USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Tuskin38]

Prime has cloaks before Balance of Terror

You're right, it does because of Enterprise.

nor does it have spore drives.

Just because it was never mentioned, doesn't mean it never existed.

The Genesis device was never mentioned again in any future production, but it existed.

How about all those androids, and Greek gods in TOS? Never mentioned again.

 

[BillJ]

I see it as prime because they say it is prime, and the story fits in prime.

Well, it doesn't. At least from my perspective. From cloaking devices, to the Spore Drive, to changes in Spock's family, to the people in the Mirror Universe being allergic to brighter lights (because they're evil), and so on...

What CBS says doesn't even factor in the question.

 

[Tuskin38]

to the Spore Drive, to changes in Spock's family,

None of those contradict the canon in later series/episodes.

 

[BillJ]

None of those contradict the canon in later series/episodes.

You sure?

KIRK: Have I ever mentioned you play a very irritating game of chess, Mister Spock?
SPOCK: Irritating? Ah, yes. One of your Earth emotions.
KIRK: Certain you don't know what irritation is?
SPOCK: The fact one of my ancestors married a human female
KIRK: Terrible having bad blood like that.

He openly mentions having a human ancestor, yet no mention of a human sister. He also openly talks about his human mother during "The Corbomite Maneuver" during season one.

At the very least, the intent is clear. Couple that with DC Fontana's feelings (she was one of the people who helped define who Spock was) and I think you come about as close to "canon" as can possibly be without being "canon". The connection to Spock was nothing but a way to hook audiences.

 

[fireproof78]

You sure?



He openly mentions having a human ancestor, yet no mention of a human sister. He also openly talks about his human mother during "The Corbomite Maneuver" during season one.

Just because he is attached to his mom does not mean he made any emotional attachment to Burnham. And, technically, she's not his sister.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Is everyone's character arc the same though? Michael Burnham changes both Spock and Sarek, much like Sybok did. Though this time they're trying to cram a character into an area it was never meant to be in.

I would say that this does indeed affect Spock and Sarek yes. Just because Spock never mentioned Michael doesn’t mean that she could have existed. It’s a change that didn’t need to be made and only serves to anchor DSC to a beloved character.

It was a simple disagreement that forced a wedge between father and son for many years, much like happens in real life

And - how come, when Sarek was breaking down in Picard’s mind in TNG (“Sarek”) that he didn’t mention Michael? He cried out for Amanda, Perrin, and Spock - saying how much he loved them in his compromised emotional state but there was never a “Michael” mentioned. And Sarek was thinking about Michael when he nearly died in that shuttle.

Maybe Sarek forgot her when he was 200 and odd years old.

Or maybe Michael Burnham is a poorly conceived character who contributes nothing to the history of those two characters.

I see it as prime because they say it is prime, and the story fits in prime.

It’s the “they say it is” that really unsettles me here. I don’t care what “they” say - it doesn’t make “them” right. There’s a very authoritarian vibe to that statement that is decidedly un-Star Trek.

The Genesis device was never mentioned again in any future production, but it existed.

It was mentioned in Star Trek III: The search for Spock, and the same video footage from that film was used again in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. If this is supposed to be a defence of the spore drive, think about this:

Genesis may not have been discussed - but the effects of its existence were felt in every Trek film that followed Star Trek II

evidence?

In addition to the examples above and the entire plot of Star Trek III:

Bones: I liked him better before he died (TFF)

Spock: I’ve been dead before (TUC)

So the spore drive doesn’t fit into the existing continuity no matter how much we may wish it to. It was a bad idea for a prequel.

 

[BillJ]

And, technically, she's not his sister.

True. She is his adopted sister.

I'd have the same issue if we found out Data had a human sister living on the colony for years with him before the accident happened. It doesn't technically violate canon, but it clearly goes against the intent of the people who developed the character.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

does not mean he made any emotional attachment to Burnham.

Neither does Sarek if his breakdown in TNG during the Picard mind meld is anything to go by.

Never mentions a “Michael”.

 

[BillJ]

Genesis may not have been discussed - but the effects of its existence were felt in every Trek film that followed Star Trek II

Protomatter also gets a nod in the Deep Space Nine episode, "Second Sight".

SEYETIK: Basically I'll use a remote-piloted shuttlepod to deliver proto-matter into the dead star. This will cause a cascade effect which will transform the star's carbon and oxygen into elemental hydrogen. Then we just stand back and watch the fireworks.

 

[Mudd]

True. She is his adopted sister.

I'd have the same issue if we found out Data had a human sister living on the colony for years with him before the accident happened. It doesn't technically violate canon, but it clearly goes against the intent of the people who developed the character.

