Defiant, mutiny, Discovery, TOS... what is the connection?

[ColorfulMartian]

I just rewatched S03E09 of TOS and can't stop thinking about a weird coincidence (or maybe is not a coincidence?)... Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Chekov are on board the Defiant (which is the most important ship on Discovery at the moment) and they are saying that there has never been a mutiny on a Starfleet vessel before (mutiny is the main subject in Discovery). Since Michael's mutiny happened 10 years before the events of Kirk, I highly doubt that Spock would forget an information like that. Also they are on the Defiant talking about mutiny! Why did they based the entire show on these 2 words from that episode? What is the connection? My head is spinning!

 

[Noname Given]

I just rewatched S03E09 of TOS and can't stop thinking about a weird coincidence (or maybe is not a coincidence?)... Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Chekov are on board the Defiant (which is the most important ship on Discovery at the moment) and they are saying that there has never been a mutiny on a Starfleet vessel before (mutiny is the main subject in Discovery). Since Michael's mutiny happened 10 years before the events of Kirk, I highly doubt that Spock would forget an information like that. Also they are on the Defiant talking about mutiny! Why did they based the entire show on these 2 words from that episode? What is the connection? My head is spinning!

Remember - it was Spock answering Chekov's question. Also, there HAD been mutinies before - Spock himself participated ion one when he comandeered the Entyerprise and took it to Talos IV to give Captain Pike (his former Captain) a 'better life free of his degenerated body.' (See TOS - "The Menagerie I and II".)

Taken in context, given what Chekov and Spock and the rest of them were seeing, you could infer Spock saw the question as: "Has there ever been a mutiny on a a Starship like this one - where all the crew murdered each other - before?"

Plus it wouldn't be the first time TOS contradicted its own internal consistency:

In TOS - "Court Martial", Commodore Stone makes the comment to Kirk
(I include the gisty of the exchange for context - the line I'm reffering to is BOLDED):

STONE: Stop recording. Now, look, Jim. Not one man in a million could do what you and I have done. Command a starship. A hundred decisions a day, hundreds of lives staked on you making every one of them right. You're played out, Jim. Exhausted.
KIRK: Is that the way you see it?
STONE: That's the way my report'll read if you co-operate.
KIRK: A physical breakdown. Possibly even mental collapse.
STONE: Possibly.
KIRK: I'd be admitting a man died because

STONE: Admit nothing. Say nothing. Let me bury the matter here and now. No starship captain has ever stood trial before, and I don't want you to be the first.

KIRK: But if what you suspect is true, then I'm guilty. I should be punished.
STONE: I'm thinking of the service. I won't have it smeared.
KIRK: By what, Commodore Stone?
STONE: All right. By an evident perjurer who's either covering his bad judgment, his cowardice, or
KIRK: That's as far as you go, sir. I'm telling you I was there on the Bridge. I know what happened. I know what I did.
STONE: It's in the transcript, and computer transcripts don't lie. I'm telling you, Captain, either you accept a permanent ground assignment, or the whole disciplinary weight of Starfleet command is going to light right on your neck.

Yet in the third season TOS episode - "Whom Gods Destry" of Federation Captain GHarth of Izar, commited to a Penal rehabilitation colony after he ordered his crew to lay waste to a planet of peaceful people who saved his life.
^^^
Before this incident he was a decorated Starship Captain, the hero of the Battle of Axanar, and his exploits were required reading when Kirk was at the Academy.

My point: His crew did mutiny (They were exonerated of course, but technically it's still a mutiny to refuse your Captain's direct order); and it's pretty clear Captain Garth was put on Trial and sentenced for his actions <--- And this all occurred prior to the events of TOS - "Court Martial" and TOS - "The Tholian Web".

I've been a Star Trek fan a long time (been watching first run since age 6 in 1969) - but for all the fans who try to claim 'Star Trek' is a well thought out consistent Universe where everything fits nicely; hasn't really watched ANY of the Star Trek series because they've all contradicted themselves and each other for a given episode story NUMEROUS TIMES.

 

[ITDUDE]

Just wait for it. Huge giant RESET button when STD ends after season two.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Remember - it was Spock answering Chekov's question. Also, there HAD been mutinies before - Spock himself participated ion one when he comandeered the Entyerprise and took it to Talos IV to give Captain Pike (his former Captain) a 'better life free of his degenerated body.' (See TOS - "The Menagerie I and II".)

He participated in two! "This Side of Paradise" has a spore (no not those spores) driven mutiny.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

We have been over this a thousand times. Spock himself was invoked in two.

