How is/isn't Discovery Star Trek?

[Groppler Zorn]

Vulcans live 200+ years and have wild illogical (likely contraception-free) sex every seven years.
Spock probably has like 20 other siblings we've never heard about, why didn't he ever talk about them?

That’s the question, isn’t it? Hehe!

But seriously, for me the question becomes: what does Michael tell us about Spock, since we know she was in his life for a very long time.

What does it say about Spock that he never discussed his father? Not much really - we know he has a father and a mother since he wasn’t grown in a test tube like an augment.

What does it say about Spock that he never discussed Sybok? Well, his father had a failed marriage and a son who contradicted everything Vulcans apparently stand for (T’Pol treats those emotional Vulcans like deviants in Enterprise). So I can understand him not bringing up Sybok.

What does it say about Spock that he never discussed his human sister who was also in Starfleet *and* a science officer who *also* tried her hardest to be Vulcan despite being human (very similar to Spock)? Did she embarrass him? Why? Was he ashamed of her? Did he never see her as his real sister? Was he totally indifferent to her? Did he secretly love her, explaining his spurning of poor Nurse Chapel?

Maybe we’ll find out in season 2.

But I kinda like Spock a little less for ignoring poor Michael all these years. She’s a window to his viewscreen.

 

[Refuge]

That’s the question, isn’t it? Hehe!

But seriously, for me the question becomes: what does Michael tell us about Spock, since we know she was in his life for a very long time.

What does it say about Spock that he never discussed his father? Not much really - we know he has a father and a mother since he wasn’t grown in a test tube like an augment.

What does it say about Spock that he never discussed Sybok? Well, his father had a failed marriage and a son who contradicted everything Vulcans apparently stand for (T’Pol treats those emotional Vulcans like deviants in Enterprise). So I can understand him not bringing up Sybok.

What does it say about Spock that he never discussed his human sister who was also in Starfleet *and* a science officer who *also* tried her hardest to be Vulcan despite being human (very similar to Spock)? Did she embarrass him? Why? Was he ashamed of her? Did he never see her as his real sister? Was he totally indifferent to her? Did he secretly love her, explaining his spurning of poor Nurse Chapel?

Maybe we’ll find out in season 2.

But I kinda like Spock a little less for ignoring poor Michael all these years. She’s a window to his viewscreen.

Groppler, this has nothing to do with anything but your join up date April 13 is my birthday The year 2018 is out by a lot though

 

[BillJ]

Michael, as a character, is a wonderful exploration of the opposite of Spock, the "What if?" version, if you will. A human raised by Vulcans, but still struggling with her personal baggage. Her background makes her more interesting as a commentary upon traditional views of Star Trek characters.

I think the concept could have been interesting. As it was presented? It was pretty poor.

 

[eschaton]

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.

Maybe I'm a bit thick here, but what exactly are you saying? That people grouse that Trek often doesn't meet its lofty ideals and is just popcorn-munching entertainment?

This is perhaps true, but the issue episodes were part of Trek right from the beginning. Charlie X was the second friggin episode of TOS, and is basically making a statement that if you took a basically normal adolescent boy and gave him the powers of a god, he would be a monster. TNG and DS9 continued to be littered with such "message" episodes. VOY and ENT had significantly less, but there were at least a few of them every single season (Living Witness is my favorite VOY episode by far due to the climax, which is basically a meditation on the meaning of history).

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 have to say I've never seen an episode of Buffy. It did come on when I was in High School, and a lot of my friends were into it, but at the time it just seemed like a soap opera geared towards teenage girls, and I couldn't see what the point of watching it was.

Also, it's not a sci-fi show.

I agree that a lot of the messaging in Trek is "Saturday Morning Cartoon" level. But really, that's normal for family-friendly entertainment. I mean, I read a few years back an essay making the point that the real difference between YA fiction and adult fiction isn't that YA fiction uses simpler words, or that it avoids mature issues. It's that the stories have a very transparent "moral" to them, and intend to instruct the reader on how to be a better person. In contrast, adult fiction can just wallow in flawed characters making poor decisions without seeking to have the reader learn anything from their experience.

 

[BillJ]

Trek on its deepest day is still TV fluff.

