What Era and Places Did Burnham's Mother Visit?
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
According to Unification III she went from 23rd Century Essof IV to 32nd Century Essof IV.
Thanks. Just the 23rd century? No exact date? I can't find any cannon relating to the exact year Gabrielle visited Essoff IV.
But only one place? Michael jumped to like ten different times and places.
Last edited:
Gabby took two voyages as the Red Angel. One went to 32nd Century Terralysium, 23rd Century Vulcan, 21st Century Earth, 21st Century Terralysium and maybe a few other stops. The other was a direct trip to the 32nd Century.
It seemed to me she had unlimited access to time and space in that suit. She knew Pike's fate, she saved Spock as a child, she said she'd seen everyone die over and over. And the end of season 2 makes it seem as if you can view all of history unseen, choosing where and when to make yourself visible. Like noclipping around a map in a videogame while scrolling backwards and forwards through time at will.
I wonder what came of her Angel Suit. She herself seemed to survive getting sucked to the time-wormhole (and then presumably belched onto Terralysium) just fine. Is the suit on Terralysium, too? And is it in working order, save for the hole in the chest and the missing time crystal?
How Gabrielle got off Terralysium is not known yet. Would her ride have been willing to make a detour to Boreth for more crystals, and then to a supernova? Warp travel across the whole galaxy is supposedly quite difficult in the 32nd century, and Burnham never managed to get from the vicinity of Terralysium to the vininity of Ni'Var during her year of travels...
Did Gabrielle do the Seven Signs? Michael sure as hell didn't. Is there a third Suit out there, perhaps? (No good reason why there wouldn't be - the specs are well known to S31, and 23rd century tech is up to the task of building unlimited numbers of those.)
Timo Saloniemi
How Gabrielle got off Terralysium is not known yet. Would her ride have been willing to make a detour to Boreth for more crystals, and then to a supernova? Warp travel across the whole galaxy is supposedly quite difficult in the 32nd century, and Burnham never managed to get from the vicinity of Terralysium to the vininity of Ni'Var during her year of travels...
Did Gabrielle do the Seven Signs? Michael sure as hell didn't. Is there a third Suit out there, perhaps? (No good reason why there wouldn't be - the specs are well known to S31, and 23rd century tech is up to the task of building unlimited numbers of those.)
Timo Saloniemi
She never got to Terralysium. She landed on Essol IV and the colonists there turned her over to the Qowot Milat
Michael did the signs as shown in "Such Sweet Sorrow pt. 2".
...No, Michael didn't do the Seven Signs.
Those were done slightly before the start of Season 2, spanning the whole galaxy. Michael only ever did the closely clustered Signs that appeared during the course of Season 2. And those explicitly were not the same as the Seven, because the heroes had a map of the Seven, and this never predicted where one of Michael's would appear.
(Save, that is, for the very first one. Which was two. That is, Pike said that the Sign that led them to the Hiawatha was a repeat of the only Sign anybody could reach without spore drive. But Michael was only shown doing the second appearance of a Sign at the Hiawatha, not the first.)
If the writers wanted to say that Michael did the Seven Signs, they not only fumbled it, but made it painfully clear that the opposite was true - that Michael would have lacked both the motivation and the opportunity to do the Seven, and that Season 2 could never have happened if Michael did the Seven.
Is Gabrielle's suit on Essof IV in the 32nd century?
Timo Saloniemi
Those were done slightly before the start of Season 2, spanning the whole galaxy. Michael only ever did the closely clustered Signs that appeared during the course of Season 2. And those explicitly were not the same as the Seven, because the heroes had a map of the Seven, and this never predicted where one of Michael's would appear.
(Save, that is, for the very first one. Which was two. That is, Pike said that the Sign that led them to the Hiawatha was a repeat of the only Sign anybody could reach without spore drive. But Michael was only shown doing the second appearance of a Sign at the Hiawatha, not the first.)
If the writers wanted to say that Michael did the Seven Signs, they not only fumbled it, but made it painfully clear that the opposite was true - that Michael would have lacked both the motivation and the opportunity to do the Seven, and that Season 2 could never have happened if Michael did the Seven.
Is Gabrielle's suit on Essof IV in the 32nd century?
Timo Saloniemi
I never understood this part of S2. Was it that each location had two separate signals? One that occurred at the beginning of the season (along with all the other locations at the same time) and then a separate second signal later on (with the second one occurring at each location at a different point in time)?
The writers didn't understand it, either. Or then hoped that nobody would care.
The thing is, S2 came in two halves. Different people made the halves happen. And apparently the story changed radically between the halves. Originally, it looked like Quantum Leap, with our heroes following the Signs and ending up causing trouble that they then had to undo (first they push the Hiawatha to her doom, then they disrupt the rocks above New Eden, both disasters that would not have happened had the heroes not Leaped in). But then it changed into this time-traveling white hat fighting this artificial-intelligence black hat, with little or no connection to the first couple of episodes.
