Spock News

[TrickyDickie]

So....Kurtzman talks about tying in to canon. Then, he says this about other characters that may show up from The Cage:

"Obviously, characters that existed would probably still exist in our timeline."

How is "our timeline" NOT saying that it's different than the original TOS timeline?!?

 

[Jadeb]

Just for the record, I don't care if they revise Spock's history, I'm not that big on strict canon interpretation. It's just that aspect of the story isn't what interests me.

Spock was so perfectly embodied by Nimoy, and went on such a fulfilling journey through TOS and the TOS films, that I can't say I'm confident that retrofitting things onto his backstory will enhance the character. Spock doesn't feel incomplete to me.

That said, I wish them luck. Big shoes to fill.

 

[Push The Button]

I just hope young Spock doesn’t drop any f-bombs.

 

[Artoo Atari]

^
F&#%ing fascinating...

 

[F. King Daniel]

So basically it'll be another emotionally volatile young Spock a la the first two Kelvin movies. I'm on board with it.

I bet he'll be jealous of Michael's Starfleet accomplishments.

 

[Terok Nor]

I'm not bowled over by any of these tidbits. I know it's a prequel but this show really needs to start standing on its own two feet. Burnham is a mistake. We didn't need Spock's never before mentioned human sister. The character relies too heavily on the Spock connection.

Although I'm happy to have Spock appear I'm also not thrilled with how reliant this season is going to be on a character from another show. Pike looks great and has a lot more scope than most previously used characters but he should've been it. It's become too self referential and feels like it relies too heavily on what came before. Say what you want about the other spin offs but they at least forged their own identities to varying degrees of success.

The worst thing about Season One was the Klingons. Setting the series in this era just to hash that mess out was not worth it. I personally don't want to see L'Rell or the Klingons ever again.

Culber coming back is not something this show needs. Perhaps he'll improve but he was a glorified extra in Season One. This feels like more fan pandering.

The more I hear about this season the more I'd rather watch a direct prequel about Captain Pike's adventures. They're not giving me any reasons to be excited about Discovery's own characters.

 

[Tuskin38]

Spock was so perfectly embodied by Nimoy, and went on such a fulfilling journey through TOS and the TOS films, that I can't say I'm confident that retrofitting things onto his backstory will enhance the character. Spock doesn't feel incomplete to me.

That said, I wish them luck. Big shoes to fill.

We hardly know anything about Spock in the 10 year period before season one.

 

[Longinus]

I think this is a wrong direction. Please concentrate on the new characters and let them stand on their own.

 

[Artoo Atari]

I think this is a wrong direction. Please concentrate on the new characters and let them stand on their own.

Agreed. And let the original characters stand on their own as well. We don't need to see Burnham influencing Spock, or Burnham teaching Sulu how to pilot a ship, or Burnham saving Kirk's life, or Burnham helping Uhura with her translations, etc...

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm not bowled over by any of these tidbits. I know it's a prequel but this show really needs to start standing on its own two feet. Burnham is a mistake. We didn't need Spock's never before mentioned human sister. The character relies too heavily on the Spock connection.

Her being Spock's foster-sister is mostly backstory in the first season. Her story arc is about redeeming herself to the eyes of Starfleet. Spock and his family don't have to do with The Story of Redemption.

And then Burnham ended up caught as a pawn in Georgiou and Lorca's personal war in the Mirror Universe. Again, nothing to do with Spock or his family.

Although I'm happy to have Spock appear I'm also not thrilled with how reliant this season is going to be on a character from another show. Pike looks great and has a lot more scope than most previously used characters but he should've been it. It's become too self referential and feels like it relies too heavily on what came before.

I agree with the gist of what you said here, though I don't think we'll see Spock much. But at least they're going out of their way to not have TOS Spock.

The worst thing about Season One was the Klingons. Setting the series in this era just to hash that mess out was not worth it. I personally don't want to see L'Rell or the Klingons ever again.

Culber coming back is not something this show needs. Perhaps he'll improve but he was a glorified extra in Season One. This feels like more fan pandering.

The more I hear about this season the more I'd rather watch a direct prequel about Captain Pike's adventures. They're not giving me any reasons to be excited about Discovery's own characters.

Maybe this is what it boils down to. If someone's not interested in Culber, Burnham, L'Rell... and by extension Saru, Tyler, Georgiou, Stamets, Tilly, and Cornwell.... then they're going to start focusing more on the TOS characters: Sarek, Pike, Mudd, and I guess Spock.

I'm interested in Burnham, L'Rell, Georgiou, Stamets, and Tilly's arcs. Saru to a lesser extent. And Cornwell when she shows up.

Culber, ehhh.... I don't know. I'm in the camp who's not too sure about this.

 

[Ovation]

I will wait and see how it is handled.

Well that’s just silly talk.

 

[XCV330]

Poor Spock goes to the edge of the freaking galaxy to get away from his sister and she STILL finds ways to bug him.

 

[Mudd]

So, at this point there's no way that season two of STD is not being used as a launch pad for other projects focusing on the characters introduced in TOS.

I suppose what form those projects take, if any, will be decided based on audience reaction to the Enterprise-based cast additions to STD.

Either way, All Access is betting the house on this show getting a big bump up by promoting it mostly as Pike Trek this year, with supporting turns for some of the more popular STD cast - mainly SMG and Wiseman.

 

[BillJ]

It seems like they don't have much faith in Discovery being able to stand on its own.

Rvisionist history and providing backstory are two different things.

This is revisionist history. It is fine if people like it, but lets not pretend about what it is.

 

[Mudd]

Well, promotion is not the same as the show - as we know by now.

Season 2 of STD may continue to focus on the same characters as season 1, with the Pike-centric cast appearing here or there throughout the season as occasional supporting or guest cast.

However, the promotion for the show is marginalizing most everyone but Burnham. Mount is the central character in the SDCC trailer - Tilly gets the biggest moment of any of the returning cast other than Burnham, and that's clearly because her character fits into the "Look, this year our show is FUN FUN FUN (kinda like that MacFarlane show that we don't really notice or care about Because)" message of the advertisement. The other returning characters are reduced to providing comic takes on the action.

 

[DigificWriter]

So....Kurtzman talks about tying in to canon. Then, he says this about other characters that may show up from The Cage:

"Obviously, characters that existed would probably still exist in our timeline."

How is "our timeline" NOT saying that it's different than the original TOS timeline?!?

Because it's obvious what he was talking about, and equally as obvious that he misused the term "timeline".

 

[BillJ]

Because it's obvious what he was talking about, and equally as obvious that he misused the term "timeline".

Or how they are treating it behind-the-scenes is different than they are marketing the show to the public. Why would it even be a question of people existing that existed in "The Cage", if they are in the same timeline as it is?

 

[DigificWriter]

Or how they are treating it behind-the-scenes is different than they are marketing the show to the public. Why would it even be a question of people existing that existed in "The Cage", if they are in the same timeline as it is?

Because some people are hung up on visual differences to an insane degree.

 

[Mudd]

...equally as obvious that he misused the term "timeline".

So, suddenly today we're not required to take absolutely everything that producers say as revealed truth from the gods?

Don't throw caution to the winds, now.

 

[BillJ]

Because some people are hung up on visual differences to an insane degree.

The quote has nothing to do with visual differences. It has to do with characters. No one forced Kurtzman to say timeline (I believe he is smart enough to know the difference between canon and timeline, and this isn't the first time he's used word games where Discovery is concerned), or say the characters "probably still exist".