Well colour me confused because the almost two years I've been posting in these forums all I hear about his how Star Trek was not supposed to be alien of the week or about exploration with a science fiction flavour. It apparently is rich in stories reflecting the human condition of the times it is written in.
How is/isn't Discovery Star Trek?
- Thread starter seigezunt
- Start date
Yeah perhaps. I would fully expect anyone in an organisation that involves travel and danger and hints at military structure would have background checks and updated information. When Georgiou died it was made clear she had such information. Her Will, her legacy... contact was made with people important to her.
That does not mean that it is knowledge among coworkers nor is it relevant in daily duties, which Spock would be focused upon, not upon idle family gossip.
Which is all well and good for the feels, but none of that makes it "a thinking person's show."
Also, Buffy did the "message metaphor" thing 10x better than Star Trek did and did so without resorting to lecturing. Well, except "Beer Bad." That one doesn't count.
And you could find Star Trek level of messaging in half the Saturday morning cartoons ever made.
I've worked with my current team for 3 years, my previous team for 10 years, and I am fairly certain none of them knew a single thing about, as in existence or number of, my siblings. So it is not surprising, withSpock being far more stoic than I, that he does not talk about family.
Of course we all know that we are dancing around the fact that it has nothing to do with Spock being private or resisting a mere mention of a family member, let alone calling that 'gossip'. It is obviously because Michael did not exist when all that other Trek set the stage. That is the baggage the Discovery writers chose to do.
Nope. He didn't mention his dad until it was relevant to work. Period.
Yep, and he didn't mention his sister because she was only just invented. Hell, she was never going to get mentioned, how can you mention a new creation that came about after all that existing scripted dialogue??
Sarek and Amanda make sense. Michael on the other hand. Bad idea, bad idea. 
Ah, I see. So, we cannot add anything to existing canon because of things not mentioned in dialog.Yep, and he didn't mention his sister because she was only just invented. Hell, she was never going to get mentioned, how can you mention a new creation that came about after all that existing scripted dialogue??
Simple enough for me: Spock doesn't discuss his family and it is a source of personal pain, as evidenced by the show and films over and over again.
What the fuck are you on about?Yep, and he didn't mention his sister because she was only just invented. Hell, she was never going to get mentioned, how can you mention a new creation that came about after all that existing scripted dialogue??
By what metric?Sarek and Amanda make sense. Michael on the other hand. Bad idea, bad idea.
Simple logic.
This I agree upon because in the creation of the Spock character it is important to define and place him as outwardly Vulcan but with mixed parentage. So having those parents factor even in just seeing their offspring (Spock) is just organic writing.Sarek and Amanda make sense. Michael on the other hand. Bad idea, bad idea.
Obviously with a fresh group of writers trying to write Michael they chose to incorporate her into popular Trek. Have her as part of an iconic character's family. I get that comfort zone mentality but I don't think it was necessary and don't think it was at all relevant to how Spock was created. We are now required to layer on and project reasons for Michael being there to the Spock 'story' that simply were not there.
I also think making Michael, Spock's foster brother and Sarek's foster daughter severely lessens her character. She'll always have this stigma attached to her. She could have been great as her own character but this horribly tacked on backstory just weakens her character. An interesting idea for a character now rendered banal to shoehorn Spock and Sarek. It takes away from the originality of the character and ultimately the show. It needs to do it's own thing. Leave the iconic characters alone.
That's all subjective opinion. There's nothing logical about it.
Only if one sees it as a stigma.
Edit to add: I don't see making Michael connect to Spock as a stigma. I am willing to allow for things in his back story that I didn't know before because it hasn't all been told yet. From Vulcanians, to "Vulcanians never bluff" and lots of other things that kept getting added in as Star Trek progressed.
Michael is just Sarek...again.
Edit to add: I don't see making Michael connect to Spock as a stigma. I am willing to allow for things in his back story that I didn't know before because it hasn't all been told yet. From Vulcanians, to "Vulcanians never bluff" and lots of other things that kept getting added in as Star Trek progressed.
Michael is just Sarek...again.
I'm willing to allow for things too but I think making Michael, Spock's foster sister and Sarek's foster daughter is a stupid idea. No amount of loop holes and "Well Spock didn't say this or that" or however one wants to spin it, isn't going to make that a good thing for me ever.
It's like in SPECTRE where they made Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Bond's foster brother and his whole motivation for creating the evil organization. It was dumb.
It's like in SPECTRE where they made Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Bond's foster brother and his whole motivation for creating the evil organization. It was dumb.
It's not "loop holes."
You see "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is actual real logic.
Similar threads
- Locked
