It doesn't make a difference to me. A bad idea is a bad idea. Period. Leave the icons alone.
How is/isn't Discovery Star Trek?
- Thread starter seigezunt
- Start date
And irrelevant for Spock to comment upon they appeared in the episode.
It was kind of playing safe I think. Firstly this kind of prequel is different to say Enterprise which set itself well before any clumsy connections were made to TOS and the rest of Trek. Discovery positioned itself ten years before TOS and has systematically tried to be both its own incarnation and honour or leech (take your pick) from specifics of TOS. Michael as a lead has to step up. She has to own being the lead without being the Captain. That is a tough call on the character and its portrayer. So much attention is given to the Captain, like first with Lorca and now Pike. By having her be secondary to arguably one of the biggest stars of Trek (Spock) should, in my opinion, be downplayed until she can stand alone.
Spock isn't an icon. And if you mean "leave my favorite famous fictional character alone," well I've got some bad news for you.
And I think it's a great idea. Disco is, at its core, a rebuke or censure against Star Trek's (and fandom's) overreliance and adherence on the doctrine it sometimes treats as dogma. What was the entire season one arc if not a questioning of "needs of the many" taken to its most extreme? To this end, it only makes sense to use the sibling of personification of this doctrine, as has been done throughout the history of fiction.
Quite the contrary. And Spock isn't my favorite fictional character by the way. He's not even my favorite Star Trek character so that won't fly here.
Well I can't argue with that. I certainly don't quite agree with it but there you go.
Spock isn't my favourite either but he is iconic in Trek popular culture
Michael, as a character, is a wonderful exploration of the opposite of Spock, the "What if?" version, if you will. A human raised by Vulcans, but still struggling with her personal baggage. Her background makes her more interesting as a commentary upon traditional views of Star Trek characters.
Michael is interesting to me: family connections are a secondary interesting aspect. Spock is an interesting character: his family connections are secondary.
Michael is interesting to me: family connections are a secondary interesting aspect. Spock is an interesting character: his family connections are secondary.
Let's keep it civil, please.
this is the same spock who also didnt mention his brother. for decades.
How much more rounded would it make the characters if they did? How much more real would it make them seem?
How relevant to the plot was it when Miles O’Brien was telling Keiko about his mother using real food in “the wounded”?
So “never” is incorrect here, isn’t it?
Plus, if we all “got over it” this forum would cease to exist.
Having Miles mention his mother's potato dish made him think of Irland which, in turn, made him think of "The Minstrel Boy." Not only that, Keiko's disgust at the idea of Mamma O'Brien 'handling real meat', starkly contrasts their heritage/upbringing in a way that directly reflects the main theme of the episode. So, yes, very relevant. Though I'm not quite sure what your question is.
As far as the other thing, there's plenty to discuss without having to keep regurgitating the same old nugget that was settled to [what should be] a satisfying end a year and a half ago with 'evidence of absence.'
and a very human thing to do too, my grandmother has (possibly had, not sure on his status) a brother she never talked about, ever, and wouldn't even acknowledge his existence if pressed
How did that scene propel the plot? That scene came about in a chat between a couple having breakfast. It didn’t lead to O’Brien charging up to the bridge and saying “I’ve figured it out because I was chatting with my wife and I remembered a song we used to sing back in the day”. That scene gave us information about O’Brien as a character and made him seem more real.
But to quote another O’Brien example, what did it have to do with the plot when he tells Bashir that his mother told him not to talk and eat at the same time? Nothing. It was two characters having a chat over a meal like real people do. And O’Brien mentioned his mother.
So my question is: how relevant is the plot to family discussions in Star Trek?
Not that relevant at all. So your point that this “never” happens above is incorrect
And I think if I felt my argument was so weak that it wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny, I’d be wanting everyone to “move on” and discuss something else too.
I don't see the problem in discussing the elephant in the room. Michael was not part of Spock's backstory until Discovery. We all know that.
Regards giving a character a more rounded basis. It happens often in Trek. B'Elanna when she was pregnant agonised over what it was like to appear Klingon and worried for her child. Her backstory featured in more than one episode. Janeway and her family. Chakotay getting his tattoo. Harry and his family, Tom and the Admiral... Seven and her parents. Even Tuvok a full Vulcan did not neglect mention or reference to family.
One would think that Spock who had to confront being seen as Vulcan and serving on a predominately human crewed vessel would think to his own family and life as well, of other interactions with humans. Like his Mother and his sister. Eventually he did introduce us to that family... except Michael of course because she didn't exist then,
AgreedI don't see the problem in discussing the elephant in the room. Michael was not part of Spock's backstory until Discovery. We all know that.
