Doesn't get any simpler than that.
How is/isn't Discovery Star Trek?
- Thread starter seigezunt
- Start date
Exactly, so there's no reason to have some ridiculous distinction for prime or kelvin in the first place. As if labeling this blatant remake of Star Trek to be authentic to TOS when everything seen expresses it is not even close. Calling it Prime is not going to bring most fans back to Trek because seeing a franchise we once loved burn up in flames is not must see TV, and paying for it would be blasphemous.There is no real Star Trek. It's all fake
That's absurd on so many levels. This isn't holy writ and cannot be blasphemed. If people don't like it, that's fine. My dad grew up with TOS and couldn't stand Berman era Trek. He absolutely loved Abrams' films. That's real Trek when it gives enjoyment.
I think it fits together well enough, even with the updated visuals. Which, Trek has done again and again and again. The story and the characters are more important to me than whether there is velour, and white corridors.
If you don't like it don't watch it, it's simple as that.
But don't tell other people what to think.
Hey, look! A Star Trek actor is self-aggrandizing!
And DS9, and Voyager and Enterprise.
Uh, she thinks they're all "real" Star Trek, but that later series weren't as good as hers and the original. That's different from what people are trying to say she said. Shame on you.
EDIT: ...and from a fellow Pennsylvanian, at that.
Furthermore, she's also right about having to pay extra to watch 1 show. Imagine if every network and cable channel had their own site and $6 fee. Give me a break. As a society, we're all idiots these days -- working harder, for less money, to pay for things that were once free, unable to enjoy opportunities afforded in previous eras, then wondering why our politics have become so caustic.
EDIT: ...and from a fellow Pennsylvanian, at that.
Furthermore, she's also right about having to pay extra to watch 1 show. Imagine if every network and cable channel had their own site and $6 fee. Give me a break. As a society, we're all idiots these days -- working harder, for less money, to pay for things that were once free, unable to enjoy opportunities afforded in previous eras, then wondering why our politics have become so caustic.
Last edited:
TV was never 'free.'
It's a bit sad that even though I might disagree with her comments she feels the need to add this: “I have never watched it,” Sirtis said. “I am going to explain why I don’t watch Discovery before they all hate me.
She liked the show she was on best, and why not. She got to appear in Voyager and ENT, too. I always her intereviews and Q&A sessions. I don't have to agree with her about anything, and honestly it would be dull if we all did.
I did hope she might have gotten to be the voice of the ship's computer, or at least Enterprise's, tying in her STC role, but obviously that seems somewhat unlikely to happen now.
I did hope she might have gotten to be the voice of the ship's computer, or at least Enterprise's, tying in her STC role, but obviously that seems somewhat unlikely to happen now.
Regarding Spock never having mentioned Michael: for all we know, S2 will end with Discovery finding Spock, and Spock being angry with Michael (or as angry as Spock can be) because they've prevented him from reaching the goal that led him to leave the Enterprise.
If Spock's family dynamics run true to form, given that Sarek didn't speak to Spock for years, it wouldn't at all be surprising to me if Spock decided never to speak to (or of) Michael again.
Also: whatever Spock's goal is, it's clearly pretty important to him, and yet he never mentioned that in TOS or the movies either. Funny how nobody's complaining about how Spock running off to find the glowy red things isn't canon...
If Spock's family dynamics run true to form, given that Sarek didn't speak to Spock for years, it wouldn't at all be surprising to me if Spock decided never to speak to (or of) Michael again.
Also: whatever Spock's goal is, it's clearly pretty important to him, and yet he never mentioned that in TOS or the movies either. Funny how nobody's complaining about how Spock running off to find the glowy red things isn't canon...
Agreed. My point is only that I think a reason should be forthcoming rather than just having to accept that Spock never mentioned Michael. I’d like to know why.
The no-show is fine with me - if there’s a compelling reason for it. Otherwise I feel that the sudden existence of Michael is not very believable from a narrative perspective in a show that frequently expects me to suspend my disbelief. Context may be for kings, but I’d like more context surrounding Spock’s relationship to Michael. I’m ok with her never being mentioned before, but I don’t accept the logic of “well she just never came up”. The writers need to come up with a better reason than such a simplistic explanation. This is Star Trek not “days of our lives”
Past Trek actors urinating on a new era is nothing new. The supporting TOS players badmouthed the TNG stuff for years on the convention circuit.
Having been through it on the other side of the coin, you'd think Sirtis and Dorn would know better.
We don't need a reason. It's already consistent with what is know of Spock's family dynamics.
It's different when you are side that gets to take the wind out of the new guy.
Patrick Stewart was in Emoji movie, Family Guy and American Dad, should we ignore him as well?She was in Sharknado so I wouldn't use her as a example.
Alternative facts?
Depends on where you lived.
Similar threads
- Locked