The mismatch didn't really hurt much for most of S2. It's only during the final double episode that the writers completely drop the ball, by trying to explain away the mismatch and failing - either by accident, or because they thought that the explanation was cool and didn't need to make any sort of sense.
No, we didn't get anything as neat as two Signs per location. If it were that simple, the heroes would know where the Signs would next go up - they already had a map of the first set of Seven! Only two pairings happen: the Hiawatha gets two Signs, but Terralysium apparetly gets three! (That is, one of the original seven might have been Terralysium, and both the second and seventh of Michael's seven assuredly were.)
Also, for the second half of the S2 story, that is, the second story, all the signs were at the exact same place, at the available resolution. That is, Spock's map shows them all across the galaxy, and Pike and Connolly confirm this - but the later adventures all involve places right next to Earth, within easy reach by conventional warp drive, and should look like a single dot on Spock's map. No wonder the map was of zero help to the heroes!
As S2 concludes, then, we're left wondering who did the Seven Signs. Gabrielle? She says she did not, but she might be lying, for some unclear reason. Michael? We never saw her do those, but perhaps she did them in secret, simply to "fulfill the prophecy" and meet predestination criteria? Or did not intend to, but initially had phenomenally bad aim before learning to handle the suit and managing to do the Signs we did see her do?
Among the inconsistencies is that we don't know what a Sign looks like. The Seven glowed across the whole galaxy, but we the audience didn't see them (and for some reason nobody aboard the Discovery saw them, either!). For the first couple of episodes, it was a running gag that Pike's team just barely missed seeing a Sign, too. But then we saw some red when Michael descended on Kaminar, and it was immensely underwhelming. Something that dim could never have been visible from the surface, let alone across the galaxy. And yet Jacob claimed to have seen something impressive above Terralysium the other night. Was that the heroes' arrival Sign, or the original out of the Seven? He never claimed to have seen two Signs! Yet the plot necessitates for there to have been two Signs there, the first to mark the spot of interest, the second to allow the heroes to home in on that spot with their spore drive ship. (That is, unless the first, the one from the Seven set, actually never marked Terralysium, and the heroes just mistakenly assumed it did? Even the writer of "New Eden" tripped there, creating an inconsistency within the single episode.)
So perhaps Signs come at different intensities, as per need? Those done by Michael thus get further separated from those done by the mystery guy or gal who did the original Seven...
Timo Saloniemi
The thing is, S2 came in two halves. Different people made the halves happen. And apparently the story changed radically between the halves. Originally, it looked like Quantum Leap, with our heroes following the Signs and ending up causing trouble that they then had to undo (first they push the Hiawatha to her doom, then they disrupt the rocks above New Eden, both disasters that would not have happened had the heroes not Leaped in). But then it changed into this time-traveling white hat fighting this artificial-intelligence black hat, with little or no connection to the first couple of episodes.
The mismatch didn't really hurt much for most of S2. It's only during the final double episode that the writers completely drop the ball, by trying to explain away the mismatch and failing - either by accident, or because they thought that the explanation was cool and didn't need to make any sort of sense.
No, we didn't get anything as neat as two Signs per location. If it were that simple, the heroes would know where the Signs would next go up - they already had a map of the first set of Seven! Only two pairings happen: the Hiawatha gets two Signs, but Terralysium apparetly gets three! (That is, one of the original seven might have been Terralysium, and both the second and seventh of Michael's seven assuredly were.)
Also, for the second half of the S2 story, that is, the second story, all the signs were at the exact same place, at the available resolution. That is, Spock's map shows them all across the galaxy, and Pike and Connolly confirm this - but the later adventures all involve places right next to Earth, within easy reach by conventional warp drive, and should look like a single dot on Spock's map. No wonder the map was of zero help to the heroes!
As S2 concludes, then, we're left wondering who did the Seven Signs. Gabrielle? She says she did not, but she might be lying, for some unclear reason. Michael? We never saw her do those, but perhaps she did them in secret, simply to "fulfill the prophecy" and meet predestination criteria? Or did not intend to, but initially had phenomenally bad aim before learning to handle the suit and managing to do the Signs we did see her do?
Among the inconsistencies is that we don't know what a Sign looks like. The Seven glowed across the whole galaxy, but we the audience didn't see them (and for some reason nobody aboard the Discovery saw them, either!). For the first couple of episodes, it was a running gag that Pike's team just barely missed seeing a Sign, too. But then we saw some red when Michael descended on Kaminar, and it was immensely underwhelming. Something that dim could never have been visible from the surface, let alone across the galaxy. And yet Jacob claimed to have seen something impressive above Terralysium the other night. Was that the heroes' arrival Sign, or the original out of the Seven? He never claimed to have seen two Signs! Yet the plot necessitates for there to have been two Signs there, the first to mark the spot of interest, the second to allow the heroes to home in on that spot with their spore drive ship. (That is, unless the first, the one from the Seven set, actually never marked Terralysium, and the heroes just mistakenly assumed it did? Even the writer of "New Eden" tripped there, creating an inconsistency within the single episode.)
So perhaps Signs come at different intensities, as per need? Those done by Michael thus get further separated from those done by the mystery guy or gal who did the original Seven...
