sarek is more than 3 times stronger and resilient than Amanda, is repetitively tedious and emotionally exhausting. Sarek may have needed a mistress or second wife who would not be continuously unbuckling his trousers the moment she thinks no one is looking. Dude needs a break, to talk about the weather.

...

No.

Honestly, just no.

Vulcans can mate any time they want to, but they have to do so at least once every 7 years, when pon farr occurs.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of Vulcan's monarchy that we never heard about until Star Trek V, when Spock was reciting his rather glib "explanation" of who Sybok was.

After all, if Sarek was aristocratic enough to marry a princess, I'm sure his peers and the rest of the clan were just thrilled when he married a human commoner!

(And the "Turnabout Intruder" thing is really just your interpretation of one line, anyway. It's just as reasonable to watch the scene and conclude that Janice wasn't speaking literally, and there's plenty of later canonical evidence — yes, retcons! — to confirm it.)

Oh, FFS.

I never said that there were no women starship captains. Janice Lester said there were no women starship captains. Up until that time (3rd season TOS), that was true (or Kirk or someone else should have pointed out that she was incorrect). Whether or not they were allowed is a different issue; it could simply be that up until that time, no women had met the qualifications to hold the captaincy of a starship.

My own private opinion is that the first female starship captain was probably Number One, and then people would have had to know her name (since it would be awkward as hell to be known as "Captain Number One"; people would be wondering where the rest of the captains were!).

The stuff you're trotting out refers to events that happened AFTER "Turnabout Intruder" - things Janice couldn't possibly have known about, because they hadn't happened yet!

Just because these things were not mentioned does not mean they did not exist. By your logic, every single event, character, issue not identified by the original series crew is not cannon. That's simply not true. #NotAReboot

By my logic, if it's something that fits in without undermining continuity or making me have a "WTF?!" reaction, it's fine. For example, McCoy's father's name was never mentioned in the TV series, either TOS, TAS, or TNG. It was mentioned in STIII, but so unobtrusively that it didn't matter. No plot point hinged on what McCoy's father's name was, or that he'd even known his father.

But Sarek having a ward he doesn't mind talking to, while ignoring his own son, even though both of them are part of a military organization Sarek profoundly disapproves of isn't something that fits.

I do know what a retcon is; soap operas do retconning all the time. General Hospital is in the middle of a storyline that's retconning a character's history for at least the half-dozenth time in as many years. But I accept that because it's a soap opera, and that's what soap operas do.

I expect better of science fiction dramas that expect the audience to take them seriously.

I feel like the TNG era was really good at making space feel vast. It isn't hard to do, though, when your flagship is boldly going in every direction and your space station is out on the fringe and your explorer ship is way, way, way beyond said fringe. They all gave Child!Me the impression that it would be weeks and weeks to get to some of those big empire capital worlds, and Child!Me ooh'd and ahh'd and wrote fanfiction.

One thing I noticed about TNG was that they no longer used the names of real stars, and their planets' names were incredibly unimaginative.

But given that most Hollywood SF writers never even bother to crack open a basic astronomy book, it's probably just as well. Some of the old TOS stories take me right out of it when they mention some planet of Rigel (a star we now know is a blue supergiant that will go supernova some day), Betelgeuse (a star we now know is a red supergiant that is in the process of going supernova - yes, the astronomers now have photographic evidence), or Vega (a giant star we now know is far too young to have planets at all, let alone planets with intelligent life, and it will supernova before it ever does have planets that can support intelligent life - assuming intelligent life there would take billions of years like it did on Earth).

 

[Noname Given]

Looking back, I see the prologue as an example of the plot making the characters, not the characters making the plot. They had an end goal and they moved the "Burnham" character to that goal. She did not develop to that goal naturally and we did not see her progress from A to B to etc. Instead, she went all the way to Z, bypassing the stops on the way.

I heard a point raised on a YouTube video. The Klingons are described as "inviolably honorable", yet in the same episode they are described as committing "terror raids" against the Federation. Terror raids are never based in honor. This is a stunning inconsistency.