Regards giving a character a more rounded basis. It happens often in Trek. B'Elanna when she was pregnant agonised over what it was like to appear Klingon and worried for her child. Her backstory featured in more than one episode. Janeway and her family. Chakotay getting his tattoo. Harry and his family, Tom and the Admiral... Seven and her parents. Even Tuvok a full Vulcan did not neglect mention or reference to family.
One would think that Spock who had to confront being seen as Vulcan and serving on a predominately human crewed vessel would think to his own family and life as well, of other interactions with humans. Like his Mother and his sister. Eventually he did introduce us to that family... except Michael of course because she didn't exist then,
And you’re right - family discussions crop up all the time in Star Trek even when they have nothing to do with the story. How many times did Sisko mention his dad or his sister just to anecdotally make a point? Or what about Quark mentioning his cousin Gaila or some other relative? These kinds of family links appear very frequently on Trek - which is why it’s odd that Spock wouldn’t have done the same.
But it’s because Michael didn’t exist back in the sixties right up to the noughties.
Does that make it problematic that she’s been introduced now? I mostly think it does - but not in a way that breaks the universe.
The irony is that the lack of evidence for Michael’s existence is precisely the reason why one can’t argue against her existence.
But by that logic there’s no evidence that there *isnt* a flying teapot in orbit around the earth...
I just told you how. But I'm interested in doing further deconstruction of an episode I never liked can barely remember.
Yes. And this was the foundation of his actions during the climax
Which in turn prompts Bashir to lament about how Garak taught him to appreciate discussion over the meal, which comes full circle at the end of the episode when Garak invites Odo to a meal. It also, quite directly, contrasts O'Brien and Garak. Or, rather, if Garak talks and eats at the same, then he does neither of those things very well. And of course, "talking" is at the root of Garak's character, especially as an interrogator. And here's a good one, while Garak is "talking" to Odo during the interaction scenes, that anti-Founder doohicky is eating away Odo.
Nope. Everything on screen is relevant. Everything. Writers - especially TV writers - are very deliberate. If they put something on the page, there is a very specific reason for doing so, this was especially true with Berman as he was notoriously rigid about this. To wit: there's a reason they changed Sisko from having brothers to a sister even though she never appeared on screen. (It wasn't a good reason, but the writers felt it necessary.) And this is true for everything. So my statement was quite correct, actually.So my question is: how relevant is the plot to family discussions in Star Trek?
Not that relevant at all. So your point that this “never” happens above is incorrect
Yeah... That's not how that works.
You do realize that all these, highlighted examples are basically synopsizing their respective episodes -- only proving my point even more.
Um, yeahBut it’s because Michael didn’t exist back in the sixties right up to the noughties.
Does that make it problematic that she’s been introduced now? I mostly think it does - but not in a way that breaks the universe.
The irony is that the lack of evidence for Michael’s existence is precisely the reason why one can’t argue against her existence.
But by that logic there’s no evidence that there *isnt* a flying teapot in orbit around the earth...
. I've yet to see anyone convincingly justifying otherwise. 
Vulcans live 200+ years and have wild illogical (likely contraception-free) sex every seven years.
Spock probably has like 20 other siblings we've never heard about, why didn't he ever talk about them?
Because the writers hadn't made them up yet??Vulcans live 200+ years and have wild illogical (likely contraception-free) sex every seven years.
Spock probably has like 20 other siblings we've never heard about, why didn't he ever talk about them?
You didn’t actually - you made several points about themes in the episode (which I agree with btw) but the mention of O’Brien’s mother has nothing to do with the plot of the episode. The events are moved forward more by him remembering the song rather than his mother using real food, as you note below:
Agreed regarding the characters. My point is that Bashir could have been having that conversation with anyone. The fact that Miles mentioned his mother had nothing to do with the story. The fact that Bashir missed Garak did.
If you’re basing that assessment on your point immediately above (that everything on screen is relevant) then I don’t agree. How is “James R Kirk” relevant (in a way that has been canonically acknowledged)?
Some things are relevant to the story, others revelant to individual characters, etc. Some things are just mistakes.
Not everything is relevant to the plot. So I dispute your correctitude.
In terms of proving a negative (I.e. that Michael *didn’t* exist) its exactly how it works
Incidentally I agree with the logic that we shouldn’t be trying to prove that Michael never existed because that’s impossible. Even when we include the fact that she was never mentioned in the “future” of DSC.
But, I’m curious as to how you can prove there isn’t a teapot in orbit - since that’s “not how that works”. How does it work?
The examples are relevant to the characters in those scenes. They’re not necessarily relevant to the plots of those episodes.
Were your point so conclusive it would be beyond refute
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
