Oh, they totally got stuff wrong; for example the science behind the DNA transfer was totally falase. This is just IMO not one of the occasions.
“Jean-Luc Picard is back”: will new Picard show eclipse Discovery?
- Thread starter Groppler Zorn
- Start date
Exactly.
If it was someone other than Spock who had spoken the line about seventy years, I would agree. We know Spock is a character who endeavors to get his facts straight. I doubt he just tossed seventy years in off the cuff. So either the period was much shorter or much longer and Spock of all people got it totally wrong.
I've said before I don't like the idea of 100 years limited contact with the Klingons. "70 years of unremitting hostilities" means there should've been hostilities with the Klingons since the 2220s... which is part of why I'd spent the past 27 years thinking tensions with the Klingons -- if not outright war -- was the norm the mid-23rd Century. They rationalize it with "except for a few incidents" but there shouldn't have to be a rationalization.
There. Not so hard for me to say I think they got something wrong. But my enjoyment of the premiere overrules any issues I have with that. If I didn't enjoy the premiere, I would have far more issue with it than I do. "Just tell a good story" is what they say. I think they did. I know not everyone agrees with me but I knew opinion would be mixed from the outset. Opinion of a new Star Trek series is never not mixed. It's just a question of which side of the mix someone is on.
I'm not suggesting that Spock was wrong, just that it still works with Discovery.
There were unrelenting hostilities since about 2223.
Almost no one has seen a Klingon since about 2156.
The Federation and the Klingons have always been on the cold side of war.
The Federation had fleeting run-ins with the Klingons for a century.
Unrelenting doesn't mean extremely often. It is entirely possible that the Klingons have bombed a Federation colony every few years, starting 2223. There's no contradiction here unless you want to see one.
And yes, there are things in Discovery that do not fall into this category. The holograms and the cloak for example directly contradict other information given in Trek, even though it can be rationalized. However in this case there is no need for rationalizing.
I am shocked!I disagree!
But it adds up. It's all right there and doesn't make Spock a liar.I disagree!
What do you disagree with? What is wrong with what Jinn put together?Whatever you say.
I'd like to know.
Absolutely nothing.
Oh dear, I'm really so very sorry, I really do honestly struggle to understand, it just doesn't make sense to me that these lines written by writers are so important. I mean I can totally suspend my disbelief that aliens exist and we can travel through the stars, but I can't accept that writers change their minds about tiny little details?
I guess my mind just works like "Well they wrote something like over twenty years ago, but today they're doing a new story and decided they wanted to change that" and so to me it just really doesn't feel like a huge deal, you know what I mean? Spock could've easily just said "A long history of hostilities" and I don't feel his context changes one single bit, so it's easy enough for me to make room in my mind for this new story.
I can see this is important to some people, but while I'm trying my best I still can't understand why, I can't find anything in my life I can relate this to, I see so many people who worry about these details making themselves unhappy, and I don't know why you'd want to intentionally do that to yourself. I figure when you've got like a 50 year universe of fiction going on with so many different producers and writers, you've just sort of got to expect you're going to see minor changes here and there when a new story's being told, right?
I look at a show like Discovery and I ask myself if I enjoy the story and if it makes sense for itself, and oh yes sure I love how it's all connected to everything else in Star Trek. But just thinking about making myself miserable because forty years ago someone said something and now it's slightly different, or a color or shape of something's not exactly like it was on another show gives me a real headache.
I guess my mind just works like "Well they wrote something like over twenty years ago, but today they're doing a new story and decided they wanted to change that" and so to me it just really doesn't feel like a huge deal, you know what I mean? Spock could've easily just said "A long history of hostilities" and I don't feel his context changes one single bit, so it's easy enough for me to make room in my mind for this new story.
I can see this is important to some people, but while I'm trying my best I still can't understand why, I can't find anything in my life I can relate this to, I see so many people who worry about these details making themselves unhappy, and I don't know why you'd want to intentionally do that to yourself. I figure when you've got like a 50 year universe of fiction going on with so many different producers and writers, you've just sort of got to expect you're going to see minor changes here and there when a new story's being told, right?
I look at a show like Discovery and I ask myself if I enjoy the story and if it makes sense for itself, and oh yes sure I love how it's all connected to everything else in Star Trek. But just thinking about making myself miserable because forty years ago someone said something and now it's slightly different, or a color or shape of something's not exactly like it was on another show gives me a real headache.
Why is it so important that it's not? A few throwaway lines of dialog either way
Now I'm still firmly in the camp that thinks they should have never said anything on the matter at all. But they did and here we are. I'm not going to let it spoil my dinner.
Totally off-topic, but:
That's actually the only thing I really like about Burnhams connection to Sarek and Spock.
Don't get me wrong: I friggin' HATE that relationship being shoved in our faces. IMO Burnham would have been a much, much more interesting and stronger character if she were allowed to stand on her own, instead of being defined by her daddy-figure and her big brother.
That being said, I like how they handled the Burnham-Sarek-(Spock?) relationship so far. "Lethe" was probably the only episode of DIS season 1 I liked - but I really liked it.
It's kind of both sad and ironic, that Spock is pretty obvious Sareks "favourite" child - but also the one he lost his connection with. And that he set out to make things better with Burnham, actually opening more up to her and being more of a father figure. But at the same time being utterly incapable of re-connecting with Spock, and at the same time hurting Burnham as well, because even though he gives his best he can't hide he favours Spock - their seperation maybe even re-enforcing that imbalance. That's actually a realistic depiction of a family with issues, without overdoing it or being too rose-tinted. That felt very... real. And personal. Which is good.
The only problem I see is that we already know how this ends (Sarek dies of illness with Picard without ever reconnecting with Spock), and I fear every step the writers take this story further, it's going to diminish this impact. But we will see. So far - while I absolutely don't like the forced connection of Burnham to Spock - I actually really like how they depicted Sarek and his relationship to his children.
She's not. That's literally the entire arc her character.
In the beginning, she does what her father tells her to do and she gets thrown in jail
In the end, she goes against her father's conspiracy - tells him he's wrong and comes up with her own plan - and everyone is better for it and she is redeemed.
Similar threads
