They've indicated that they're going to try and reconcile Burnham's existence, the Spore Drive and the military/political situation with the Klingons with what we know of TOS. Beyond that, all bets are off. They've demonstrated in no uncertain terms a certain lack of focus on the canonical minutia of Star Trek, judging by the easter eggs and various references in Discovery so far (e.g. Lorca's pet tribble, the horta in his lab, etc). They've given NO indication that they were specifically focusing on Balance of Terror as an episode, and even if they had -- which they didn't -- it would only be the third time in Trek's history that particular episode was used for inspiration (because it was fucking awesome!) and the third in a row to fail to address that particular contradiction. Not saying that can't. I'm saying that they won't. Because they have better things to do, because there are literally thousands of things they need to worry about relative to Discovery's internal continuity before they can afford to start worrying about continuity with something that was filmed 50 years ago, at a time when half of Star Trek lore wasn't even fully developed yet. Maybe you could write a letter and get the guys from Star Trek Continues to do an episode about it? Either way, Discovery is not a fan film, and they have much bigger fish to fry.
What more is there to "reconcile" there, exactly? (Aside from possibly her conviction being reversed/expunged and/or the charges against her being reduced at some point down the line.) Her relationship to Spock and his family already fits fine as established. Horta I'll give you, but an easter egg is all it was. It didn't have any attention called to it in the story, was only barely recognizable in the background. Besides, that's apparently supposed to be Lorca's Secret Room full of Secret Things he's Secretly Collected from Gene-Only-Knows-Where™. The tribble doesn't violate any "canonical minutiae." Just because Kirk's crew wasn't specifically familiar with them doesn't mean they weren't around or were generally unknown. In fact, Phlox kept some on the NX-01 as seen in "The Breach" (ENT). He said they were outlawed on most worlds, which would explain why Kirk and others might not have come across them before. Incorrect. (And yes, Bryan Fuller left the production, but there is no indication the entire story arc was re-written from scratch after he did.) That's exactly what I used to say about the Klingon foreheads...and boy was I ever wrong. I won't make the same mistake again. I have zero interest in Star Trek Continues or fan films in general, thank you very much. (Not that there's anything wrong with that if one enjoys it, and not to denigrate the effort put into them.) Dude, why do you keep implying that this is about what I want them to do? Personally, I didn't want them to do the Klingon forehead story or half of the other continuity porn we got in ENT's fourth season either. But they did. And they made continuity with TOS and the rest of the Prime Timeline a specific "guiding principle" and selling point of DSC, not I. -MMoM
I have no idea, just going by what they've said. I think some of their producers might be seriously overthinking that aspect of her background, but it is what it is. Sure, but the production people know what it was, so they're clearly familiar with the episode where it was featured, which strongly implied Starfleet had never heard of it before and had no idea what it was. Are we going to have a moment where Discovery deliberately tries to resolve this relatively minor contradiction? Of course not. Because they don't care. And at the end of the day, we probably shouldn't either (speaking of overthinking...) Basically: they'll explain "theoretically possible" twenty episodes after they explain how the hell Lorca managed to keep a tribble as a pet without flooding the entire ship with tribble babies. Fuller left production before the pilot episode even finished filming; if he had any intention of actually dealing with the cloaking issue, it would have been at the Battle of the Binary Stars. The people who actually put the episode together either didn't follow through with this intent or don't share it. So beyond "Vulcan Hello", Fuller's plan for what Discovery might have become is LONG dead. They aren't using Balance of Terror" as their bookend here, and it's questionable how literally even THAT intention actually was, considering the Klingons weren't even IN that episode (he was evidently using it for inspiration, same way Nick Meyers did when he made Wrath of Khan and Abrams did for ST09). Neither will the writers of Discovery, considering that the augment issue in "Affliction" has been ignored completely in favor of a makeup design that makes NO attempt to reference the augment virus. Still, I won't conclusively rule out their using the augment virus as an explanation for how Voq managed to transform into Lieutenant Tyler as quickly as he did. It's a plausible explanation, but it's probably not the one they're going to use.