 

[The Librarian]

Why do you even think that they based the entire series around on incorrect line by Spock?

 

[Cyrus]

Spock was just protecting his step sister.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Spock was just protecting his step sister.

She's probably an Admiral and protecting him.

 

[Succubint]

Just like he never mentioned his God-fearing half brother Sybok, or hey Amanda and Sarek until it was forced upon him. Spock's a private dude, yo.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Just like he never mentioned his God-fearing half brother Sybok, or hey Amanda and Sarek until it was forced upon him. Spock's a private dude, yo.

And he has the pull to keep it and well everything, from his official records
Name: Spock
Place of Birth: Vulcan
Father: [REDACTED]
Mother: [REDACTED]
Siblings:[REDACTED] [REDACTED]
Medical History: [REACTED]

 

[Cyrus]

Speaking of Spock being a private dude, the most impressive moment was how he kept his cool when the Romulan commander was like an identical twin of his father.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Speaking of Spock being a private dude, the most impressive moment was how he kept his cool when the Romulan commander was like an identical twin of his father.

Styles would have really gone ballistic if Spock blurted out "Dad!"

 

[Awesome Possum]

Trek's continuity isn't as strong as it's believers would like to think. If you need explanations for fiction, we haven't seen the entire story yet. Burnham may end up being pardoned and her sentence expunged, so then there would be no mutiny. Even though it happened a few times on TOS by Burnham's brother. It was a troubled household.

 

[Timo]

it's pretty clear Captain Garth was put on Trial and sentenced for his actions

Actually, it's pretty unlikely. Garth was in an insane asylum, not in jail. Like every other murderer in TOS, such as Lenore Karidian, he was receiving treatment rather than punishment.

Starfleet internally still believes in punishments - demotions, confining to quarters, for all we know keelhaulings, effected through court martials or simple quoting of regulations. Burnham's jail sentence could be Starfleet-internal. But Burnham wasn't declared insane and put to a "regular" asylum like Tantalus V and then found incurable and put to Elba II for palliative care. She got life in prison; he got care until cured and then supposedly released.

On the other hand, Kirk was expected to dodge trial by admitting guilt. Garth might have fallen on his sword for the greater glory of the Fleet, and there would have been no trial. Had Kirk done that, he, too, would probably have ended in psychotherapy for a while, although perhaps not in one of 'em asylums. But Starfleet would have avoided marring its records with a trial, or any other major disciplinary measure, instead having Kirk chiefly taken care of by the civilian therapy machinery for dealing with crime, and perhaps then sidelined.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Spot261]

Burnham's jail sentence could be Starfleet-internal.

Not really, her co detainees made a point of referring to her as "starfleet", suggesting they themselves were not.

 

[Philip Guyott]

Whist Burnham was charged with mutiny, I am not sure if it is the correct term. Typically a mutiny involves more then one member of the crew.

"Mutiny is defined as a group of people rebelling against an authority that the group is legally obligated to obey. It is most often used to refer to members of a military organisation rebelling against their superiors, and illegally seizing control of a vessel."

I would only have called what Burnham did a mutiny had other members of the crew followed her. As it happens she enjoyed no support from the rest of the crew as was stopped before she could do any real damage.

Dereliction of duty - Guilty

Assaulting a fellow officer - Guilty

Mutiny?????

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Spock was just protecting his step sister.

That's probably true.

And it's also important to point out that Spock's specific line (to Chekov) was "Absolutely no record of such an occurrence." Spock didn't say there never WAS a mutiny; he said there was no RECORD of one.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Star Trek! Star Trek is the connection.

 

[Timo]

And it's also important to point out that Spock's specific line (to Chekov) was "Absolutely no record of such an occurrence." Spock didn't say there never WAS a mutiny; he said there was no RECORD of one.

Indeed, DSC puts a hilarious twist to this... I can so see Spock telling another Vulcan Whopper here, for all the right reasons.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Krandor]

Whist Burnham was charged with mutiny, I am not sure if it is the correct term. Typically a mutiny involves more then one member of the crew.

"Mutiny is defined as a group of people rebelling against an authority that the group is legally obligated to obey. It is most often used to refer to members of a military organisation rebelling against their superiors, and illegally seizing control of a vessel."

I would only have called what Burnham did a mutiny had other members of the crew followed her. As it happens she enjoyed no support from the rest of the crew as was stopped before she could do any real damage.

Dereliction of duty - Guilty

Assaulting a fellow officer - Guilty

Mutiny?????

Good point. It would be more insubordination, not following chain or command, stuff like that plus the assault.