I can't remember many DISCO episode titles because so many episodes just blur together due to the arcs, but "Unification III" was a standout episode that took Spock's mission to its conclusion. I thought it was not just a good episode, but a good tribute to the character and Nimoy.
Which 23rd Century is canon?
- Thread starter Gotham Central
- Start date
- Status
Prodigy is still several years out from Romulus's destruction.
They haven't thrown out TAS, they changed the skin colour of one character.I guess the only real problem I have here is how blasé we're all being about throwing away TAS. Yeah, it may be a cheap Saturday morning cartoon, but is it not still important? Why are we supposed to ignore it? What makes TAS so deserving of being tossed aside?
Oh well. Like I said, I'm OK with throwing out the TAS Bonnie, so I guess April is OK too. Whatever.
Please don't link images directly from wiki pages, it doesn't work.
The DSC Klingon makeup hasn't been seen since DSC Season 2. Lower Decks, Prodigy and Picard (though that's the 25th century) use the TNG inspired Klingon designs.
And what is a 'Romulcan'?
Strange New Worlds Season 2 Filming Leaks
And it looks like SNW Season 2 will also be avoiding the DSC designs
Last edited:
Decades of being part of ST fandom lets me know what you are claiming is not the loud, sweeping call for racial casting accuracy you're making out to be.
The fact that after 55 years of Montalbán being accepted as Khan in TOS and 40 years in TWOK, yet there was not the outcry from the Sikh community you claim exists, means his casting was accepted. You've yet to support your claim which would challenge the acceptance spanning more than a half-century into question.
Your entire position is not remotely nuanced, incessantly failing to recognize the real considerations of individual racial groups, their self-perception, and what they believe qualifies as honest representation or conscious misrepresentation. Your only concern is window-dressing / checking boxes brought to you by the arrogant, assumption-laden White Knight Liberals telling the world how each non-White race feels, what they should feel, accept or reject regarding casting, as if non-White groups are easily-satisfied by the surface gestures rather than true creative investment / development.
Race is not now--nor will it ever be the feel-good window dressing application packed into White Knight Liberals' arguments. As a black man, I would not get much from Anthony Mackie's casting as Sam Wilson/The Falcon/Cap 2 at all if he had been cast strictly because the comic book character was black, yet regardless of knowing the character's racial identity / life meant something crucial to his characterization (a constant sub-plot of his comic book life since his introduction in 1969) Disney never addressed / incorporated that, instead, only using him to just to have a black character. At that point, it would not have meant a damn thing to black people who was cast in the role, because Wilson's well-known, intended racial history / characterization would have been removed, which would be akin to removing his reason(s) to be as a black male character.
Reason to be in the racial identity sense was not Khan's situation or purpose--not in 1967 or 1982, which says much about the silence over Montalbán's casting, but to understand that requires more than making unsound, misguided, White Knight Liberal grievance arguments. To say you are out of your depth on this subject would be the understatement of the century. Ironically enough, you cannot see how your argument is incredibly offensive.
Then the task should have been not consciously altering the character to the point where he shared no traits and personality of the distinct characterization which brought him to life. Obviously, FC failed in that regard, leading to one of the worst contradictions in a character in ST franchise history.
You still seem to misunderstand that race identification plays a role not only in identifying individuals, but in uncovering the historical record (in this case) of a living artifact several centuries old. You see offense where none exists.
Nimoy's quote was long after the fact. Beyond what he--as an actor--brought to Spock, was the non-Nimoy invention of Spock being a mixed race character, who had to struggle with his "minority" side as the subject of debate, his "different" ways, questions about where his loyalties fell (e.g., "Balance of Terror", which mirrored age-old experiences of half-black/white people in social or political situations where the black side was a target or threatened), his own loyalties or choice in which side he preferred to identify with. That was not based on a Jewish character in the way you've claimed time and again.
As intended as early as the second pilot.
Well put.
Last edited:
I saw the movies from the early-'90s. Loved the first one when I was a kid and it still holds up. The second one is a guilty pleasure. "Go ninja, go ninja, go ninja, go!" I kind of wish I didn't see the third one, plus I'd hit my teens and outgrown it.
