so the producers and writers said that discovery will lead into TOS (60's aesthetics and all)...

[Ithekro]

Spock didn't speak of Sarek until he appeared on the USS Enterprise one day, nor did be speak of Sybok until he was taking over the ship....Spock just doesn't talk about his family. Michael, being family, would be someone Spock doesn't talk about unless she actually shows up in front of him. He also doesn't talk about his childhood much, likely because it is embarrassing or mildly traumatic, though he did mention his pet, but mostly in context with another animal that was nearby as a reference point.

And while Captain Kirk might know of Michael Burnham, he might not know her ties to Spock, unless he knows of Burnham's connection as a ward to Sarek of Vulcan, and piece two and two together after finding out that Sarek of Vulcan is Spock's father. Because while that information might be in Spock's service record....usually no one cares who your parents are in Starfleet unless you happen to have a famous sounding last name. Which is something we can't say that Spock has, since he goes by just "Spock".

 

[Tuskin38]

Doesn’t Spock say his family name is unpronounceable by humans?

 

[Lieut. Arex]

^ not precisely, Amanda tells Kirk it is difficult to pronounce, but that she can "after a fashion, and with many years of practice"

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

^Which is also fairly consistent with Spock having earlier told Leila Kalomi that she wouldn't be able to pronounce it in "This Side Of Paradise" (TOS), i.e. she wouldn't be able to do so without such practice, and maybe not truly correctly even then.

He also mentions to Kirk in "Paradise" that his father was an ambassador and his mother a schoolteacher, but only under influence of the spores and after aggressive prodding...and he doesn't name them, of course. Kirk had already known that his father was a Vulcan and his mother a human, via various references in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (TOS), "The Naked Time" (TOS), and "The Squire Of Gothos" (TOS). Kirk surmised that Spock's family was of some measure of importance on Vulcan in "Amok Time" (TOS) based on T'Pau officiating at his wedding, but explicitly says Spock had never mentioned this.

 

[marsh8472]

I'd just like to point out a colossal time war which could probably explain every discrepancy ever in Trek.

Here's another way they could do it, just incorporate it into Benny's story combined with a "These are the Voyages..." approach to tie it in with DS9's "In the Pale Moonlight":

JOSEPH: I'm full of surprises, aren't I? And so are you. Sounds like that dream you had helped you sort things out.
SISKO: I suppose it did. But I have begun to wonder. What if it wasn't a dream? What if this life we're leading, all of this, you and me, everything. What if all this is the illusion?
JOSEPH: That's a scary thought.
SISKO: I know, I know. But maybe, just maybe, Benny isn't the dream, we are. Maybe we're nothing more than figments of his imagination. For all we know, at this very moment, somewhere far beyond all those distant stars, Benny Russell is dreaming of us.
(Benny is Sisko's reflection in the window.)

Then the continuity problems are resolved because we learn that all of star trek has artificial continuity and the uniforms don't match up because that kind of thing just happens when writing fictional stories and Benny has had some mental problems so it's hard time keeping things straight sometimes.

 

[ralfy]

I didn’t say it couldn’t be done.

It wont be done on modern TV.

Fan Film is fine.

Given the fact that STD is being released via streaming, then I don't see why shows have to be considered only if they are broadcast through conventional means.

 

[ralfy]

Star Trek Continues is a piece of historical reenactment, not a modern TV show.

From what I know, they were continuing TOS.

 

[marsh8472]

Your rationale is fundamentally absurd. You're describing the story as if it's a naturally occurring phenomenon that will form according to chance.

No, it's not at all reasonable to suspect that alternate timelines will end up being responsible for continuity issues because we know that isn't what they've written or intend to write. The link you included at the top of your post makes that clear itself. Akiva Goldsman point blank stated that Discovery is a prototype existing alongside the original series Constitution in the original series timeline, and that they decided to use site-to-site transport because Lorca is different and doesn't care about danger.

Yes, I know the interview isn't "canon" but that's not the point. You're predicting what canon will be based on your own fantasy, deliberately ignoring the obvious real-world plans. You claim as "evidence" that the spore drive isn't mentioned in VOY and that site-to-site is "rare" in TOS, therefore it's "likely" to be an alternate timeline story.

That isn't how it works. This isn't going to happen unless the whole writing team is replaced by some clown who decides to throw everything away and switch the timeline in some "it was all a dream" style copout. Which, as it stands now, is highly unlikely.

It looks like the fundamental difference boils down to literary criticism theory explained in this video:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I'm taking the formalism approach with some reader response approach while you're using the authorial intent approach

Formalism

• interested only in what can be found in the text
• uses literary devices as part of the analysis
• tries to see connections between works (how do they use devices similarly, etc.)

