.....lol
Burnham's Mutiny... Not Canon?
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
.....lol
Yet it happens in TOS and that was speaking to a star ship crew or a whole star ship mutinying. You are gonna have to do better than this, memory alpha covers this man.
Chekov: "Has there ever been a mutiny on a starship before?"
Spock: "Absolutely no record of such an occurrence."
Spock is pretty damn specific. Burnham was definitely a mutiny on a starship.
Chekov never says by the whole crew.
Spock: "Absolutely no record of such an occurrence."
Spock is pretty damn specific. Burnham was definitely a mutiny on a starship.
Chekov never says by the whole crew.
Spock says there was never a record of a mutiny. Not that there never WAS a mutiny.
Chekov was fucking with Spock.
And Spock fucked back.
Can I translate for you?
Checov "Your sister is hot."
Spock "Not as hot as your momma."
Um, Spock took part in two mutinies
This Side Of Paradise said:
The problem would appear to be with TOS not remembering it's own continuity. Shall we excise the Menagerie and This Side of Paradise from the canon?The Menagerie said:
I was kind of hoping for a running joke where people would call Burnham a mutineer and she'd correct them that it was "attempted mutiny" (Sentenced to life in prison for a crime she never even committed! Do they give out a Zee-Magnees Prize for "attempted" subspace physics?).
Still, I can see why Spock would've wanted to downplay Starfleet's fine tradition of mutiny, since he'd led two in the past three years.
Still, I can see why Spock would've wanted to downplay Starfleet's fine tradition of mutiny, since he'd led two in the past three years.
As you say, Spock is pretty damn specific. As others have stated above, it is perhaps true that Michael's mutiny is not on record after the events of the series. Given that whatever is going on aboard the Discovery seems to be pretty hush-hush, maybe its entire existence and Michael as a person are no longer on record ten years later. And wouldn't it be so Spock to fail to mention that someone very close to his childhood were the one to be the mutineer and for him to only omit that through semantics? We can't know unless we watch it and see, given we're only 3 episodes in. A lot of these things that people cite as canon violations can still fit within canon if you wait and see. Only after the fact can you say that something doesn't fit.
Technically, if they write it in, its not a canon violation but a retcon. And trek loves retcons.
Good catch.
Agreed. Timeline? More like a guideline, really.
Wait, but then what would constitute a canon violation?
Um, Spock took part in two mutinies
The problem would appear to be with TOS not remembering it's own continuity. Shall we excise the Menagerie and This Side of Paradise from the canon?
No one was ever charged with Mutiny there. So there's no record of it.
Burnham, however, was charged with Mutiny. She has the destination of being Starfleet's first official mutineer.
Maybe the quantum spores will fix the timeline.
Or this is another of the dozens of trek retcons. Its not really an issue at all.
Problem with that is.... everyone in the galaxy, from Starfleet Officers, to criminals (like the ones on the Transport), to Cadet Tilly are aware of the Michael Burnham Mutiny.
Unless some massive MIB level memory wipe happens across the alpha quadrant, I doubt you could keep this 'hush-hush'
Nope, just have to remove it from official records. and the line stands, there are NO records. Sure, people recall it, but officially, it never happened.
Similar threads