I was watching "The Phage" earlier today. They managed to describe a celestial body as a "rogue planetoid", a "planet", and then as a "moon" in less than 10 minutes. Which is it? It is the same situation here - which is it? Are the Klingons in the Discovery universe honorable or not honorable?

"Terror Raids" was the term Sarek used. We have no idea how the Klingons themselves saw these raids, or the reasons why the Klingons felt it necessary to carry them out.

 

[cultcross]

Instead, he spouts some sexist drivel about how Janice's life "could have been as rich as any woman's" - presumably if she'd just have given up the silly notion of wanting a man's job.

An attitude that I'm entirely happy a show made today ignores as the sexist drivel that it was. That episode is horrible.
Besides, Kirk not calling her out doesn't mean anything. People say horribly sexist things about jobs 'not being for women' today and don't get corrected. Spock says in Wolf in the Fold that women are more easily and deeply terrified and no-one calls him out for that bit of tripe - should we respect that as canonically true too?

It's completely ridiculous that in the history of Starfleet up to the end of TOS not one woman reached the captain's chair, especially as female first officers had been canon since The Cage. It's the sort of thing that should be immediately dismissed as the ravings of a mad character in an episode made in a sexist time. There's a difference between what characters say and what is factually true within the universe.

 

[Trekker4747]

I became a Star Trek fan in 1969 (age 6) - and I'll talk more about the basic differences between in (and the 23rd century era) and TNG (and the 24th century era); and why to me ST: D's pilot in DEFINITELY 'Star Trek' to me.

If to you Star Trek is "Earth is a Utopia" and "mankind has 'grown up' and is unified" <--- Then yes, TOS (which you admit to it being "before your time" and not seeing much of it), would probably NOT have made you a Star Trek fan.

I also think you comment of:

Is inaccurate and tells me you may never have watched TOS - "The Menagerie" because the situation Burnham is in in the first two episodes of ST: D IS similar.

In TOS - "The Menagerie": Spock hears (not directly during the episode, but the audience comes to understand how he did in others comments) that his former Captain has been grievously injured in a heroic act of saving Cadets of a ship that had a reactor accident - and his cognitive faculties are fine, but his body is fully paralyzed and he can't move of speak.

Spock then decides to mutiny (and fully steal/commandeer the 1701) so that he can return Captain Pike to a Planet of Super Telepaths that they encountered 12 years before, because he knows these Telepaths can (through illusion) gove Pike back his 'life'. The thing is these telepaths themselves warned that the Federation needed to avoid contact/trade because if Humans learned their abilities, the Human race would destroy itself like they had. As a result, Star Fleet has an on the Books directive that no one (in an emergency or otherwise) should go to their planet 'Talos IV' and to do do invokes the Death Penalty.

So, yes, Spock himself contemplated and carried out his mutiny (and was successful - and given the circumstances and Pike's condition - was spared the Death Penalty and although guilty of mutiny - reinstated to his rank and position.

Basically, Spock did do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
^^^
This is EXACTLY how Burnham views her situation here in TVH and BATBS:
- Once she got the info from Sarek on how Vulcans avoided future conflict with the Klingons after losing one ship - even though Sarek warned her to be careful and that the Klingons might not react to Humans do this as they had to Vulcans doing it; she felt it was the only way to possibly avoid conflict with the Kllingons in the instance; and THE ONLY WAY to save the crew and ship she loved.

- Thus after she pleads and actually demands that the Captain must listen to her and do as she says, or the ship will be attacked and likely everyone killed; and the Captain (due to her own past experiences) doesn't see it that way; Burnham decides that to save the ship and everyone on it - she has no choice but to knock the Captain out, and commit Mutiny to save the ship and everyone she loves,

In her mind, yes, she's knows she's doing the wrong thing, but for (again as she sees it) the right reasons. <--- In that way her actions are just like the actions Spock will take to 'save' Captain Pike 10 years (in universe) from now.
^^^
I didn't have a problem with it in that I could see why the character would both consider and carry out such an act given the information she had; and the situation they were in. It wasn't a "Black and White" thing and that's one thing I loved about the situation here.