I haven't seen any of the new ones.
TMNT for the NES... you want a challenging experience, beat the final level without losing a single turtle.
There's a reason why the phrase 'NES hard' exists.
There's a reason why the phrase 'NES hard' exists.
Nope.
That's the version my mother didn't want me to read.The original Turtle comics are the only true TMNT.
Loved it.
Huh. I thought Unification III was just a bunch of self-serving crap for Burnham (i.e. the whole 'Spock would never have been the great man he was without you, Michael' nonsense.)
On that dialogue, I agree. But the fact that Spock ultimately was successful in his dream of reunification was a good tribute to him.
True. But I think that point was overshadowed by the emphasis they put on Burnham more.
As you might (or might not) know, "Unification III" isn't exactly my favorite episode of DSC, but it's much easier to focus on Burnham than Spock, since Leonard Nimoy is dead and the character of Spock would also be long-dead (and in another timeline). The entire episode is built around the premise that Burnham has a connection to Ni'Var, which the other characters don't, since she's the foster-sister of the legendary Spock. That's the natural flow of the story, like Burnham or not.
I'm glad that the union between the Romulans and Vulcans is taken for granted in the episode itself. It's been hundreds of years since they reunified. So if it was still an issue, then there would be problems.
For the record, anyone wondering about my problems with the episode: They boil down to
Burnham's mother being part of the Quiwot-Milot (it came from out of nowhere, though I have a certain level of respect for them coming up with something so outside the box) and, more egregiously, Tilly being made First Officer. (For those looking for another reason to bash the show, that change ultimately doesn't stick.)
But despite the idea of reunification being presented as normal, I don't think the point is overshadowed in the sense that we always feel a Romulan presence on Vulcan because they had a mix of Vulcan and Romulan characters who Burnham had to make her case to.
And then there's also the fact that Burnham's mother, Gabrielle, is a Romulan Nun living on Vulcan. So her daily life is surrounded by reunification.
Last edited:
About those two issues with "Unification III"...
The first point does feel too convenient and contrived for it to happen, but I can ignore it since there are a LOT of convenient things in the franchise that have happened.
To the second point, I completely agree, and forgot it was even in that episode. (I thought it occured in another... part of why the season arcs make it difficult to separate things.) There is no chance that an ensign, a recently made one at that, would serve in that position.
The first point does feel too convenient and contrived for it to happen, but I can ignore it since there are a LOT of convenient things in the franchise that have happened.
To the second point, I completely agree, and forgot it was even in that episode. (I thought it occured in another... part of why the season arcs make it difficult to separate things.) There is no chance that an ensign, a recently made one at that, would serve in that position.
Okay, fine. The 23rd Century. I look at it like comic books. That wasn't what the creators originally set out to do, but that's what it's become over time, whether they intended for it or not. I think all of it is Canon (as in this is a collection of a body of work), but not all of it is in Active Continuity. I think things stay in active continuity until they're contradicted by something later. As far as how the 23rd Century looks in the current live-action series versus the animated series? Different artists have different ideas. Again, like comic books.
The short of it is, TOS wasn't made with a decades-spanning franchise in mind. It wasn't meant to be the beginning of what we have now.
The only other thing we can compare Star Trek to is Doctor Who, as far as long-running sci-fi/fantasy franchises that span decades and have live-action TV as the main format. Even though I'm not a fan of DW, and don't know it as well as other people do, I have to imagine they've made some changes and adjustments too.
The short of it is, TOS wasn't made with a decades-spanning franchise in mind. It wasn't meant to be the beginning of what we have now.
The only other thing we can compare Star Trek to is Doctor Who, as far as long-running sci-fi/fantasy franchises that span decades and have live-action TV as the main format. Even though I'm not a fan of DW, and don't know it as well as other people do, I have to imagine they've made some changes and adjustments too.
Last edited:
True. Like Trek, it has an 'out' of being a franchise that embraces rewriting history, alternate realities and Time Wars, with those elements being even more prominent.
Alien dated? No, not at all. Still one of the best horror movies I've seen.
