Spoilers Does "Light and Shadows" contradict "Journey to Babel"?

[Lord Garth]

Then again, there might not. Said expectations would not have been particularly realistic in either case: just like finding a female player of a significant role in the 1960s might be going against the accepted stereotype yet in no way a reflection of the capabilities of women in specific, finding a man who is openly uncomfortable with women in the 2010s might be going against the accepted stereotype yet in no way a reflection of the attitudes of men in specific. The universe ought to have room for all sorts, especially for dramatic purposes. Why censor out a sexist pig from the hero cast of a 2010s show, at a time when we're supposed to be edgy and aware and quite capable of stomaching shades of black?

Making Pike a misogynist and having him be in command of Discovery would put him at odds with the bridge crew. Moreover, it sharply undercuts the idea of the crew working together as a team if they're not on the same side as the Captain. The whole point of Pike taking command is that he's not Lorca and the crew can trust him, serve under him, and most importantly like him and not feel at odds with him. Conflict can come from all sorts of angles besides just the Captain again.

More importantly: Specifically because this is 2019, giving The Captain such an attitude would make others (who shouldn't be) in the audience feel validated in their beliefs and those beliefs should NOT be validated under any circumstances. It wouldn't just turn me against the Captain, it would turn me against the show.

 

[fireproof78]

Nor one of TOS's most sexist episodes, Wolf in the Fold. As well as the basic premise of the episode being that the crew, on the advice of the ship's surgeon, have come to a dance show so that Scotty can get over his understandable hatred of women after an explosion was caused by a female crewmember and get back to properly objectifying them, you have Spock of all people saying "And I suspect preys on women because women are more easily and more deeply terrified, generating more sheer horror than the male of the species."

Well, I had almost blocked all memory of that episode...almost.

 

[Vger23]

So anyway, to the original question.........................................



My answer is simple...."Light and Shadows" does not contradict "Journey to Babel." To the contrary, it adds context and additional information, which I appreciate.

 

[Noname Given]

According to Journey to Babel, Spock and Sarek have been estranged for 18 years.

DIS "Light and Shadows" shows them meeting up well within that window.

One might say you can "waive it away" because he doesn't directly address Spock, or talk to him.

I'd say it's a bit iffy though. What are your thoughts?

No, the relevent lines from TOS S2 - "Journey To Babel" are:
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/44.htm

AMANDA: After all these years among humans, you still haven't learned to smile.

SPOCK: Humans smile with so little provocation.

AMANDA: And you haven't come to see us in four years, either.

SPOCK: The situation between my father and myself has not changed.

AMANDA: You don't understand the Vulcan way, Captain. It's logical. It's a better way than ours. But it's not easy. It has kept Spock and Sarek from speaking as father and son for eighteen years.

^^^
So, yeah, it's NEVER BEEN that Spock and Sarek have never interacted or seen each other in all that time; it's just they've never spoken like a father to a son or a son to a father (In Amanda's opinion.)

Also, show me in either of these episodes where Spock or Sarek exchanged words or any kind to each other in a conversation, period.

So, yeah, bottom line - zero canon/continuity violation here. Not even close.

 

[KennyB]

>Looking for nitpicks
>Star Trek Fandom Forum

Wow. Did I not give you the answer you craved? Seems like the consensus is NO it did not contradict JTB. Thank you.......please post your next "keen insight".

 

[Hythlodeus]

You can't compare "the Original Verse" with "the Prime Verse". Both are in different world and history.

Oh, come on. Like Elsa once said so eloquently: Let it go!

 

[fireproof78]

So anyway, to the original question.........................................



My answer is simple...."Light and Shadows" does not contradict "Journey to Babel." To the contrary, it adds context and additional information, which I appreciate.

/thread

 

[F. King Daniel]

No they’re not

You say that by rote, but you haven't rubutted the sexism issues above. Do you really believe the same world where Kirk threatened an ambassador with a spanking (or any of the other examples) is the same world where Discovery takes place? Or is it a heavily-edited modern version of TOS which looks entirely different and has a different attitude you imagine coming a few years after Discovery?