I don't think that follows at all. I think it more probable that they have a specific rationale in mind for each and every element that's being put into the show, including (perhaps even especially) the things that seem contradictory. Here's a window into the thinking of the current production team and the extraordinary extent of the efforts they are undertaking to remain consistent. Lorca having a secret room full of anachronisms may well be quite deliberate, showing us that he is privy by one means or another to things that Kirk wasn't. What specific reason is there to think that the contents of this room (in aggregate, if not each individually) aren't indeed included in the "everything that appears to be a deviation from canon" of which they are "wildly aware" and "will close out" in one way or another? What exactly is your evidence for this negative claim? I don't believe that's accurate. If you are talking about his initial idea for it to become an anthology series with each season being set in a different time period, that was shelved almost immediately in favor of focusing on a serialized prequel to TOS, telling "one story over thirteen episodes," and they had "the arc of the first season entirely written" in at least rough form well before Fuller left. While there would undoubtedly be at least some modifications as production went on, it was subsequently indicated by Kurtzman that they still intedned to "continue that through not only this season of Trek but hopefully set up things that are coming next season," with "much of what’s there in terms of story and certainly in terms of set-up, character, big ideas, the big movement of the season" having been based on discussions with Fuller before his departure. No. No, they weren't. And the Romulans are a "no-go" area. Hmm...gee, I wonder what other element of that story could possibly have been the "touchstone" Fuller was talking about...? It's a total mystery. (Seriously, it is also possible he was referring to something as broad as the point of view shifting back and forth between Starfleet and its enemy, or the "no provocation will be considered sufficient" philosophy, etc. Of course it's possible that's all there is to it. But it's no less possible that the fact of cloaking and the development of countermeasures against it having affirmatively been an integral part of DSC's story thus far—and a thread not yet fully resolved—is no mere coincidence. Indeed, I'd consider it at least as likely as not at this point, all things considered. But we'll see.) You continue to assert negative claims without negative proof. Why not just wait and see what they do or don't do before claiming you know what they have or haven't ignored? Kurtzman says "be patient" and, like me, suggests that "introducing a new idea...doesn't negate the old ideas." You can say "oh but he's not talking about this bit or that bit, only these other bits" but you have no way of knowing that. Not unless you actually are Alex Kurtzman, or have personally discussed these specifics with him. And even if DSC were to end with a host of loose ends left dangling...there would be nothing to preclude a future production coming along later and tidying them up somewhere down the road. -MMoM
I'm sure they do. I just don't think it's the rationale you're thinking of. Because every time they have brought this up, they have either explicitly or implicitly pointed out that this is referring to the Spore Drive, the Burnham/Spock connection, and the resolution of the Klingon War. They've made it clear what THEY consider to be "deviations from canon" and they're using a far more limited definition than you're implying. And we can judge their intentions by their other choices. One producer described the site-to-site transporters on Discovery as "a bold choice" but made no mention of any need to reconcile it with TOS. And there's the fact that the Klingons on discovery bear no resemblance whatsoever to the TOS Klingons despite "Affliction/Divergence" giving the writers a built-in mechanism that would allow them to do exactly this. So here we have evidence of them actually embracing a discontinuity while deliberately ignoring the solution to it. And that cannot be emphasized enough: if they had any intention of reconciling the entirety of canon with TOS, L'Rell and Voq would look mostly human. So really, this theory of yours basically hinges on whether or not Ash Tyler turns out to be a Klingon. The pattern of behavior you are implying is present in the production team would leave conspicuous evidence in their creative choices throughout the show. Since that evidence is absent, we can conclude the pattern is also absent. It's like you saying "I think Olivia likes me. I'm going to ask her out!" and me saying "She likes you as a friend, which she specifically told you an hour ago. Also, the last two people she dated were all female, so I'm pretty sure she's not actually attracted to you." In which case: Because I assume people's future behavior is going to be relatively consistent with their past behavior. So whatever they're going to do in the future isn't going to be dramatically different from what they've already done. And the few so-called "canon violations" they've already embraced tell us quite a bit about what they consider to be "reconciliation"