TNG already pulled that one when they gave him a mother.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Protomatter also gets a nod in the Deep Space Nine episode, "Second Sight".

I’d forgotten about that!

Ah DS9 riding to the rescue again. Thank The Prophets

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

What's helped me enjoy Discovery and Trek more in general is not giving a Saurian's ass anymore about canon. Prime, Kelvin, whatever Timeline... I just don't give a damn anymore. What matter's is the story.

I'd rather have a great story that violates canon (and the Prime Directive) than a mediocre one that shoehorns into canon. It's an attitude I picked up during the Bruce Timm animated DC shows (Batman, Superman, JL, etc.). They all reference each other at times, but I view each one as its own thing.

That's how I view Trek now. DISCO may reference TOS and whatnot but it's its own show and universe.

 

[Mudd]

I like the Burnham version of why Sarek and Spock don't get along, because it gives Sarek a little psychological complexity. Instead of seeing him as the authority figure, through Spock and Kirk's eyes, we see him as a man struggling with his shortcomings as a father.

In his earlier incarnations, we aren't invited to identify with him, but with those who interact with him.

I don't give a rat's ass about canon. STD's failures as a story - thus far it's generally ranged from uninspired and conservative to amateurishly incompetent - are why I didn't enjoy it.

 

[fireproof78]

True. She is his adopted sister.

I'd have the same issue if we found out Data had a human sister living on the colony for years with him before the accident happened. It doesn't technically violate canon, but it clearly goes against the intent of the people who developed the character.

Since when does authorial intent matter? It certainly does not matter with a production team saying it is part of the Prime continuity even with visual updates. It certainly hasn't stopped the ideas that this is another continuity even though intent is otherwise.

Characters evolve all the time based upon the writing staff. Spock is very tight lipped regarding his family and we don't know what his relationship with Michael is like. So, he may have zero reason to mention her at all.

Neither does Sarek if his breakdown in TNG during the Picard mind meld is anything to go by.

Never mentions a “Michael”.

Because she's dead.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Since when does authorial intent matter? It certainly does not matter with a production team saying it is part of the Prime continuity even with visual updates. It certainly hasn't stopped the ideas that this is another continuity even though intent is otherwise.

Characters evolve all the time based upon the writing staff. Spock is very tight lipped regarding his family and we don't know what his relationship with Michael is like. So, he may have zero reason to mention her at all.


Because she's dead.

Amanda was dead. Sarek still loved her anyway.

Seems odd he’d forget his favourite daughter. Crazy old goat.

 

[BillJ]

Neither does Sarek if his breakdown in TNG during the Picard mind meld is anything to go by.

Never mentions a “Michael”.

The entire universe forgets Michael Burnham exists as soon as the last episode of Discovery streams.

Seriously, I think you add a major event to a universe, you can kind of squint and make it fit if you really want to. For some reason, the events just didn't line up in later iterations for it to get a mention. New characters added to a long running characters story is a bit harder to pull off convincingly.

I mean, is Michael Burnham dead at the end of Star Trek IV? If she's that important to Spock's character, it seems like she would've warranted a mention. Did Sarek completely forget she existed during his Bendi syndrome during Sarek?

 

[fireproof78]

Amanda was dead. Sarek still loved her anyway.

Seems odd he’d forget his favourite daughter. Crazy old goat.

It would depend upon the circumstances of her death.

Though, technically Picard was crazy too as he mentions attending Sarek's son's wedding yet there is no indication Spock was married. So, there are other Sarek children out there

 

[Mudd]

The entire universe forgets Michael Burnham exists as soon as the last episode of Discovery streams.

Seriously, I think you add a major event to a universe, you can kind of squint and make it fit if you really want to. For some reason, the events just didn't line up in later iterations for it to get a mention. New characters added to a long running characters story is a bit harder to pull off convincingly.

I mean, is Michael Burnham dead at the end of Star Trek IV? If she's that important to Spock's character, it seems like she would've warranted a mention. Did Sarek completely forget she existed during his Bendi syndrome during Sarek?

Not so - she'll be remembered and possibly will recur on Pike Trek and Kirk 2.0, just as Archer is now remembered and revered in JJTrek.

 

[BillJ]

Since when does authorial intent matter? It certainly does not matter with a production team saying it is part of the Prime continuity even with visual updates.

Yet people still pull that card every chance they get. Turnabout is fair play.

 

[fireproof78]

Yet people still pull that card every chance they get. Turnabout is fair play.

Yes, I know. why can't we be consistent?!!