Based upon, what exactly?
ETA: Ninja'd and weird random facts...
Spoilers Hopes for the Third Season??
- Thread starter HaventGotALife
- Start date
ETA: Ninja'd and weird random facts...
OK thanks....... I had this weird idea that the Spock from TOS was older then the Spock in Disco. Thanks for clearing that up.
The OOC reasoning is redundant, as if you bring that in you'd have to do that for every other important ship in Trek with the identical reasoning that being the star of the show that ship's importance is hyped.
As I've said in the past, I'm really not someone who is very concerned with within-universe explanations for how things make sense - I find authorial intent far more interesting. I'm a dolyist, not a watsonian.
Well, if you mean TOS TOS, then yeah, he was older...
... but if you mean "The Cage", then when they were filming it, Spock probably would've been intended to be roughly the same age as Leonard Nimoy, so Spock would've been in his 30s. So that might've been where you got the idea from. Without any other information, I usually just assume characters are about the same age as the actors playing them. So I do it too.
But then "The Cage" was rejected, and TOS Season 1 took place 13 years later, so "The Menagerie" retroactively made Spock younger in the first pilot. That's Star Trek for you. Changing things up since 1966.
Last edited:
I guess I lean watsonian when something grows into a franchise. I'd like to be a dolyist but the more people contribute, the less practical it becomes. DC Fontana's intention was for Spock to be an only child. So, if I were a dolyist, then one of the key elements of DSC's first two seasons wouldn't work for me. And since I like DSC, I want it to work, so that pushes me in the watsonian direction.
I guess my point is I tend to find the story of how the story is made - like the details in The 50 Year Mission - way, way, way more interesting than fanfic which tries to circle the square.
Your own words: "As I said, there is no evidence in TOS that Kirk and the Enterprise are all that special." Indicating you wanted in-universe evidence.
When I posted that within TOS the Enterprise is the first ship to cross the galactic barrier in 200 years (a major feat, equivalent to the first weaponized use of gunpowder since the Chinese invented gunpowder centuries before that) and is thus special, you immediately turn to saying this doesn't count because of real world reasons, and you now actually are counting out-of-universe evidence.
Which is it?
I love BTS details, but very few of those will inform my wanting in universe explanations. That's more fun for me than, "Oh, we need to reduce the number of extras so the aliens turned them in to Styrofoam blocks."
"Been called", that means someone has that opinion. It doesn't mean it is iron-clad fact.
The Enterprise as a command was special, to a degree. It was one of twelve (or thirteen depending upon interpretation) ships. Not like Discovery, where the Federation starts losing a war when it disappears.
The federation was already losing the war due to the klingon cloaks. Starfleet was dependent on the cloaking device data to win which discovery as the hero ship happened to have.
The notion that discovery is treated as special compared to other hero ships doesn't hold water. Admiral Cornwell literally says that the enterprise was spared the war so the best of starfleet could survive. She says this right in front of the Discovery bridge crew with little regard for their self esteem. Discovery was only special because of its tactical advantage otherwise it was expendable.
Can I just say as an aside I loathe the term "hero ship" with every fiber of my being. Where the hell did it come from anyway?
I mean, I understand the idea of a ship as a character in a metaphorical sense. But maybe I'm weird, but I've never once considered the primary attribute of Trek characters as being heroic. One of the big appeals of Trek to me is that the characters are just normal-ass people doing the best they can in dicey situations. Okay more like normal in the sense that a Rhodes scholar with a Nobel is normal - but still, not superhuman. They're interesting because they are people, not because they save the day.
Heroes can't be interesting? Do heroes have to be superhuman?
Our real life heroes, veterans, police, firefighters, medical professionals etc. are normal people doing the best they can in dicey situations. How is that different from Trek characters that a Trek ship can't be coined "hero ship"?
Patrick Stewart and other Trek cast members have told stories about how real heroes (police etc.) have told them that watching their show helped inform how they act as a force of good in their careers.