But that's just it! They have reconciled that, as far as it needs to be. There's no need for further reconciliation because what they have already shown is entirely consistent with TOS. Site-to-site transport itself was no big problem in TOS at all. Beaming inside the ship was possible, but considered dangerous, and thus rarely done, although it was done, and explicitly had been before. The Enterprise was an older ship than Discovery ("Context Is For Kings"). Older ships had worse transporters than newer ships ("Battle At The Binary Stars"). And Lorca doesn't give a fuck about danger anyway ("Context Is For Kings" again). This isn't just something they BS'd on the fly when asked about it at that press conference. They put it in the show. They did it subtly, didn't have a character explicitly connect the dots for us with a play-by-play explanation in the moment, but they made sure the dots were there so that we could connect them ourselves when we thought about it later. And I for one had no trouble doing that right from the start. I was explaining it to people here before I ever saw that press conference video, because I had examined the same sources the production team did when making their choices—the original episodes—and recognized the same exploitable loopholes in them that they had. Does that make me special? No. Anyone could have done the same, if so inclined. Does that mean I can accurately predict where exactly they're going with the cloaking thing or the Klingon appearance thing or anything else? No. But I can see any number of "theoretical possibilities." If you think they're going nowhere with it, fine. Think what you like. It doesn't strike me as likely, based on my observations of other choices they've made. No one ever said that the Augment virus affected all Klingons, only a subset of them, who were then expected to become outcasts. I don't think they have ignored it at all. I think they are going to address and bring it in somehow, and if not, then they will at least make sure to leave room for it to coexist in context. If you think they won't, fine. Again, think what you like. Nope. It's more like Olivia took a trip, and before she left told you exactly how long she'd be gone and that she loved you and would call you as soon as she gets back, so don't worry...and you've taken every day in between when you didn't see or hear from her as evidence that she doesn't care about you at all and is never coming back. That's not impossible given the evidence, but its a very dubious and premature conclusion to draw from it. -MMoM
Meaning "not at all." It's not something that NEEDS any reconciliation, so the apparent lack of their ability to do this in TOS doesn't matter that much since you can just say "Well, they could. So there." The only thing they're going to go into detail about is Michael Burnham, the Spore Drive and the Klingon War. For pretty much everything else the reconciliation is "Well, it just is. So there." With the implication that that subset included people like Kang, Koloth and Kor, thus explaining their appearance in TOS. That implication was never followed through in canon, however, and now with the advent of the new Kelvin-inspired Klingon makeup, the retcon of TOS Klingons is complete. It is just one of many details the producers are not going to be dealing with and just let it ride however way works best from the show's own perspective. There's a lot more to the "prime universe" than TOS, and where TOS is contradicted by the rest of canon, TOS is the clear loser. Discovery's producers weren't that specific, which is kind of the point. You're extrapolating their intentions based on what you think they meant in their (let's face it, ill-advised) statements at CONVENTIONS and a handful of twitter posts. But their actions thus far are inconsistent with your interpretation of their intentions. Moreover, the very specific things you were promised didn't include the promises you're implying. We weren't promised that Discovery would reconcile literally every possible contradiction between itself and TOS, or every contradiction between TOS and the rest of the prime universe (this is basically the same mistake Marsh and Crashchaos were making with the "60s aesthetics" thread). What they promised was that Michael Burnham, the spore drive and the Klingon War would have explanations by the end of the series that didn't completely contradict the timeline we understand from TOS. In Burnham's case, this is easy, and there are 50 ways they could do it (honestly, they probably kill her off at the end of the series; that would make the most sense). The Klingon War is basically already over, but we're still waiting for the other shoe to drop from Voq's little scheme, whatever that is. And the spore drive is so easy it's almost self explanatory: the technology has already proven dangerously unpredictable and not totally reliable, explaining its absence in TOS. That's what we were promised, and that's what we're getting. Olivia's coming back "some time next summer" and she'll call you the next time she needs you to fix her computer. Everything beyond that was just wishful thinking.