In the TOS era - Humans STILL used money and worked for a living. Earth WASN'T yet a utopia, and Humans were just a bit more socially evolved then they are today. <-- That's what I loved about TOS; and that's why in 1987 when TNG premiered, I felt it was retconing what I had liked about Star Trek, and in effect sucking a lot of the actual humanity out of the show.

And that's the part I really enjoy about ST: D. I can completely understand why someone who really thinks TNG (and the 24th century era) was the best 'real' Star Trek, would find a lot of what happened in ST: D so far "Not Star Trek"; but maybe you guys now understand how many a TOS fan felt about TNG when it premiered, and it took many of us a long time (3 seasons) to even start really warming up to it.

In the end - there's no "I'm right/You're wrong here." You can like some incarnations of 'Star Trek' and not like others; but that doesn't make you any less of a Star trek fan; and the version of Star trek you like will always be around for you to enjoy; and if you're lucky, another incarnation of Star trek will come along that's closer to what you like about 'Star Trek'.

I've watched plenty of TOS and there's more than a few times and episodes in which it heavily implies the "humanity has gotten over itself and doesn't pull this shit anymore" thing. As for "The Menagerie" I had forgotten about that one, but it's a different set of circumstances. It's like any other time a mutiny has occurred in Trek, it happens because some set of circumstances escalated to the point where one was "necessary" or done out of an extraordinary situation. Not, "my captain is making a combat decision I disagree with."

The entire look and feel of this show isn't Star Trek to me, too grim and angsty. To focused on conflict and battle. It didn't feel like TNG OR TOS to me because both of those series are fun to watch, enjoyable, entertaining and gave me hope for the future. It was the 1960s when the show ran and on the bridge working as equals Kirk had a black woman, an alien, an Asian man and a Russian. (This at a time when the US was on the brink of war with Russia.) They worked together without conflict and for a common goal or objective on a weekly basis setting aside those few extraordinary circumstances. In one episode of this series the First Officer of the non series centered ship bickers with the science officer like siblings and commits a (violent) mutiny so she can fire weapons on an enemy ship. If that looks or feels anywhere in step with Trek for you then, I dunno, maybe we got different things out of the shows. It's along those lines why I fail to understand how people with heavily Right-Wing views can be Star Trek fans given the messages and things said/done in the show. How people can be capitalistic and think things like healthcare and basic human needs shouldn't be provided by a government but people who want those things should work for them and if they can't, then tough-luck to them, when Trek very much was against these ideas.

My favorite episode of the entire franchise: "The City on the Edge of Forever."

Kirk is on Earth towards the end of the Depression Era/in the Recovery Era and the budding World War II and marvels at a contemporary woman telling a group of homeless men in her soup kitchen to look forward to a future where mankind will harness great energies to help all of humanity, end suffering, and explore the stars. The things she says about her vision for Earth's future is very much in line with the future of Earth presented to us in Trek, both TOS an TNG. (Granting TNG took it to 11, but TOS still heavily suggested humans had gotten over themselves and were working together for something better.)

This episode didn't feel like "Trek" to me and, really, I can't see how anyone could see any "Trek" in it beyond the terms tossed around and references. This was an episode where a seven-year First Officer decided she didn't like the decision her captain made, nerve-pinched her, and then marched out onto the bridge to open fire on an alien ship. (Hostile aliens or not, no hostilities had yet occurred.)

For me, this isn't Star Trek. If I wanted to see bleakness and the building of a war I'll turn on the news. I need, now more than ever, a hope for the future. I need to see people working together to do GOOD things, working for science and exploration. I don't need to see ideological conflict and hostilities over cultural differences, and conflicts between military leaders over courses of aggressive action.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I've watched plenty of TOS and there's more than a few times and episodes in which it heavily implies the "humanity has gotten over itself and doesn't pull this shit anymore" thing. As for "The Menagerie" I had forgotten about that one, but it's a different set of circumstances. It's like any other time a mutiny has occurred in Trek, it happens because some set of circumstances escalated to the point where one was "necessary" or done out of an extraordinary situation. Not, "my captain is making a combat decision I disagree with."