I'm not interested in watching a Star Trek series about unremarkable people. I like to imagine if we're seeing their adventures on television, it's for a reason. I'm in general not interested in watching shows about ordinary people in ordinary circumstances. If I were, then I wouldn't be a fan of science-fiction.
But even taking away the science-fiction angle: No one notices people who don't stand out. And I'm not interested in watching people who wallow about in a mediocre world. I prefer watching people in extreme circumstances making things happen that regular people wouldn't be able to accomplish.
There's the "who you want to have a beer with" test. I don't relate to that person. I was a misfit in my youth, became friends with other misfits when I went to college and later on in adulthood, and that's my circle. So I can't wrap my mind around normal people. Even though I'm friendly with them, work with them, etc., etc. I don't feel like I'm one of them.
I go into all this so you know my preferences and why I have them, so you know they're coming from an honest place. It's not just an "I like Discovery" thing, it's a me thing.
But even taking away the science-fiction angle: No one notices people who don't stand out. And I'm not interested in watching people who wallow about in a mediocre world. I prefer watching people in extreme circumstances making things happen that regular people wouldn't be able to accomplish.
There's the "who you want to have a beer with" test. I don't relate to that person. I was a misfit in my youth, became friends with other misfits when I went to college and later on in adulthood, and that's my circle. So I can't wrap my mind around normal people. Even though I'm friendly with them, work with them, etc., etc. I don't feel like I'm one of them.
I go into all this so you know my preferences and why I have them, so you know they're coming from an honest place. It's not just an "I like Discovery" thing, it's a me thing.
Last edited:
I want more Tilly
What science fiction franchise have you been watching, exactly? To be honest the only characters in trek who I would deem normal is Jake Sisko, and probably Nog. The rest of them are genetically enhanced, or androids or the only freshman to ever win the Academy decathlon, brilliant tacticians, brilliant scientists, half-vulcan, half-klingon, half borg, or prodigies destined to walk the stars with some weird alien. They are all larger than life in some way, there is nothing normal about any of them. And dare i say that of course these characters are heroic because they take actions and make choices that most of us probably couldn't when it really came to the crunch.
The Spock from TOS is older than Disco. The Cage is 12/13years in TOS's past.
Cage = 2254
Disco S2 = 2257
TOS1 = 2267 (Menangerie)
Pike has 10 years (at most) left.
I dunno, I just think hero is a weird construction for Trek characters. Like, as a kid I watched TOS even before TNG came out (which happened when I was 8). I never, ever looked up to Kirk, Picard, or anyone else. I just thought they got to go on awesome adventures and daydreamed/wished that I'd be able to as well. Maybe I imagined myself on the ships sometimes. But I didn't myself as being one of the characters.
Then again, I suppose, thinking about it more, I don't think I've ever looked up to or been inspired by anyone in my life, fictional or real. I'm grateful when people do incredible things to help other people - and on occasion I wish I had the virtues of others - but generally speaking I don't spend much time comparing myself to others.
Science fiction is about - by definition - extraordinary circumstances, but characters can be quite ordinary people who are thrust into these circumstances.
But there's a difference between a character being interesting and a character being a demigod. Miles O'Brien was a pretty ordinary guy, but he was also an interesting character.
As I've said in the past, I'm more of a science fiction reader than viewer. Years back, I read a series of essays by David Brin about Star Wars versus Star Trek which encapsulate what I'm talking about.
Basically Star Wars is a retelling of romantic, heroic fantasy with some sci-fi trappings. The main characters are "chosen ones" who in some cases have magical powers which set them above normal folk. It is their destiny to be great, whether for good or evil.
In contrast, Star Trek concentrates on a group of intelligent professionals in a workplace setting doing their best with their abilities and internal moral compass to navigate thorny situations. It's explicitly not a "chosen one" universe, but one where free will and rationality rule the day. One of the central rules of the Trekverse (sometimes violated, but usually followed) is just about every being you meet - from a seeming god to a total monster - is just a different kind of person which has all of their own foibles.
Last edited:
I meant Spock from The Cage. Because that happened sometime before "If Memory Serves"
Similar threads
