Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x08 - "If Memory Serves"

Oh, I think Trek is handling it just fine. Perhaps it's just because I've loved Amanda since "Journey to Babel." And I'm really enjoying Mia Kirschner's take on her. But then, I'm one of those weird people who likes covers of my favorite songs, so there's that.

I like that Amanda isn't perfect in DSC, just like in TOS. She was fridged halfway through ST09, so she's more of a symbol than anything else although I thought Winona was fine.

But I think that each TOS character we've seen so far -- Sarek, Amanda, Pike, Number One, Spock, Vina -- has done what I thought was impossible. They're not just imitating the 50+ year old original. They're giving them their own spin. That's down to stellar casting. These folks are doing A+ acting. And bless past Treks, but that was not always the case across series.

Star Trek is incredible because it's not postracial, pretending as if there's no such thing as race. How it deals with human differences is much cooler than even that. There are different kinds of humans, all are valid, etc. Even as early as TOS, the main thing that's cringey is gender, not race. They let the human characters' ethnicities into the story without (much) pandering.

(The one weirdness is ENT's "pink skin," but I always figured that was Shran's nickname for Archer, not the entire human species, since there are non-pink humans among the NX-01 crew.)

I think we'll eventually see Burnham's parents, either in flashback, or through all the time travel storylines this show's had.

I don't think it's wrong to critique DSC. I just think most people who've posted felt the writers accomplished their goals in that scene. It's the equivalent of someone's sibling of a different race calling them the worst racial slur imaginable. Or a straight sibling calling their younger sibling a horrible slur applied to those who love the same gender.

(Trying very hard not to say or allude to the words here. But I can tell you for a fact that yes, fully grown adults remember all of the above. Especially when it comes from someone you love, and you're just a little kid.)

Also, Spock has been interesting psychologically for 53 years. It doesn't bother me that he's disabled. Long before DSC, some fans saw him as being on the spectrum. I think it's wonderful that people see a mirror of their own experiences in the character.

Painful for me too. I was so into the story I winced. I felt every moment of that exchange.

One question: Does DSC consider TAS "Yesteryear" to be canon? I keep wanting the flashbacks to predate it, but I don't think it works with the timeline the show's set up. Too bad! After all that character development in that episode, he feels a little more young and needy than necessary. A Spock whose older siblings had abandoned him, on the verge of his kahs-wan, and dealing with bullies at school would definitely appreciate Selek without asking many questions.

 

As of right now, TAS is canon. Looks like Spock is 7 in the past in "Yesteryear", so that would've been 2237. According to Memory Alpha, Burnham was born in 2226 and adopted by Sarek and Amanda in the 2230s...

... I could see Burham being 10 or 11 in the flashbacks this season, so maybe it works out that the flashbacks just barely predate what happened in "Yesteryear".

 

Amanda reading Alice in Wonderland to Spock comes from TAS as well doesn't it?

 

Yup, it does.

 

Well, then it all ties together nicely, in my opinion.

So much about Discovery is throwing TOS and TAS into sharp relief! It's just enhancing things I loved about past shows. Illuminating new aspects of stories we've all watched a dozen times.

And God, now I'm thinking about TAS Spock in "Yesteryear," remembering that exact moment in his childhood when he travels back through the Guardian. There's so much going on! Bullies at school. Impossible-to-please Sarek, saying, "You'd better not embarrass me." A human mom who loves him, but just doesn't quite understand. And on top of that, older sibs who just aren't there physically or emotionally.

Makes sense that he would have to be the friend he needed... RIP, I-Chaya!

 

It absolutely lines up. Spock was born in 2230 (per Star Trek Beyond). In at age 7 (2237), the events of Yesteryear happen.

Burnham was born in 2226, per her personnel file in Season 1. At age 10 (2236), she visits Eridani D with Amanda.

There are two main flashbacks featuring Spock. The first features Burnham's first meeting with Amanda and Spock, so this predates the Eridani trip and is 2236 at the latest. The Spock actor is a little old to be playing six, but Vulcan aging or whatnot, who knows.

The second flashback is after these two characters bond. So, some months later at least. It's the same child actors, so I wouldn't go more than a year. Which puts us in 2237 at the latest. It's really hard to stretch the timeline past 2237 unless we ignore Burnham's personnel file.

 

Jammer's review:
https://www.jammersreviews.com/st-dsc/s2/if-memory-serves.php

His first 4 star Discovery rating.

 

Yay? I guess.