There was no "apparent lack of ability" to begin with. They did it, and implied or outright stated they were not the first, depending on whether we're talking about site-to-site or intra-ship beaming, which are not one and the same thing despite being often conflated. Spock and Scotty had concerns about the latter which Lorca does not share, and is quite justified in not sharing since he's got a more advanced ship with better transporters anyway. They didn't "ignore" anything in TOS there, they considered it and wrote something that fit with it, even if it didn't fit with faulty fan interpretations that had no basis in the actual text. Where exactly did they actually ever say that? I don't think they did. I don't understand what you mean. There is no reconciliation needed for anything that isn't actually contradictory to begin with. It's only what does appear contradictory that would require reconciliation. Many things that appeared contradictory at first blush have already been reconciled, within the same episode or following ones. Others are yet to be, but I see no reason to expect they won't, sooner or later. Yes, and? What have we seen in DSC thus far that actually precludes this? (Also, "implication" is a key word there.) Having people "fanatically" re-watch entire episodes in order to fact-check individual details of Memory Alpha articles seems to me entirely inconsistent with your interpretation that they don't care about the details and are content to just ignore or contradict them for no particular reason because it's all just small fry. Actually, taking their words at face value, yes we were promised that. (Well, every apparent contradiction anyway. I don't know what "possible contradiction" means to you, exactly. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I understand what "reconcile" means to you, anymore, either.) Not that I would ever have asked for that much in the first place, nor expected that they could ever literally live up to it without so much as a single misstep, nor would hold them to such a promise, personally. But I see no real evidence thus far that suggests to me they don't actually mean it and aren't actually trying. -MMoM
TOS never did it, and never tried to, which the producers concede. Thus "apparent lack of ability." TOS also never showed us holographic interfaces or transparent viewscreens, thus "apparent lack of holographic interfaces or windows on the bridge." See how that works? There's no reconciliation needed for the things that ARE contradictory. In fact, "needed" isn't even the operative word. They have said that they WILL reconcile Burnham, the Spore Drive and the Klingon War. I believe that is probably their intent. I doubt their intentions vis a vis inter-series continuity are all that sophisticated beyond those very specific plot points. It's only what does appear contradictory that would require reconciliation. Many things that appeared contradictory at first blush have already been reconciled, within the same episode or following ones. Others are yet to be, but I see no reason to expect they won't, sooner or later. Not at all. They've just delegated the research work to Goldsman and the "superfans" so the main story guys can worry about developing ideas and not get bogged down in the details. The the actual stories aren't being developed around canonical plot points; it's like somebody writing a TV series about World War II and having a couple of military historians on staff to make sure that the episodes about the Battle of the Bulge are more or less consistent with how it actually happened in history. That's a far cry from them actually writing a whole strategic analysis into the dialog of the episode to explain to the audience what the Battle of the Bulge is, what it means to the war, or what the Germans' key tactical blunders were. Speaking to press including Metro.co.uk, Aaron said: ‘We have ten years until the original series comes into play. It is a challenge creatively because we have lots of choices, in terms of how do we reconcile this [Spore] drive? This surrogate daughter of Sarek? How do we reconcile these things the closer we get to the original series? ‘That’s going to be a big discussion that we have in season two. What’s so fun about the character of Michael, just because she hasn’t been spoken about, doesn’t mean she didn’t exist. A lot of the writers on our show are deeply involved in Star Trek, their knowledge is some of the finest around, they really do help us find areas where we can steer around things. ‘But the Spore drive? Who knows. It could be classified. There are many options. Some of the best ideas come from all over the place, not just in our writers room so I love hearing about the fan ideas and theories. We’ll have to see.’ And at Comic Con the actual quote was: "We are canon," executive producer Alex Kurtzman said in an interview Saturday. "You'll have to be patient with us." Kurtzman addressed the notion that the show would be grittier, assuring fans that the core themes of Star Trek remain. "You can not make Star Trek without respecting and honoring the fact that the essential vision that [Gene] Roddenberry had was an optimistic one of the future," he said. That said, what makes "Discovery" interesting will be how it tests that theme against conflict. "It's very easy to be optimistic when everything is going well," he said. "It's much much harder when you are compromised in many different ways. We're saying it's sometimes hard to hang on to your morals and ideals. But when you do, it's personally more satisfying." What does "face value" mean to you? Because, to be very clear, the only time Kurzman or anyone else ever went into detail about what we're supposed to be "patient" about, it invariably has to do with how the main themes of the show they're currently producing dovetail into the main themes of TOS and TUC. For some reason you seem to think this has something to do with obscure canon violations from 35 years ago finally being reconciled... when what they've actually said is that the tone of the show, the attitude and operating principles of Starfleet, the technology on Discovery, and the trajectory of Michal's career, will all eventually play out in a way that's consistent with TOS. Taken "at face value" I don't see any of these expansive canon-fondling promises in their public statements. It looks like more wishful thinking.