I can live with it as long as it doesn't affect future moves, series or books where the stories are set in the 24th century. But I still think it was stupid.
An episode in season six of VOY where a main character which was dumped for dubious reasons in season 4 was brought back only to be humiliated and destroyed.
I consider it ruining when two important species in the Star Trek history is squashed together in some half-a**ed, light-beer version of the previous species, especially the way it was done. If they had omitted the destruction of Romulus, I would have had at least some understanding for it.
I can accept changes. But not bad changes. If I just sat down and accepted bad changes, I would be a coward and couldn't even look in a mirror. That's not me. I fight!
And should I happen to lose, then I would at least sleep well every night knowing that I at least tried.
Are they. I hot the impression from commente here that they and the Vulcans have become something in-between what they used to be
I have friends in Germany so I know that. And I can understand that they feel guilt.
But they shouldn't be attacked and accused for what happened in a time when they weren't even born.
OK, Bond is an agent. I have to correct myself there.
And I've seen all James Bond movies, have most of them on DVD, read many books and watched series about the 19th century Sherlock Holmes as well. Unfortunately, there is nothing in neither the books nor the series which inclined that Holmes can time -travel.
As for Star Trek and it's comments on the politics of the 60's, at least it was well done. Not to mention that the 60's was a much more funny and optimistic time period than the dystopian 2020's.
I know that. But sometimes it comes out as very silly.
Has the movies and series makers of today lost the ability to come up with new, interesting charactesr?
I agree that Con Air is a good movie despite the over-done scenes at the end.
I still find it a bit unnecessary to create that scenario.
I guess that the fans of TOS will claim that the TOS Klingons are the "real Klingons" and fans of TNG, DS9 and VOY would vote for the Klingons in those series. Anyway, there have been a lot of debates about that and many suggestions how to explain the "in-universe change" other than the fact that new posibilties for better make up in the TV studios in the Gray Universe made the change possible.
But all of a sudden we have a third version of Klingons, very bad ones too. And that in the 23th century.
So what happened to the "Mutant Ninja Turtles Klingons"? were they exterminated by the "real Klingons". Or have they gone back to their home planet Turtelia to plan a revenge?
Yes, but the problem is how all this will affect future Trek series and books where the stores are set in the 24th century?
Will the Romulans and Vulcans in such series or books be Romulcans, just as if characters like Vreenak, Tomalak, Tuvok, Vorik and other Romulans or Vulcans never existed or show up as totally different in looks and ways thanthey were in TNG, DS9 and VOY?
I know that. But it was better done than it is today.
Well, in that case it looks like that they realized that the "Turtles" look was a mistake.
So why did they come up with it in the first place?
So all of a sudden, DSC is set in the 32nd century? Oh dear!
maybe they should have the Deep Purple song "You keep On Moving" as constant background sound in each episode.
When it comes to the Romulan-Vulcan reunification, what I don't like is the destruction of Romulus and that it was set in the 23th century (correct me if I'm wrong) plus the fact that the forced unification will result in two great species done and the merger will result in some weak combination of both species.
If it had been a peaceful reunification, like the one Spock was working for in TNG, I may have accepted it.
But it would still be a pity to ruin what we had when it comes to Romulans and Vulcans.
However, my greatest concern is how it affects possible future series and books with stories set in the 24th century. If, let's say Vreenak or Tomalak shows up in a future book in the 24th century, will they be different from what they were in DS9.
My dear friend, you should really work on your debating skills.
As requested, correcting you. Romulus was destroyed in the 24th century in the Prime timeline. Perhaps you're confusing it with Vulcan being destroyed in the 23rd century in the Kelvin timeline?
And DISCO isn't suddenly in the 32nd century for no reason. There was a whole time-travel plotline explaining how the ship and its crew ended up in the far future.
My handy-dandy cheat sheet:
Prime universe: Romulus is toast in the 24th century, years after NEMESIS.
Kelvin universe: Vulcan is toast in the 23rd century.
I think it can be both. For example, I think the special effects are dated - they could have been made more convincing with modern technology. That doesn't mean that it isn't a great horror movie.
- Status
Similar threads