 

[Tuskin38]

You say that by rote, but you haven't rubutted the sexism issues above. Do you really believe the same world where Kirk threatened an ambassador with a spanking (or any of the other examples) is the same world where Discovery takes place? Or is it a heavily-edited modern version of TOS which looks entirely different and has a different attitude you imagine coming a few years after Discovery?

With your logic, TMP onward isn't the same universe as TOS.

And why did you go straight to me? Why not ask the same thing to the other two people that said the same thing as me.

 

[F. King Daniel]

With your logic, TMP onward isn't the same universe as TOS.

The movies evolved the visuals, they only retconned them in the case of the Klingons (which was explained 30 years later)

And why did you go straight to me? Why not ask the same thing to the other two people that said the same thing as me.

If it's a tech-related issue you're usually all over it, and it seemed odd you had nothing specific to contribute. It wasn't intended as an attack, I was curious since it's another big gulf between the two shows but one that's rarely touched upon.

 

[XCV330]

Do you really believe the same world where Kirk threatened an ambassador with a spanking

In the wild 23rd century, they may be really into that and it takes place all the time across all genders. We just, thankfully, don't see it, or more importantly hear it.

 

[Tuskin38]

The movies evolved the visuals, they only retconned them in the case of the Klingons (which was explained 30 years later)

I wasn't talking about the visuals.

It's the 21st century, some things can be changed without it being an entirely new universe.

Comics do it all the time, why can't TV shows?

Removing sexism from a character doesn't completely change who they are (unless it's their one defining trait)

 

[fireproof78]

With your logic, TMP onward isn't the same universe as TOS.

Because it isn't

 

[Timo]

Making Pike a misogynist and having him be in command of Discovery would put him at odds with the bridge crew.

Sounds very good for drama.

Of course, this is not the role chosen for Pike and for S2. But there's nothing wrong dramatically with the heroes of DSC getting a row of somewhat antagonist skippers: that if anything is a TV trope, making the guest star bad so that the regulars look good.

There's also the other trope of the regulars teaching the guest star things, so that there can be character development without the sacrificing of the all-important static familiarity of the regulars.

Moreover, it sharply undercuts the idea of the crew working together as a team if they're not on the same side as the Captain.

Worked fine for S1. Indeed, if anything, it made the heroes a better team. Heck, the heroes themselves were a loathsome bunch: a bloodlusty traitor, a coward, a self-centered researcher-boss, a confused eterno-teen, a murderous spy. All of them did good even before their "conversion to good", despite their character faults. Even Lorca. And in some cases, we're still waiting for the "conversion to good", yet S2 has made a smooth mood switch anyway.

The whole point of Pike taking command is that he's not Lorca and the crew can trust him, serve under him, and most importantly like him and not feel at odds with him. Conflict can come from all sorts of angles besides just the Captain again.

Sure. Half a dozen other approaches would work, too, though. And Pike as portrayed now has an explicit character fault - he's willing to risk getting people killed so that he can play hero. It's just a matter of fashion whether this is a "better fault" than having an attitude about women, or a political view about terraforming, or a religious conviction on euthanasia, or whatever.

More importantly: Specifically because this is 2019, giving The Captain such an attitude would make others (who shouldn't be) in the audience feel validated in their beliefs and those beliefs should NOT be validated under any circumstances.

I don't believe in that crap, is all. Television is full of characters with faults: nuBSG had nothing but those, say. Heroes who deserve to die or worse can carry a show easily enough, and drive home the point that the audience could quite possibly consider being better than these heroes.

Making the faults explicit helps with educating the audience on behavior models. Pike having a misogynist streak should be a no-brainer: everybody knows it's not good to side with him on that. It's actually a more slippery slope to have Pike brag on his tendency to take risks - modern propaganda has not yet established whether that's a good or a bad thing for the 2010s.

It wouldn't just turn me against the Captain, it would turn me against the show.