The entire look and feel of this show isn't Star Trek to me, too grim and angsty. To focused on conflict and battle. It didn't feel like TNG OR TOS to me because both of those series are fun to watch, enjoyable, entertaining and gave me hope for the future. It was the 1960s when the show ran and on the bridge working as equals Kirk had a black woman, an alien, an Asian man and a Russian. (This at a time when the US was on the brink of war with Russia.) They worked together without conflict and for a common goal or objective on a weekly basis setting aside those few extraordinary circumstances. In one episode of this series the First Officer of the non series centered ship bickers with the science officer like siblings and commits a (violent) mutiny so she can fire weapons on an enemy ship. If that looks or feels anywhere in step with Trek for you then, I dunno, maybe we got different things out of the shows. It's along those lines why I fail to understand how people with heavily Right-Wing views can be Star Trek fans given the messages and things said/done in the show. How people can be capitalistic and think things like healthcare and basic human needs shouldn't be provided by a government but people who want those things should work for them and if they can't, then tough-luck to them, when Trek very much was against these ideas.

My favorite episode of the entire franchise: "The City on the Edge of Forever."

Kirk is on Earth towards the end of the Depression Era/in the Recovery Era and the budding World War I and marvels at a contemporary woman telling a group of homeless men in her soup kitchen to look forward to a future where mankind will harness great energies to help all of humanity, end suffering, and explore the stars. The things she says about her vision for Earth's future is very much in line with the future of Earth presented to us in Trek, both TOS an TNG. (Granting TNG took it to 11, but TOS still heavily suggested humans had gotten over themselves and were working together for something better.)

This episode didn't feel like "Trek" to me and, really, I can't see how anyone could see any "Trek" in it beyond the terms tossed around and references. This was an episode where a seven-year First Officer decided she didn't like the decision her captain made, nerve-pinched her, and then marched out onto the bridge to open fire on an alien ship. (Hostile aliens or not, no hostilities had yet occurred.)

For me, this isn't Star Trek. If I wanted to see bleakness and the building of a war I'll turn on the news. I need, now more than ever, a hope for the future. I need to see people working together to do GOOD things, working for science and exploration. I don't need to see ideological conflict and hostilities over cultural differences, and conflicts between military leaders over courses of aggressive action.

Burnham mutineed because she is suffering from PTSD from the attack that resulted in her parents death. She came face to face with the people who killed her parents and she fell apart. I mean she expressly states that she is afraid of Georgiou being taken from her if the klingons attack. It had zero to do with Burnham wanting to get into a fight for the sake of it and everything to do with Burnham not wanting to lose another family to the klingons.

The producers have stated that war will last for the first season only and there is a thematic reason for it. It's going to be about how do we overcome ideological differences, how do we deal with people that hate us and how we find common ground if not peace. That sounds like quintessential trek to me. Star Trek VI explored the same themes.

Burnham is on her own path, and it's probably going to involve her coming to terms with what happened to her parents and making peace with herself so she can put an end to a war. I feel this season will be about Burnham working towards redemption and making herself into the officer that Georgiou believed her to be. To see a person fall and then work to better themselves is Star trek to the core, because that IS the human condition. If that is what they have in mind then i can't wait to see it.

 

[psCargile]

I fail to understand how people with heavily Right-Wing views can be Star Trek fans given the messages and things said/done in the show.

As a person with right wing views, I'd say you don't truly understand the viewpoint.

 

[DigificWriter]

Considering that there are several of us here who are adamant that it is a reboot, yes, there is a "reboot camp."

Your denial isn't going to make our posts disappear.

A handful of objectively wrong opinions isn't a "camp".

 

[BillJ]

A handful of objectively wrong opinions isn't a "camp".

There's nothing objective about either side. I see nothing of TOS in Discovery. If you stripped away the Star Trek visual elements, I would have a hard time connecting it to any Star Trek.