 

[eschaton]

I don't think you can always say that if a given line of dialogue is in Trek, it was either for plot reasons or to provide insight into the characters. Sometimes episodes were a bit too short, and lines needed to be added to fill in time (hence the invention of "Piller filler." ) Sometimes, the need to have roles for all of the main cast in a week required the creation of "B stories" which were pretty lightweight. I do agree though that family would - in general - not be mentioned unless it was to provide insight into character or was plot critical.

As for Micheal Burnham, it was a great idea to make her bicultural - a human raised by Vulcans. It's probably the most interesting thing about her character. It would have been okay to have her be Spock's sister or massively alter the trajectory of Federation history by being blamed for - and ultimately stopping - a war with the Klingon Empire. My problem with DIS is it did both of them at the same time. While it's plausible that Spock never mentioned his sister, it's not plausible (yet - we'll have to see how Season 2 unfolds) that he wouldn't mention his sister if she was one of the most famous/infamous people in the Federation.

It's also yet another case of "small universe syndrome" - a toxic trend in Trek stories which has gotten worse as time goes on. I mean, wind back to TOS. Kirk was an important Starfleet captain - commanding one of the 12 constitution-class ships. He was important, but not the most important ever. Then the TOS movies had him save the Earth from destruction twice, along with help to save the Khitomer Accords. References to him in later Trek made him the most awesomesauce Captain EVAR. Picard's Enterprise wasn't just an important ship, it was The Flagship. Picard personally interacted with the Chancellor of the Klingon Empire (who knew his security officer) had the only Android in Starfleet on his bridge, and saved the Earth multiple times (including twice in the movies). I love DS9, but that show had ridiculous levels of small universe moments, with the titular heads of the Klingons, the Cardassians, the Dominion, and the Ferengi all visiting the station. Martok (and briefly Worf) ended up High Chancellor of the Klingon Empire, Rom ended up Grand Negus, and Sisko ended up a literal fucking god. VOY wisely mostly avoided this until the last episode, with the crew mostly a bunch of random schubs. But ENT created an awesomesauce captain we never had heard of before, who saves Earth from destruction in the third season. If the show wasn't canceled, we know he would have won the Romulan War and helped forge the Federation.

DIS looks at all this and says "hold my beer - I'll do even more in the first season!"

The Trek galaxy has thousands of inhabited planets, and uncounted numbers of people. It's completely implausible that our dear protagonists will always be at the fulcrum of galaxy-shaping events. I don't want a Trek crew to be comic book heroes - that's why I avoid comic-book media like the plague. I just want compelling characters who do their fucking jobs.

*exhales*

 

[fireproof78]

The irony is that the lack of evidence for Michael’s existence is precisely the reason why one can’t argue against her existence.

It makes more sense than it is given credit for is the point. Spock doesn't discuss his family-period. His father wasn't relevant except when he showed up for an official function, then he ceased to be relevant to Spock's life again.

This isn't just how human interact. As I said, I work in community health, but few of my coworkers know of my family dynamics, much less their names, backgrounds or occupations. People vary in the information they share-hence being guarded about personal information.

Just because the character wasn't invented yet doesn't mean their wasn't a family dynamic that couldn't be believable.

A better example is Bashier. His early characterizations gets a different view when his genetically engineered enhanced nature is added to his backstory. But, I am skeptical that that was foundational to the character from the beginning.

 

[Jadeb]

It's a tribute to Nimoy and the TOS folks that we feel we know his character as well as we do.

 

[Nyotarules]

If you're going to call yourself Star Trek then follow what came before.

Have you ever watched the tv shows and movies?

 

[Nyotarules]

Spock was very "I'm a proper Vulcan boy" at that time, he even avoided mentioning his mother was human, until they met her he only said "one of my ancestors married a human (but great-great-grandma T'Loon was always a bit crazy)"

He mentions his mother in the Naked Time episode

 

[eschaton]

Have you ever watched the tv shows and movies?

Bashir: Out of all the episodes you showed me, which ones that you showed me were canon and which ones weren't?
Garak: My doctor, they all were canon.
Bashir: Even the discontinuities?
Garak: Especially the discontinuities.

 

[BillJ]

He mentions his mother in the Naked Time episode

He also mentions his human mother and asshole father in the very first production episode, "The Corbomite Maneuver".

 

[Vger23]

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.

I've never agreed with nor seen the logic of this argument.