Still his, "There are so many ways this could have gone wrong. Somehow, it doesn't," leaves me shaking my head at kind of approach that many have had and still have with Disco. That anticipation of what has to be wrong with it, ahead of any story it's presenting, which hobbles enjoyment of what Discovery is, still, I think for many.

He should be crediting the previous episodes for building up to this one, because that is a major reason why it has the impact it does but that is something he does not even address, and in fact in some places in his review deliberately appears to dismiss and even criticize to a certain extent.

I

 

I see a troll cast a 1 vote. I suppose that was inevitable.

Seriously if you are honestly voting 1, what exactly do you want out of any Star Trek? Why are you watching at all?

 

On an unrelated side.note:
This episode made me found out why I had sometimes problems with SMG's earlier acting, and why I think it's much, much better now:

She used to always shake her head side-ways to emphasize emotional dialogue.

That's a real rookie-actor movie. She wanted to sell this line of dialogue extra hard, but didn't know what to do with her body, so she put a lot of unconcious head-movement into every major beat of her delivery. But that just looks really much like "acting" (you can see Seth McFarlane do it a little less noticeable as well - though his shows or movies usually are usually less "documentary" and more artifical anyway, so it doesn't stick out as much). It's pretty obvious in a lot of very emotional scenes in season 1 - say, in many 1-on-1 conversation with other characters, she often constantly shakes her head at every heavy line of dialogue.

Now that doesn't mean SMG is in any way a bad actress. You're picture quite proofs the opposite. Just an in-experienced one (this is her first leading role as far as I know, right?). On a movie, a director would have told her right away, and took the same shot with her head staying still. But with the tough shooting schedule of a series, I can easily see some "bad" takes slipping through.

Now obviously she's aware of it - she doesn't do it anymore!
In fact, I would say especially in this episode her acting was truly magnificent. It was very obvious her acting had "improved" throughout the series, but I could never put my finger on what exactly. But in this episode early on - in the shuttle scene with the "black hole" - she was suddenly doing it again. Only very slightly, but that's why I noticed it, because it suddenly stuck out again, when she's normally now acting fully on another level.

 

You mean like Barry Allen‘s bobblehead?

 

YES!
Or Shia LaBeof and Andrew Garfields studder, or Harrison Ford's "angry finger pointing". A small tick, that is sometimes more noticeable or less. I usually find head-shaking (like Barry Allen or early Burnham) more annoying though, because it's such a typical "actor" move, wheras other body-gestures usually seem like more "personal" ticks, that can easily be interpreted as part of the character.

 

I don't mind criticisms, but if you are going to criticize at least get your facts correct.

Spock became psychologically unhinged because he tried to mind meld with the Red Angel, not because of what Burnham told him when they were kids.

The Menagerie takes place approximately 7 years after this episode so possibly something happens to institute the death penalty for returning to this planet.

 

Someone put this together, but it's just the (finger) tip of the iceberg:

 

IDK - the story itself STILL centers around Burnham and her Vulcan family more than anything else. As for Anson Mount's "Captain Pike" character being popular; you had a similar situation in the original Star Tre in that William Shatner (Captain Kirk) WAS in fact the lead/star of the show; yet Leonard Nimoy's "Mr. Spock" character became as popular over time; BUT that didn't change the fact that William Shatner/Kirk was STILL the Lead/Star of the series.

 

ToS was Kirk/Spock/McCoy. Everyone else was minor. Though Kirk was the lead.

TNG was Picard/Data. More ensemble driven, for certain. But I do not think anyone emerged as a clear #3. Whoopi & Q were also fantastic.

DS9 was also ensemble, but had a weaker lead. Sisko/Odo/Kira were the 3 mains in my view. With O'Brien, Quark, and Dax all solid. Bashir got better. At times it got too ensemble (Jake, Kaiko, Nog, etc).

Voyager was basically Janeway and 7. Though Picardo had his monents and Dawson was fine.

Enterprise was Archer/T'Pol/Tripp.

 

If you count the previously on as part of the episode, Majel Barrett is now the only Star Trek actor to be heard or appear at least once in every iteration of the franchise.

https://twitter.com/trekcore/status/1106244614867038208?s=21

 

Where was she seen/heard in the JJ Abrams films?

 

She was the Computer voice in ST09.

 

I gave this episode a 9, but I am notoriously stingy.

Excellent stuff.

I hope others are joining me on the Pike spinoff train now. Much prefer it to Sec. 31, though I do love me some Michelle Yeoh.