Criticisms of Formalism

• Too formulaic (every text boils down to a pile of literary devices)
• Not enough emphasis on the final product (process < result)
• Appreciation for the final product is lessened

Authorial intent

• The author put stuff in the book for a reason.
• Discovering those reasons can lead to better interpretations
• Can also include statements the author makes in interviews, etc.

Criticisms of Authorial Intent

• Relevance: does it matter how much the author and work are related?
• Is what the author thinks the only valid way of looking at a text?

Reader Response theory

• 1967 essay "Death of the Author"
• Argues that authoris are really 'scriptors' who bring pieces of stories together
• Cannot know what an author intended
• Readers create meaning, not authors

In reader response theory, the author/'scriptor' organizes the elemtns of the story and provides the impetus for analysis by arranging the text, in the same way an electrician might organize the elements of a circuit.

The reader is then able to 'complete the circuit' by adding meaning to the text through the act of reading and interpreting it.

3 branches of Reader Response theory

1. Individualism- attempt to figure out how individuals respond to a text.
2. Experimenters- try to figure out why a certain text leads to a certain response
3. Uniformist- try to figure out what the 'standard' response to a text is.

Critisms of Reader Response theory

• As with Authorial Intent, the question becomes: does it matter?
• More interpretations of a text (is this a good thing?)
• Are the interpretations equally valid?

 

[zar]

It looks like the fundamental difference boils down to literary criticism theory explained in this video:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I'm taking the formalism approach with some reader response approach while you're using the authorial intent approach

Formalism

• interested only in what can be found in the text
• uses literary devices as part of the analysis
• tries to see connections between works (how do they use devices similarly, etc.)

Criticisms of Formalism

• Too formulaic (every text boils down to a pile of literary devices)
• Not enough emphasis on the final product (process < result)
• Appreciation for the final product is lessened

Authorial intent

• The author put stuff in the book for a reason.
• Discovering those reasons can lead to better interpretations
• Can also include statements the author makes in interviews, etc.

Criticisms of Authorial Intent

• Relevance: does it matter how much the author and work are related?
• Is what the author thinks the only valid way of looking at a text?

Reader Response theory

• 1967 essay "Death of the Author"
• Argues that authoris are really 'scriptors' who bring pieces of stories together
• Cannot know what an author intended
• Readers create meaning, not authors

In reader response theory, the author/'scriptor' organizes the elemtns of the story and provides the impetus for analysis by arranging the text, in the same way an electrician might organize the elements of a circuit.

The reader is then able to 'complete the circuit' by adding meaning to the text through the act of reading and interpreting it.

3 branches of Reader Response theory

1. Individualism- attempt to figure out how individuals respond to a text.
2. Experimenters- try to figure out why a certain text leads to a certain response
3. Uniformist- try to figure out what the 'standard' response to a text is.

Critisms of Reader Response theory

• As with Authorial Intent, the question becomes: does it matter?
• More interpretations of a text (is this a good thing?)
• Are the interpretations equally valid?

Not at all. You're predicting how an unfinished work will be finished while ignoring authorial intent. You're also not analyzing literary devices. You're trying to link elements in a way that completely defies literary device, and you're inappropriately applying statistical analysis to literature. This is neither formalism nor authorial intent. Much like your clumsy attempts at applying "logical fallacies", this is just a confused display of pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

 

[Tuskin38]

From what I know, they were continuing TOS.

Still doesn't make it a modern TV show.

Given the fact that STD is being released via streaming, then I don't see why shows have to be considered only if they are broadcast through conventional means.

Because the non-trek fans probably wouldn't watch it, and they are trying to get both new and old fans.

 

[marsh8472]

Not at all.

Yeah I was probably giving you too much credit by trying to apply any kind of official interpretation technical to your replies too. Trying to make sense of your nonsense about why you disagree with theories so much that are rooted in canon and that's what I came up with

You're predicting how an unfinished work will be finished while ignoring authorial intent.

Ignoring the authorial intent is the formalism part.

you're inappropriately applying statistical analysis to literature

Why apply logic to literary works at all then? I could just sit back and say we can't use logic because authors are not always logical when they write things. But I treat the show as if it were reality and analyze it that way. Yes I use statistics which relates to math which relates to logic which relates to logical thinking. Hate to burst your bubble but logic is necessary for rational discourse. A common response from you and others to justify the existence of the technological marvels found on Discovery is "just because you have never seen anything shown on film does not mean it doesn't exist".

This is where the statistics comes in:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. In logic, A->B, "A implies B", is not equivalent to ~A->~B, "not-A implies not-B".

But in probability theory, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. If E is a binary event and P(H|E) > P(H), "seeing E increases the probability of H"; then P(H|~E) < P(H), "failure to observe E decreases the probability of H". P(H) is a weighted mix of P(H|E) and P(H|~E), and necessarily lies between the two.

