In ST V, Kirk did have a yeoman. But her only function seemed to be wandering around the bridge.
Wasn't she played by one of Shatner's daughters?
What is your personal head canon?
- Thread starter AmandaSmith
- Start date
Wasn't she played by one of Shatner's daughters?
Melanie, yes.
I thought it was Elizabeth?
I know you're right, but I have a serious Mandela Effect situation here. Sucks getting old.
For the training cruise, sure. But I don't get the impression that Uhura was a normal part of the ship's complement in TWOK. And I prefer to think that she's had more varied positions throughout her Starfleet career. YMMV.
I agree. I also never got the sense that Sulu was a regular Enterprise crew member either (based on the lines 'Enterprise, this is Admiral Kirk's party on final approach' and 'I'm delighted, any chance to go aboard the Enterprise.') I always figured he and Uhura were part of Kirk's inspection team.
Yeah, same here.
Honestly, at this point I find it just plain boring to assume that Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov did the exact same jobs for 20+ years despite a steady stream of promotions. Why not vary it up? In The Lost Years novels Sulu is a Starfleet test pilot between TOS and TMP and Chekov is training to be a security officer. Uhura was working in either Starfleet intelligence or an Earth communications station (I forget which). And we know she also worked at the Earth transporter station during the timeframe of STIII and was teaching at the Academy by the time of STVI. I figure they all did lots of different things over the decades they were in Starfleet and were just drawn back to the Enterprise time and again because of their loyalty to Captain Kirk and their shipmates.
Last edited:
I don't get this. It's a bunch of humans and a few aliens on a Starship exploring the cosmos in some capacity while examining The Human Condition. How isn't that Star Trek?
I get not liking a particular series for whatever reason. But to say it's not Star Trek seems rather odd.
This is always my question/frustration mostly because it asks Discovery to be two things at once. One, be more Star Trek, which Discovery tried with connections to previous history while still wanting to tell a different style of story.
But, it also never gets to be "Star Trek" and constantly has to fight its way to be at the table.
For my personal Head Canon, I factor the events of Discovery up to the Series Finale and integrate it into my 26th Century Universe which does involve time travel much to the chagrin of FireProof78.
=D
And yes, the Spore Drive is still around, with alot of limitations on it, I manage to integrate ALOT of things from Discovery into my spin-off timeline that lives with the implications of numerous Time Travel events.
=D
And yes, the Spore Drive is still around, with alot of limitations on it, I manage to integrate ALOT of things from Discovery into my spin-off timeline that lives with the implications of numerous Time Travel events.
Well I can't call Discovery Star Trek because...
I don't see the original idea, spirit and vision of Star Trek continiuing.
There is no more optimistic vision of a better and peaceful future.
Starfleet and Federation principles don't exsist anymore, already the first few episodes tell us that it's just a bunch of mutineers, refusers of orders without any loaytyor and morality. And Michael probably breakes more rules in 3 episodes than any other member of prior series in a whole series.
Also Captain Lorca refused orders without any consequenties.
Most crew members probably wouldn't survive one day on the Enterprise under Kirk.
The way the Klingons are presented is not accetable and has noting to do with the original Klingons.
The way characters of prior Treks are used rather destroys their myth. Just see what they did to Mudd for example.
These are just my first impressions, there may be more...
Anyway, I don't hate Discovery. But just calling it "Star Trek" doesn't make it "Star Trek.
I don't see the original idea, spirit and vision of Star Trek continiuing.
There is no more optimistic vision of a better and peaceful future.
Starfleet and Federation principles don't exsist anymore, already the first few episodes tell us that it's just a bunch of mutineers, refusers of orders without any loaytyor and morality. And Michael probably breakes more rules in 3 episodes than any other member of prior series in a whole series.
Also Captain Lorca refused orders without any consequenties.
Most crew members probably wouldn't survive one day on the Enterprise under Kirk.
The way the Klingons are presented is not accetable and has noting to do with the original Klingons.
The way characters of prior Treks are used rather destroys their myth. Just see what they did to Mudd for example.
These are just my first impressions, there may be more...
Anyway, I don't hate Discovery. But just calling it "Star Trek" doesn't make it "Star Trek.
Like, people of different species and nations working together, saving planetary civilizations when they can get away with it, and ending wars without genociding their enemies?
Er, what? You did notice that the mutineer got taken down by everybody else around her, then jailed, right? And treated with shame until she rehabilitated herself? And also, there was exactly one of her?
Since I can only assume you didn’t watch long enough to learn this, SPOILER ALERT: He’s a villain and impostor, who eventually gets his and is replaced.
As I recall from TOS, quite a few didn’t — but I think that’s probably not what you meant to refer to. But I suspect Kirk would be good with all the not-mutinous crewmembers — which is to say, all but the two named above.
Yeah, just like Star Trek: The Motion Picture!
Destroys their myth? Because younger slimmer Mudd is also meaner?
Well, I see what Frontis is saying here. The DSC version of Mudd was a LOT more villainous and bloodthirsty than the guy we saw on TOS, who was more of a loveable rogue. It was a nice touch that he was utterly devoted to Stella, but other than that, I find the two versions pretty tough to reconcile with each other.
I actually had a far easier time reconciling their version of Mudd vs. pretty much everything else they did. Carmel was charming, but was also engaged in human trafficking, and was going to allow 430 people to die if he didn’t get his way.
TOS Mudd was pretty evil.
It does.
And the principles are there but they have to be fought for.
This is in line with TOS, where the optimistic view is humanity survived and worked together. No myths were destroyed save fan ones.
Yep. Goofier, campier portrayal doesn't necessarily mean less evil. Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever was way campier than he was in On Her Majesty's Secret Service but was still prepared to blackmail the world with a diamond-enhanced laser satellite and kill random targets on the globe (and in fact does randomly annihilate three separate targets, at least two of which are nuclear causing massive mushroom clouds, and that won't be good for anybody in the vicinity). Evil is evil even if the actor's interpretation of the character is more tongue-in-cheek, broad and silly.
Or Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean who somehow becomes a hero.
Similar threads
