Greg, no one has ever accused Sarek of being a good parent and role model. 
2020 titles announced
- Thread starter GaryH
- Start date
I agree that would be an interesting angle to explore, though based on what's presented on screen, and if we take the deleted scene from TFF into account where Spock and Sybok reenact the day Sybok left Vulcan, Spock was still a child when Sybok was exiled. If Michael were around prior to Sybok's exile, I'm guessing it would likely only be a year or so. Sybok had already moved out of the home, which would explain why we never seen him in any of the flashbacks in season 2. I'm guessing the only time he showed up was for Vulcan Thanksgiving dinner, which I imagine for that family was hella awkward.
If someone wanted to tell a story about Sybok's past, they'd only have to honor what actually ended up in the final cut. They could use ideas from a deleted scene if they wanted to, but they certainly wouldn't be forbidden to contradict it.
Yes. Sybok was the best part of ST V, and it's not fair to treat the character as toxic just because of his context.
I've been a little disappoint how little we've seen of Sybok in the tie-ins. The Final Frontier is not a great movie, but I think the character Sybok has a ton of potential, and could be great if the right writer came along with the right story.
EDIT: I was actually writing this post before I saw Greg and Christopher's.
EDIT: I was actually writing this post before I saw Greg and Christopher's.
Truly a family legacy to be proud of.
They could all get their mugshots framed for the family photo wall!
Just give us the Sarek/Amanda show, with baby Spock, kid Michael and teenage Sybok. It writes itself.
I bet his original proposal is now incorporating DSC, Burnham, Sarak & Amanda, and Pike & Number One connections, with Una updating it.
Last edited:
I liked Sybok as well, a lot of that has to do with the performance of Laurence Luckinbill. I'll admit, at first I was a bit put off that Spock had this never before seen half-brother. But taking Spock's entire history into account it's not hard to imagine keeping this to himself. He's done it plenty of times before. And he has a history of not bringing something up until it becomes an issue. He's not one to 'volunteer' information just for small talk.
I also have to admit I have a bit of a soft spot for TFF. I do rank it as 13/13 of the Trek films (I could put it ahead of "
"Insurrection" if they'd do something about the special effects--"Insurrection" wasn't a great film but it at least was competently made overall--but to be clear I don't hate any Star Trek film--I can watch and enjoy all of them, it just varies to the degree). I always thought TFF had some good character moments--and some of the basic ideas weren't bad, they just got mangled to some degree in the final product.
But that aside, I wouldn't mind if we saw more Sybok in future stories. He's been touched on hear and there in novels but there's certainly plenty of room to build on. I doubt we'll see him on screen if only because the timeline of the shows doesn't really open itself up to it except maybe in flashbacks. I think it's pretty clear Spock had not seen Sybok since he left Vulcan--though I guess he can be worked in where he doesn't have any interactions with Spock. Did Burnham even ever meet Sybok? Knowing Spock's family was she even aware of Sybok? They're a pretty private bunch. And of course where Burnham is now I doubt it will come up in season 3. But "Strange New Worlds" perhaps could open the door a bit if they wished in the form of flashbacks. Even during the Berman era of Star Trek we did see the occasional flashbacks that tied into the story. So it's possible. And of course the novels can always pick up the thread as well if they wanted to flesh it out more.
And I would add that as far as continuity goes with Sybok they did address that in the film. They didn't all pretend they always knew about Sybok. Kirk and McCoy had never heard of Sybok and Spock goes on to say he didn't feel predisposed to discuss matters of a personal nature (I think is how he put it). So it's not inconsistent with anything that came before and they directly addressed it in the film. And the movie does give a bit of a framework for future writers to work off of it they wish to.
It was no more off-putting than TWOK revealing that Kirk had a never-before-seen adult son. Or "Amok Time" revealing that Spock had a never-before-seen fiancee.
