• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread

Star Trek has one of those artifacts in the fact that we've caught up to history and there's been no Eugenics Wars or World War 3 (so far), so it's a bit hard to fit it in. Trek is an alternate universe to the hardcore Trekkies while the producers generally just prefer to do time travel showing "our" future. There's no way to thread that needle, sadly, so you just have to accept it.

I did note that before Khan PHYSICALLY showed up, Scotty and other enlightened humans thought he wasn't that bad of a guy by comparison. Sort of like Napoleon defenders.
 
Christopher said:
Chapel being in Starfleet already seems hard to reconcile with "What Are Little Girls Made Of?," though, since that episode said she only joined Starfleet after Roger Korby disappeared 5 years before, i.e. 2261. Then again, I suppose it's possible there could be a time jump between DSC season 2 and SNW, given how much more gray Pike seems to have in his hair.
Click to expand...

Correcting myself here... Discovery season 2 ended in April 2019 and was set in 2258. So if SNW comes along in late 2021 or early '22, and if the time interval is the same in-show as in reality, then that would put it in about 2261, so Chapel's presence could fit the chronology after all, or pretty close.

On the other hand, Uhura still being a cadet in '61 would mean she enrolled in the Academy later than she did in Kelvin. But it might be consistent with her bio on StarTrek.com, which says she graduated in '61, though I'm not sure what they're basing that on.
 
Christopher said:
Correcting myself here... Discovery season 2 ended in April 2019 and was set in 2258. So if SNW comes along in late 2021 or early '22, and if the time interval is the same in-show as in reality, then that would put it in about 2261, so Chapel's presence could fit the chronology after all, or pretty close.

On the other hand, Uhura still being a cadet in '61 would mean she enrolled in the Academy later than she did in Kelvin. But it might be consistent with her bio on StarTrek.com, which says she graduated in '61, though I'm not sure what they're basing that on.
Click to expand...
2261 is the date given for Uhura's graduation in the Okuda Chronology.
 
It was the traditional view, with the intrepid being hand waved away.

hasn’t been that was some T’Pol in enterprise, and Vulcan admirals in Discovery. In the original series an alien on a UESPA ship like the enterprise was certainly unusual. By TAS non human crew members were more visible (Arex for example)
 
Christopher said:
It would be good worldbuilding if we were shown that it did have some long-term impact, even in something as mundane as naming traditions.
Click to expand...

Not in this case, it wouldn't.

Deliberately naming one's child after Khan would be just as bad as people today naming their kids after Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Osama bin Laden.

And don't anyone even try to tell me that Khan wasn't just as evil as they were, because we all know he was. (Don't believe me? Ask the crew of Regula One.)
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
Not in this case, it wouldn't.

Deliberately naming one's child after Khan would be just as bad as people today naming their kids after Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Osama bin Laden.

And don't anyone even try to tell me that Khan wasn't just as evil as they were, because we all know he was. (Don't believe me? Ask the crew of Regula One.)
Click to expand...

Ehhhh.

Yes and no. In "Space Seed" which takes place after the events of Strange New Worlds, it's made clear that the crew is wary of Khan but generally welcoming.

SCOTT: I must confess, gentlemen. I've always held a sneaking admiration for this one.
KIRK: He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous. They were supermen, in a sense. Stronger, braver, certainly more ambitious, more daring.
SPOCK: Gentlemen, this romanticism about a ruthless dictator is
KIRK: Mister Spock, we humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling, but there, nevertheless.
SCOTT: There were no massacres under his rule.
SPOCK: And as little freedom.
MCCOY: No wars until he was attacked.
SPOCK: Gentlemen.
KIRK: Mister Spock, you misunderstand us. We can be against him and admire him all at the same time.

Khan of course proves to be a ravenous conqueror and utterly ungrateful houseguest. However, it reminds me of how some historians treat Napoleon or other figures. The distance of history allowing their danger to be downplayed.
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
Not in this case, it wouldn't.

Deliberately naming one's child after Khan would be just as bad as people today naming their kids after Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Osama bin Laden.

And don't anyone even try to tell me that Khan wasn't just as evil as they were, because we all know he was. (Don't believe me? Ask the crew of Regula One.)
Click to expand...
Which name though? Are there still children being named Adolf, Joseph and Pol? Has the Bin Laden family changed their name?
 
^ FIrst names can be harmless. Last names, not so much.

There still may be people being named Adolf (although I'd hope it's unlikely), but no one with an ounce of sense would keep the last name Hitler.
 
Nerys Myk said:
Which name though? Are there still children being named Adolf, Joseph and Pol? Has the Bin Laden family changed their name?
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of the Hill Street Blues subplot where Terry Kiser played a failed stand-up comic named Vic Hitler, who insisted that it had always been his family's surname and he had more right to it than the guy whose father's real name was Shicklgruber.


As for the name Singh, it's shared by most Sikh men on the planet, so it's a non-starter to suggest it should be abandoned just because of one guy. People didn't abandon the name Jones after the Jim Jones mass suicide. Though putting it together with Noonien is a bit more distinctive, I guess.
 
Christopher said:
I'm reminded of the Hill Street Blues subplot where Terry Kiser played a failed stand-up comic named Vic Hitler, who insisted that it had always been his family's surname and he had more right to it than the guy whose father's real name was Shicklgruber.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, the swastika used to be a symbol of good (before the Nazis corrupted it).

Retcons are definitive.
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
There still may be people being named Adolf (although I'd hope it's unlikely), but no one with an ounce of sense would keep the last name Hitler.
Click to expand...

My father was born in 1956 and named Adolf, everone called him Dolf. He was bullied for It in school untill het fought back.
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
^ FIrst names can be harmless. Last names, not so much.

There still may be people being named Adolf (although I'd hope it's unlikely), but no one with an ounce of sense would keep the last name Hitler.
Click to expand...
How about "Mao" which is a Chinese family name and a Japanese given name that is still being used,
"Khan" very well may be KNS's first name. No one in-universe ever refers to him as Singh even after his full name is revealed. So your arguments fail
 
Nerys Myk said:
"Khan" very well may be KNS's first name.
Click to expand...

Unlikely in combination with Singh. Khan is East Asian (originally Mongol), where as Singh is associated with Sikhs and nominally Southeast Asia/Indian sub-continent. A more likely title would be Sultan.

His first name is likely to be Noonien (cf Noonien Soong, historically implied to be a deliberate parallel at least in RW)

Nerys Myk said:
No one in-universe ever refers to him as Singh even after his full name is revealed.
Click to expand...
.

Which IMO makes it more likely that Khan is being used as his title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top