Star Trek "did its own thing" from 1987 to 2004. It became increasingly bland and uninteresting. DSC is the first franchise series to purposefully link to the backstory of TOS. That by definition makes it a unique and different take on the franchise. Another ship with another crew is just another VOY or ENT. This has a different spin to it in that it's purposefully linking to the original and best of the series.

You can not like it all you want, but saying it's not original is wrong. It's probably the most "original" premise since DS9 aired 25 years ago. Everything else has been weak, watered down carbon copy of TNG (inclusive of The Orville).

 

[Starfury]

Another ship with another crew is just another VOY or ENT. This has a different spin to it in that it's purposefully linking to the original and best of the series.

How has this a different spin? Discovery (so far) IS another ship, another crew. Instead of 100 years before/after Kirk it's just closer to Kirk. That's... unique?

 

[Kemaiku]

How has this a different spin? Discovery (so far) IS another ship, another crew. Instead of 100 years before/after Kirk it's just closer to Kirk. That's... unique?

Magic mushrooms, gratuitous swearing, weird Klingon genitals and...something?

 

[Vger23]

How has this a different spin? Discovery (so far) IS another ship, another crew. Instead of 100 years before/after Kirk it's just closer to Kirk. That's... unique?

I'm pretty sure that I made this clear in my original post. The decision to purposefully tie it to the TOS backstory is unique. Star Trek from 1987 to 2004 worked pretty hard to avoid that.

Magic mushrooms, gratuitous swearing, weird Klingon genitals and...something?

The spore drive was the most unique and original piece of tech Star Trek has introduced since the holodeck premiered in 1987. You may not "like it," but at least they tried to bring something different into the lore than warp drive and transporters.

Gratuitous swearing is nothing new to Star Trek. The films have been doing it since TVH. Archer came right out of the gate in "Broken Bow" threatening to knock T'Pol on her ass.

Klingon genitals that appeared for about 1-2 seconds of screen time really got you feeling down today? Talk to the guy Kirk brawls at Rura Penthe or to Data and Troi about boob jokes. It'll cheer you up.

 

[eschaton]

All of my problems with DIS come down to execution really, not concept. On paper I think all of the choices they made - in terms of characterization and the season arc - could have been great. But how they chose to implement them was muddled to say the least.

 

[Vger23]

All of my problems with DIS come down to execution really, not concept. On paper I think all of the choices they made - in terms of characterization and the season arc - could have been great. But how they chose to implement them was muddled to say the least.

We've had that discussion out here 100 times, though.

It's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that you had show runners and a writer's room who were not invested in the original arc that Fuller developed. When he left, you had a bunch of creative minds trying to salvage an idea that they didn't care much about or didn't really understand. It's like trying to paint someone else's picture.

That's going to make rough sledding. All things considered, I think they did a fantastic job salvaging it into what they did.

 

[eschaton]

We've had that discussion out here 100 times, though.

It's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that you had show runners and a writer's room who were not invested in the original arc that Fuller developed. When he left, you had a bunch of creative minds trying to salvage an idea that they didn't care much about or didn't really understand. It's like trying to paint someone else's picture.

That's going to make rough sledding. All things considered, I think they did a fantastic job salvaging it into what they did.

We will see I suppose. Season 2 has the potential to be rocky too, considering Harberts/Berg were fired six episodes into the season, meaning once again a new showrunner and manager of the writer's room took over mid-season and likely to some extent had to develop the "vision" of other showrunners (since there has been no indication that filming has been slowed down at all.

I will definitely be watching to see if there's a significant change in Season 2 from the beginning to the end. It will be the best way to tell what *knocks on wood* the tone of the third season will be.

 

[Vger23]

We will see I suppose. Season 2 has the potential to be rocky too, considering Harberts/Berg were fired six episodes into the season, meaning once again a new showrunner and manager of the writer's room took over mid-season and likely to some extent had to develop the "vision" of other showrunners (since there has been no indication that filming has been slowed down at all.

I will definitely be watching to see if there's a significant change in Season 2 from the beginning to the end. It will be the best way to tell what *knocks on wood* the tone of the third season will be.

Everything has the potential to be rocky. Everything has the potential to be awesome. Won't know until we start watching.

Unlike most, I choose to believe it's going to continue to improve dramatically, like most Trek series did.