Nope, not true. They did site-to-site transports without difficulty or novelty, as if routine, in both "A Piece Of The Action" (TOS) and "Assignment: Earth" (TOS), just not inside the ship. When intra-ship beaming came up separately in "Day Of The Dove" (TOS)—done there from the pad, not site-to-site—Kirk already knew it was possible and Spock explicitly confirmed that it had been done before. He just said it had been done "rarely...because of the danger involved" and emphasized that "pinpoint accuracy" was required (not that it ever made much sense as a reason, because that would be required for basically all transports anywhere). Yet he was nevertheless able to perform the necessary calculations and program the computer to execute the transport, despite having only a very short time and being under growing mental strain from fighting the entity's ever-strengthening influence...and it all worked out entirely fine. That is not what I would call "an apparent lack of ability." And this was all on a ship years older than Discovery...a fact specifically pointed out by the panel at the Comic Con press conference when asked about it. But what exactly suggests to you that anything else is excluded? The statement you posted certainly doesn't. Harberts probably just rattled those off because they're the things he's been specifically asked about the most by people these past months, and thus the first to come to mind. I'd say that, taken at face value, a statement that "we are wildly aware of everything that appears to be a deviation from canon...we will close out each of those issues" coming in context of a question—one they were readily able to immediately provide a specific answer for—that pertained to something other than those three particular elements you keep returning to just because they happened to also be cited elsewhere indicates at the very least that such a statement is not limited to those three things exclusively, nor merely to overall themes, etc. You have been trying to argue what they DON'T have in mind and WON'T address. I have been arguing what they MAY have in mind and MIGHT address. If in the course of coming up with their story they are drilling down into the details of canon—which they are—then I don't think there are any limits as to what they might find in doing so, and choose to bring in. They have already chosen to bring in cloaking tech and efforts to defeat it. They would obviously know well of the issue in "Balance Of Terror" as it's far from "obscure" (especially not to "superfans" with "freakish memories") and a mindfulness of that episode in particular has been implied more than once, by Fuller initially and since then by Harberts in citing the reveal of the Romulans there as something they want to preserve. I never suggested that reconciling anything about cloaking or Klingons or whatever else would be the whole point of any story in and of itself, and to be very clear, since you seem to be confused about this point...I wouldn't want it to be. I have merely suggested that it readily could be an element of the story. And I maintain that position. You haven't offered any counter-evidence at all that would preclude it. -MMoM
It's also possible that the Klingon development of cloak is in fact The Event that Fuller mentioned. That seems to have been forgotten in recent months, and I think the consensus around here was that it was the reference to Donatu V, but that doesn't really hold up against what was actually said. We don't have the exact quote, but this is how it was reported by two sources: Fuller said that the 13-episode serialized first season was about an event in Star Trek history that had never been depicted on screen before. As the TCA guessed the Romulan War, Kobayashi Maru, Black Ops Section 31, Axanar and more, Fuller ruled them out. When the event is revealed, he promised it would be obvious to Star Trek fans and they would be happy. http://www.slashfilm.com/star-trek-discovery/ This is the first serialized, non-episodic Star Trek series, according to Fuller. As such, it gave the writers room to really build a story and explore that potential. Fuller couldn't get into details about the main story arc, but said it's an event that was referenced in the original series but never properly explored. He added that it was an event most Trek fans would know and that it was canonical with the original series. https://www.polygon.com/tv/2016/8/11/12433320/bryan-fuller-star-trek-tcas So it sounds like this wasn't just going to be a reference, it was going to be "explored" as an integral part of the main season arc, and it linked to TOS canon and would be obvious to most fans. We've seen half the season already and so far I think there are really only two candidates that might meet that: Spock joining Starfleet, and the cloak.
What, exactly, did you think I was talking about? The many small things they have already changed in this series and made no mention of, which strongly suggests they do not see these things as actually NEEDING to be reconciled in the first place. You said as much yourself upthread: most of these things don't need to be explained at all. Burnham and the spore drive do, if only because they are new additions to Star Trek's fictional history; the Klingon War does too, mainly because it sets the background for the political situation in TOS. Everything else is just creative choices and set pieces, no reconciliation is needed and none will be attempted. That before we consider the basic irrationality of that question in the first place: in order to ask "How do you know it was excluded?" you would first have to demonstrate that it was ever going to be included in the first place. No, I mean what does the phrase "at face value" actually mean to you? Because you appear to be taking all of their statements and adding a huge amount of extraneous interpretation into what they might mean based on some arbitrary criterion I don't really understand. Well, wishes sometimes come true, so go and enjoy yourself.
As many people have pointed out, it's probably Garth of Izar. Or at least, that's most likely the name Lorca chooses for himself after he finally goes completely bananas.
I know the theory, but it doesn't seem to line up with that description, especially where Fuller explicitly ruled out Axanar.