Timo Saloniemi
Last edited:
Timo, you're wrong.
There was only one set of signals, all of which were set by Michael.
This argument, as well as the argument about audiences never finding out the identity of the captain the Discovery was supposed to meet on Vulcan (it was Pike), is pure fabrication that exists only as an excuse to criticize the plot mechanics of Season 2.
There was only one set of signals, all of which were set by Michael.
This argument, as well as the argument about audiences never finding out the identity of the captain the Discovery was supposed to meet on Vulcan (it was Pike), is pure fabrication that exists only as an excuse to criticize the plot mechanics of Season 2.
Is there truth to this? All I've ever seen was YouTube Trek-Qanon level nonsense. Yes they had some staff changes but was the direction of the show really altered at all? It seemed cohesive to me.
No, I am not. Just check the above facts to see this. And don't "fabricate". I have no truck with that sort. If you think you can challenge one of the facts, do so explicitly and without fabrication.
Not in the TV show ST: Discovery. Perhaps in the confused minds of some, but hopefully this forum is not for discussing those confused minds. (However, if you have firsthand information on the confused minds, do share. Did you write "Sorrow II", perhaps?)
No, it's not. It does highlight that
1) the writers of S2 accidentally produced incoherent drivel because they couldn't write, or
2) the writers of S2 accidentally produced incoherent drivel because they did it in two parts and didn't cross-compare, or
3) the writers of S3 deliberately produced incoherent drivel because they thought this is what Star Trek should be like.
One of the above is true. I have no idea which one, and I don't care. I only write about that which is on screen. And while I have no particular design to blackpaint the writers, only #2 above allows them to escape the valid criticism of them being incompetent.
The show as aired has two distinct directions during S2 as can easily be seen, and you claiming that it does not doesn't really matter. Do you have some other reason for arguing that S2 wasn't written in two distinct halves?
Timo Saloniemi
Last edited:
^ Nothing about your argument is supported by what was shown onscreen.
Okay. You make an outrageous claim (that a work of fiction by writers should be consistent even though it is not real and thus not subject to any reality checks but for those their fallible minds can come up with). Now defend it.
1) Spock has a map of the Signs. The heroes do not have a map of the Signs, each of them coming as a news to them (especially towards the end, where a selection of seven should in fact be narrowing down to certainty). How is this not a contradiction?
2) Spock's map has the Signs all across the galaxy, in seven places, as confirmed in dialogue. The heroes stay in one place, plus Terralysium. How is this not a contradiction?
3) The Signs appear prior to "Brother". The Signs appear during the course of S2. How is this not a contradiction?
Can you defend your claim on even one of these points?
Timo Saloniemi
1) Spock has a map of the Signs. The heroes do not have a map of the Signs, each of them coming as a news to them (especially towards the end, where a selection of seven should in fact be narrowing down to certainty). How is this not a contradiction?
2) Spock's map has the Signs all across the galaxy, in seven places, as confirmed in dialogue. The heroes stay in one place, plus Terralysium. How is this not a contradiction?
3) The Signs appear prior to "Brother". The Signs appear during the course of S2. How is this not a contradiction?
Can you defend your claim on even one of these points?
Timo Saloniemi
Last edited:
...Thought not. I don't see what's so difficult about this? The facts are simple enough for everybody to see. There's no interpreting involved. Three massive contradictions result from the mismatch between the first couple of episodes and the rest.
Half a dozen others also can be seen, but those are standard fare for Trek and easily ignored or explained away if one wants to pretend Trek is consistent - and don't contribute to the discussion of whether S2 is bipolar one way or the other. It's just the basic premise of Michael doing the Seven Signs that is absolute bull.
Timo Saloniemi
Half a dozen others also can be seen, but those are standard fare for Trek and easily ignored or explained away if one wants to pretend Trek is consistent - and don't contribute to the discussion of whether S2 is bipolar one way or the other. It's just the basic premise of Michael doing the Seven Signs that is absolute bull.
Timo Saloniemi
Season 2 tells us that Michael set the signs.
It doesn't tell us how her setting the signs ties specifically into their simultaneous initial appearance or Spock having mapped them out, but a lack of explanation does not constitute a contradiction unless one is deliberately fabricating an argument of inconsistency tied to criticism of the series' plot and characters.
Asking me to disprove your own personal viewpoint on the setting of the signals beyond stating the simple fact that said viewpoint is not supported by what we were shown onscreen is not a good-faith argument, nor is acting like failure to do so on my part is proof that your viewpoint is correct.
It doesn't tell us how her setting the signs ties specifically into their simultaneous initial appearance or Spock having mapped them out, but a lack of explanation does not constitute a contradiction unless one is deliberately fabricating an argument of inconsistency tied to criticism of the series' plot and characters.
Asking me to disprove your own personal viewpoint on the setting of the signals beyond stating the simple fact that said viewpoint is not supported by what we were shown onscreen is not a good-faith argument, nor is acting like failure to do so on my part is proof that your viewpoint is correct.
Similar threads