It's a mathematically formal way of applying an inductive argument. You see this as flawed arguments. You must not know what it is

https://www.writeraccess.com/blog/how-to-write-an-effective-inductive-argument/

Induction is also the mechanism used when one makes a basic prediction (provided, of course, it’s not just a blind guess). Here is a basic example:

1. The sun has risen every successive day in my experience.
2. There is no reason to suppose that this will cease to be the case.
3. The sun will rise tomorrow.

There is no guarantee that this will be the case. The sun could fail to rise tomorrow due to some cataclysmic event. The fact that the premises can be true, and the conclusion false, makes it an invalid deductive argument no matter how persuasive it may be. And yet it is very persuasive.

Strong Inductive Arguments v. Weak Inductive Arguments

The above example is what is known as a strong inductive argument. It means that there is virtually no possibility of having true premises and a false conclusion, though the possibility does exist.

Much like your clumsy attempts at applying "logical fallacies", this is just a confused display of pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

That one's called an ad hominem fallacy even though your premise is false but from your point of view it's correct due to the Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[zar]

That one's called an ad hominem fallacy even though your premise is false but from your point of view it's correct due to the Dunning–Kruger effect.

I'm starting to think you're a parody of yourself.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah I was probably giving you too much credit by trying to apply any kind of official interpretation technical to your replies too. Trying to make sense of your nonsense about why you disagree with theories so much that are rooted in canon and that's what I came up with

It's a theory based on a personal interpretation of canon, and not the final work itself.

 

[marsh8472]

It's a theory based on a personal interpretation of canon, and not the final work itself.

Sure the final work will be whatever the final work will be. They'll probably attempt to resolve a few of the bigger issues and not resolve others but the final result will also be open to interpretation. My prediction is people will still surmise that it is a reboot, parallel universe, another reality, alternate timeline, part of Benny's fictional works, or all a holodeck program. These theories cannot be falsified.

 

[fireproof78]

Sure the final work will be whatever the final work will be. They'll probably attempt to resolve a few of the bigger issues and not resolve others but the final result will also be open to interpretation. My prediction is people will still surmise that it is a reboot, parallel universe, another reality, alternate timeline, part of Benny's fictional works, or all a holodeck program. These theories cannot be falsified.

That's your theory. Mine is that it is Prime and will lead in to TOS. Partially supported by authorial intent and partially by the fact that we haven't seen all of Star Trek in this time period. We saw one ship and its experiences. Cultures and societies are not monolithic in their development, so there is no reason to assume that the TOS presentation was the only way Starfleet presented itself.

Which is more correct?

 

[marsh8472]

That's your theory. Mine is that it is Prime and will lead in to TOS. Partially supported by authorial intent and partially by the fact that we haven't seen all of Star Trek in this time period. We saw one ship and its experiences. Cultures and societies are not monolithic in their development, so there is no reason to assume that the TOS presentation was the only way Starfleet presented itself.

Which is more correct?

The evidence against claiming the federation is not a monolithic culture is the 2 spin-off series to TNG that didn't change much. So why should we expect TOS to be different?

 

[zar]

That's your theory. Mine is that it is Prime and will lead in to TOS. Partially supported by authorial intent and partially by the fact that we haven't seen all of Star Trek in this time period. We saw one ship and its experiences. Cultures and societies are not monolithic in their development, so there is no reason to assume that the TOS presentation was the only way Starfleet presented itself.

Which is more correct?

Of course the TOS setting will inevitably become more and more obvious as the story progresses. But Marsh will hold fast to his fantasies because they "cannot be falsified", and keep pretending it's incisive literary analysis. Stubbornness and intellectual dishonesty by any other name is still stubbornness and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[marsh8472]

Of course the TOS setting will inevitably become more and more obvious as the story progresses. But Marsh will hold fast to his fantasies because they "cannot be falsified", and keep pretending it's incisive literary analysis. Stubbornness and intellectual dishonesty by any other name is still stubbornness and intellectual dishonesty.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty you're going to need your dancing shoes on for this one. I figure Discovery will go to the mirror universe with their spore drive if they are not there already. Looking at these dialogues from DS9 "Crossover":

INTENDANT: After the first crossover, we were afraid that others might come to interfere in our affairs. It was decided then that if it ever happened again, we would promptly dispose of anyone who appeared from your side.
QUARK: Didn't I hear somewhere that a transporter was involved in the first crossover?

KIRA: I did ask him about a transporter, that's true.
INTENDANT: But why?
KIRA: You know I'm looking for a way back. A transporter was responsible for the first crossover.

 

[Tuskin38]

please go away

 

[zar]

Exhibit B: Marsh moves on to imaginary unwritten continuity errors when his cache of nitpicks of aired content is exhausted. See also: that time Discovery had self-aware holograms in the Ship in a Bottle remake that never happened.