Every outlet was running stories about Spock's dad being on the show. I imagine that it wasn't that big a leap for most folks that Spock would eventually be along.
“Jean-Luc Picard is back”: will new Picard show eclipse Discovery?
- Thread starter Groppler Zorn
- Start date
Every outlet was running stories about Spock's dad being on the show. I imagine that it wasn't that big a leap for most folks that Spock would eventually be along.
Didn’t tptb announce that Michael was Spock’s adopted sister before DSC even started?
I seem to remember that but I’m happy to be corrected.
Sort of. It was mostly inference/deduction by media outlets and Harberts was eventually goated into back-handed conformation But none of the actual promotional material leading up to the premiere makes any definitive connection and, in fact, kept Micheal and Sarek's relationship vague.
And yet I remember distinctly thinking at the time that, since they were going out of their way to keep Burnham and Sarek at arm's length, that it was much more likely we'd see JTK before we ever saw Spock.
Well, he said "almost seventy years" which obviously can't possibly be an exact figure. But knowing Spock, maybe he did indeed add up all the time when they had been hostile since first contact in 2151 (or even with the Vulcans in 2016) and then subtracted all the time they weren't. Estimating based on available information, naturally.
But he didn't say that at all. He said unremitting hostility, not hostilities. And again, if he had said the latter, it would already have contradicted "Errand Of Mercy" (TOS)...
AYELBORNE: Unless both sides agree to an immediate cessation of hostilities, all your armed forces, wherever they may be, will be immediately immobilized.
-MMoM
I think that was my hope at the time. But, deep down, I knew they wouldn't pass on the opportunity to use the most popular character the franchise ever created.
But, we know they were back at it no more than a year or so later. "The Day of the Dove", "Elaan of Troyius". And that is just what we saw on screen. No telling how many tussles there were in outside of the Enterprise.
The Organians didn't seem to care once the Federation and Klingons were off their proverbial lawn.
(Hostilities would still have remitted. But again, it doesn't matter because he never said "unremitting hostilities" in the first place. Who's on first?)
-MMoM
-MMoM
If you go with "unremitting hostility", I imagine that would go all the way back to their first encounter in "Broken Bow". Which would go back 140 years.
Which is why I tend to treat TOS and the films separate from the rest of the franchise. The rest of the franchise mostly seems to ignore it, except when they need to cherry pick something from it.
Ummmm... hmmm... "Hostility" vs. "hostilities". I'm not going to lie: I'm not quite following. I'm not sure what the difference would be.
But I do know the Federation and Klingons found cute little work-arounds during TOS Seasons 2 and 3. Proxy war in "A Private Little War". Getting on each other's nerves in "The Trouble With Tribbles". Competing for a planet in "Friday's Child" (my memory's fuzzy on that one). I won't count "Day of the Dove" since they were being influenced by an exterior force. In "Elaan of Troyius", the Klingons try to be super-sneaky and try to destroy the Enterprise without starting a war. So, even with a cessation of hostilities, there were still hostilities.
Of course, because why would anyone bother to instead imagine something that doesn't make DSC wrong, like there being a period following ENT where the Klingons weren't hostile...which nothing I can think of at the moment would preclude, and which would also match up with it being said in the "The War Without, The War Within" (DSC) that the NX-01 last visited Qo'noS "nearly 100 years ago." (IIRC, the only time we saw them visit in ENT was in "Broken Bow" which was more than 100 years earlier.)
You're the one who's choosing to imagine a scenario that makes the onscreen references not fit, instead of taking the onscreen references and imagining a scenario that fits with them. Go ahead and enjoy that if you like, but that doesn't make DSC wrong. They obviously did consider Spock's line, hence writing what they wrote, with specific mention of the Klingons being "relentlessly hostile" despite the intermittent contact.
And of course, we could also go with this alternate interpretation instead! There are probably other possible ones as well. Up to you.
"Hostilities" means the act of engaging in armed conflict. "Hostility" means an unfriendly or unwelcoming attitude.
You are. (You're also wrong about the year the movie takes place, although you got the quote right.) But by all means, don't take my word for it.
-MMoM
Last edited:
And with that, I just learned something new.
And Hostelities are disgusting community restrooms!
Ewwww. Still better than portable johns, though. Those things are just something else...
... especially in the summer.
... especially in the summer.
Well, there was that tiny detail about a war with the Romulans, but that's hardly worth mentioning...
so I won't
You mean maybe they stopped being hostile toward us while we were fighting their (on and off) mortal enemies for them...? WHAT NONSENSE IS THIS???Well, there was that tiny detail about a war with the Romulans, but that's hardly worth mentioning...
so I won't
-MMoM
I feel like startlingly little good character work was done in the first season. There was a promising period in the back half of Act 1 where it seemed like it was getting the attention it needed. Then Act 2 happened, and the series turned into schlock where the actions of the characters were driven by the needs of the plot, rather than the other way around. Stamets came off the worst, since he had no role other than to spout off spore technobabble and look sad his boyfriend was fridged a few times, but the "arcs" of all of them suffered (except Ash, who I thought actually ended the series a much more compelling character than when he started).
I actually liked Lethe quite a good deal. My issue was more with the beginning and the ending of the series. The prologue's two Sarek bits were completely unneeded from a narrative standpoint, and seemed to just be there to tell us how "special" Burnham was supposed to be. Then in the finale, Sarek was positively beaming with pride for Burnham, to the point that he was practically smiling. Perhaps this is partially on Frain not getting the character, but the words as written did lay it on really thick as well.
Come on. Don't stop there. Why not throw in Seven of Nine too?
I am 99% sure that when constructing the characters all of this was considered.
I mean, there's a certain formula which works for a Trek breakout character. If there is a fan favorite besides the captain, it's always someone who is some sort of "outsider" to Earth culture and astride two worlds. Think Spock, Data, Worf, Odo, Garak, Seven, the Doctor, etc. I'm sure if no one else Fuller was conscious of this and thus tried to "focus group" the protagonist of Discovery into someone who had the potential to be a breakout.
Well, as I said, mileage will vary as I enjoy both Michael as well as Stamets, Sarek, and even Lorca (kind of).
The script for Insurrection would have been fine as a TNG episode, not a great one, but an OK one. The Nemesis script would have been just fine sitting in the garbage can. Too many reused plot points. A destroyed Enterprise, Data dying but his consciousness living on in another...almost as bad as Into Darkness.
Similar threads