It was very brief. For TFF I actually read the novel before seeing the movie, I recall the book actually came out a few days before the film (same for TUC in fact--and it was a mistake to read that novel before seeing the movie because I knew who done it before the movie started--oops
).So reading the novel actually helped because it gave some more background and it wasn't a shock when I did see the film. So the initial surprise was when I read it in the novel. But I got over it pretty quickly.
As far as TWOK, well, I saw the 1st 3 films before seeing any episodes of the TV series so for me at least there was no shock seeing Kirk had a son since I had nothing to compare it too. The films up to that point were my first exposure to Star Trek.
But I get what you're saying. Even with TWOK though they did give the audience a reason we never heard of David. It does seem McCoy and Spock are aware of Kirk's prior relationship in that case though, but they threw in the bit about 'reopening old wounds' to explain why they avoided talking about it.
And "Amok Time" is one of those that backs up TFF in a way in that Spock doesn't discuss private matters even with his closest friends unless he has no choice.
See also "Journey to Babel," where Spock doesn't mention that Ambassador Sarek is his father until Sarek and Amanda are literally aboard the ship. Nor do Kirk or McCoy know that Spock has been estranged from his father for eighteen years; Amanda has to explain this to Kirk.
Yes, indeed Spock is a very private person. Probably part of the reason the "Discovery" team wasn't too worried about adding Burnham to his family history. There are a lot of hidden skeletons in the Sarek family closet.
I just completed the "New Voyages" anthology and the final story in that collection, "Mind Sifter", also feeds into Spock's reluctant nature a bit. There Spock believes he knows where Kirk is but he keeps it to himself until he is sure, not even discussing it with McCoy or Scotty. He lets them believe he's a creep basically. And that reminds me a bit of "The Paradise Syndrome" and "The Tholian Web" where Spock internalizes a lot. And "Spectre of the Gun" where he hints but refuses to discuss his feelings about Chekov's supposed death. So there's plenty of evidence that Spock is a very private person even to his closest friends.
For me it was just a 'hmm, why wouldn't Spock ever mention Sybok before' which was quickly replaced with an 'oh, yeah..." after thinking about it for a moment.
The original team, perhaps. Unfortunately the season 2 team didn't see it that way and instead tacked on the utterly nonsensical "The entire existence of this starship and every member of its crew is now permanently classified in order to cover up just one mission they were on."
I think the Burham angle was just part of that though. They seemed to want to explain why there was never any mention of the Discovery and spore drive again.
And as I have often complained about that was a plot point that bothered me a bit. Spore drive could literally take you anywhere in the galaxy in a split second. It seems odd it would never be mentioned again or that some unscrupulous galactic player wouldn't try to steal it in some fashion, the dangers be damned. It doesn't seem like something that would just be forgotten. So I think in their clumsy way they were trying to explain why all of that was forgotten and never mentioned again.
I agree it's clumsy. So many people were involved that it lacks credibility that no one ever spilled the beans about it.
Then they could've done the exact same thing they did with the Mirror Universe at the end of season 1 -- just classify those specific events. (You don't need to explain why the ship wasn't mentioned, since there are lots of ships that never got mentioned again -- Decker's Constellation, Tracey's Exeter, Wesley's Lexington, you name it.) The only reason they could've had for the absurd idea of classifying the entire existence of everyone involved with the project (which would be impossible to achieve given all the people they interacted with over their lives, and would only draw attention to the thing that's supposed to be covered up) was as a really, really terrible excuse for the lack of mention of the people involved. Which, again, there doesn't need to be an excuse for.
Oh, I don't disagree with you. It was clumsy and trying to classify everything just seems absurd. They could have classified the events and the spore drive, left some things intact and said the ship was lost with all hands (which in a sense it really was).
I gave them a few points for trying to offer an explanation why the spore drive disappeared without a trace and some other things that maybe didn't jive all that well with existing canon. But they definitely took it to an extreme. It wasn't necessary to classify everything.
In this Comic-Con panel, author Cassandra Rose Clarke mentions she is writing an upcoming Star Trek novel which hasn't been announced yet.
Similar threads
