35-year-old twenty-year-olds? 
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
35-year-old twenty-year-olds?
Same way I feel about Starfleet Academy. Unfortunately.
My issue with Burnham being Spock’s “sister” is that it felt like a blatant attempt to bring in Spock, Sarek and Amanda as characters. And eventually the Enterprise.
Business wise, it was a good move. The Abrams films proved there was still a sizable audience that liked the TOS characters.
What Bill said. It was the only move from a business sense when there was a strong desire to use their assets but minimize risk.
And then Fuller burned that to the ground and spent a shit ton of money.
History of the franchise demonstrates this to be true.
I really like Cristobal Rios, Santiago Cabrera did a great job portraying him.
IMO, I'd find a way to "Chrono Trigger" body swap him right before when he was supposed to die in that bar fight and let that double be the one that goes down and drag him back to the future.
IMO, I'd find a way to "Chrono Trigger" body swap him right before when he was supposed to die in that bar fight and let that double be the one that goes down and drag him back to the future.
Amanda is a Vulcanophile. Either Sarek's family expected her to go all semi Vulcan once she married him or she was so desperate to fit in with his family and social circle (SNW Charades; Sarek seems to be an aristocratic) she jumps through all the Vulcan cultural hoops. IOW Sarek and Amanda did not do a Prince Harry and Meghan Markle by leaving (royal, logical stuffy) Vulcan and headed for (live and let live, easy going) Earth to live and raise their children.
Last edited:
Lethe could still work even if Michael was not Sarek's ward/foster daughter. She could be someone he offered to sponsor into the Vulcan Expeditionary Group, as a favour to her parents, but since they (VEG) would only 'accept' one human, he tells her she did get in so Spock could get the spot.
I think she, or at least Discovery, retroactively added a lot to Spock’s character and life story. Human emotion being something he once actively wanted and later chose to reject, partially because of her (at first); the whole extra nuance given to the Sarek’s-bitterness thread in TOS; yeah, I think her presence retroactively strengthens his story.
Yeah. I don't disagree that the original decision to tie Michael to Spock was clearly a cheap marketing gimmick that - in that abstract - I would prefer not to see. But this is one area in which the writing really did make it work well not only for DSC but even as added context for Spock and Sarek's history. I have zero issue with Michael being part of the Spock family. She's a way better addition to it than Sybok, anyway.
Thanks for the laugh; I needed one. 
If this means you punched out before the disappointing endings to DSC S1, DSC S2, PIC S1, and PIC S2, I envy you!
Thinking of the Burnham/Spock thing further, I agree with the folks that said that Burnham shouldn't have been Spock's heretofore-unknown sister but instead a human girl adopted by another Vulcan family. In fact, I'll go further and say that DSC should've just been set in a post-24th Century time period from the start. That would've solved most the the continuity & design objections people had to S1. All the more advanced designs make more sense then. Just say it's the Federation encountering the Klingon Empire again after a couple centuries' worth of separation.
Of course, that would mean that the show couldn't introduce Anson Mount as Pike in S2, which eventually led to SNW, so maybe it's best the series played out the way it did.
Discovery's 10 episode season arc format doesn't work for me. Yes, I see other streaming franchises do the same thing but I think it's a short sighted reaction to this changing entertainment medium.
The result for me is a story that could be tighter at the expense of characters and environments that are under developed and under explored.
DISCO would have been better served as 4 2-hour movies that dropped every 3 months.
And SNW needs at least half as many more episodes a season.
The result for me is a story that could be tighter at the expense of characters and environments that are under developed and under explored.
DISCO would have been better served as 4 2-hour movies that dropped every 3 months.
And SNW needs at least half as many more episodes a season.
Last edited:
The ten-episode season arc format would have been fine if they'd actually sustained the arc for the whole season. A good start and a rushed ending with a lot of standalone bits in the middle do not a proper plot arc make. Trying to be all things to all people just means you end up satisfying nobody.
I don't think Sarek has anything particular against Starfleet. I don't even think he was demanding that Spock follow his career path, as such.
If there were no Burnham, and Spock was the only child, I think Sarek would have been OK with Spock joining Starfleet. The thing that stuck in Sarek's craw was the fact that he had to lie to Burnham and tell her she was rejected by the Vulcan Expeditionary Group. Spock's Starfleet career meant that all of Sarek's pain was for nothing.
That was why Sarek was upset with Spock joining Starfleet. It cost Burnham a VEG career she could have had. And a loving parent would indeed feel pain at having to lie to their child about something like this. If Sarek were a bad father, he wouldn't care.
Last edited:
We can also conjecture that shame over Sybok's life path made him treat his other Vulcan child with even more rigidity than he'd probably otherwise have shown to Spock. A feeling that somehow he'd failed Sybok and allowed his eldest to eschew logic and embrace animal passions and there was no way he was going to just sit back and let Spock do what he wanted lest another son find a career littered with disappointment and pain.
Star Trek's current problem in a nut shell.
Similar threads
- Locked