So did you quit watching when Lorca was in command?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Bonz]

You know, sometimes as fans we tend to overthink a thing. We've had Star Trek since 1966 in all its various incarnations. Think about how many episodes have aired (some geekier than I can provide the actual number if they wish) and think about how much society has changed in fifty odd years. At some point, canon will and has and will be broken. As long as they don't really muck it up, let it go. Who cares?

What was acceptable then might not be today. Instead of making up stuff to explain it, just let it go, you know? I know they made Amanda kinda 1960s-television-show-woman wimpy, but their idea, once you hop past the sexism of the time, was that this was a couple where dad and son had issues, but mom loved them all and wasn't above verbally smacking one or the both of them.

In Disco, Amanda is presented a bit more strongly, but there are echoes of the old Amanda in that she loves her family, and will verbally smack one or both or all three (Michael) if necessary. So pretty much, Amanda has been modernized a bit, which honestly as a woman, is more appealing to me than a "little woman" type woman as depicted in a different era.

So from where I'm sitting, I don't really see a contradiction. And if some insist there is, fine. It doesn't really matter. The question is are you enjoying the show and characters? If so, let the small stuff slide.

 

[Brainsucker]

I wasn't talking about the visuals.

It's the 21st century, some things can be changed without it being an entirely new universe.

Comics do it all the time, why can't TV shows?

Removing sexism from a character doesn't completely change who they are (unless it's their one defining trait)

Now I remember that in the TOS, Captain Pike was a sexist too. I remember vaguely on how his opinion about women in "The Cage".

 

[Timo]

You remember wrong, though - Pike had no opinion on women in "The Cage".

Or at least he never expressed any, other than vague unease at the presence of Colt and later with Vina. But Vina was a threat force...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Christopher]

Do you really believe the same world where Kirk threatened an ambassador with a spanking (or any of the other examples) is the same world where Discovery takes place?

Do you really believe the world of TNG's first two seasons, where Starfleet is so completely at peace that Picard opposes the very idea of conducting war-game exercises, is the same world as "The Wounded" and after where the Federation has only recently ended a long war with Cardassia? Do you really believe the world of "Space Seed," where Khan's multiethnic followers are stranded on Ceti Alpha V as adults, is the same world as The Wrath of Khan, where they're all somehow a bunch of blond Nordic twenty-somethings 15 years later? Do you really believe the world of TOS, where the Enterprise encountered advanced androids at least once a season and there were plenty of examples of the technology to study, is the same world as TNG, where androids are a rare and little-understood technology a hundred years later? Do you really believe the world of TNG: "Unnatural Selection," where a Federation institution was openly and legally experimenting with human genetic engineering, is the same world as DS9: "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" where genetic engineering was suddenly, retroactively portrayed as illegal?

Star Trek doesn't take place in any world. It takes place in our imaginations. And that means it can be freely reimagined, just as it always has been ever since James R. Kirk became James T. Kirk. People and societies change over time. Our ideas and beliefs evolve. And fictional narratives are how we express our ideas and beliefs, and thus they evolve with us -- as long as we don't make the category error of assuming their "facts" are as immutable as real-life facts.

 

[valkyrie013]

For the thread question:
No, no cannon violation, for as said mentions of dialog in JtB, Spock and Sarek are both hard headed, and if you want to carry the point, they really didn't talk as "Father and Son" untill Search for Spock, Voyage home.

Now for the sub componet:
It was a television show made in the late 60's, you could probably find sexist, mysogonist, etc, etc. in Tng, Ds9, Voyager, and Enterprise.. They are the product of there time, and saying that Tos isn't the "Prime" timeline because of it is just but stupid, and taking things WAY to seriously.. Of course alot of that wouldn't fly today, but looking at it with 2019 Rose colored glasses is stupid.

 

[Timo]

...Especially in a show that is supposed to depict neither the 1960s nor the 2010s, but a fictional future. Who knows what attitudes would be approved or disapproved of there, or treated indifferently?

Timo Saloniemi