I was just about to say the same thing. Spot on.
News Kurtzman: Why We Gave Spock A New Adopted Sibling
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
Do you think the Tricorder, Communicator and Phaser designs are Fan wank?
So far they are the only things most accurate to the Period it's supposed to be set in.
Gi
Yeah, 24th Century era Star Trek has never done TOS callbacks or had TOS characters appear in an obvious attempt to either generate interest of boost ratings...oh, wait:
TNG: Yeah, TNG didn't have McCoy take a ship tour THOUSANDS of Lioght Years from Earth in the TNG pilot episode; or found Montgomery Scott sitting in a Transporter buffer - and also forgetting about the death of Captain Kirk, which he witnessed first hand.
(Oh, and if you want to talk ridiculous 'Family Ties' out of noware; how about the perfectly human android he made (that he never mentioned to Data or Lore when he encountered them in "Brothers"); that claimed to be Data's mother in the TNG episode: "Inheritance"
)DS9: Yeah, Kurzon Dax never met Kirk or McCoy in the 23rd century and name drop those characters to Sisko. They also didn't time travel back to, or take a direct parft in the events of the TOS episode "Trials and Tribbilations."
VOY: Didn't have an episode where it was shown Tuvok was serving on the U.S.S. Excelsior under the command of Captain Hiharu Sulu (during the events of STVI:TUC) - and somehow Tuvok was on hand in the landing party (must have been invisible in the final cut of the film.)
ENT: Yeah, Trip and T'Pol didn't get their DNA stolen and used to make a Human/Vulcan Hybrid. (That Trip went out of his way to mention that although the child Elizabeth died - such a union would be possible if the procedure was properly performed.)
Last edited:
Gi
Yeah, 24th Century era Star Trek has never done TOS callbacks or had TOS characters appear in an obvious attempt to either generate interest of boost ratings...oh, wait:
TNG: Yeah, TNG didn't have McCoy take a ship tour THOUSANDS of Lioght Years from Earth in the TNG pilot episode; or found Montgomery Scott sitting in a Transporter buffer - and also forgetting about the death of Captain Kirk, which he witnessed first hand.
(Oh, and if you want to talk ridiculous 'Family Ties' out of noware; how about the perfectly human android he made (that he never mentioned to Data or Lore when he encountered them in "Brothers"); that claimed to be Data's mother in the TNG episode: "Inheritance"
DS9: Yeah, Kurzon Dax never met Kirk or McCoy in the 23rd century and name drop those characters to Sisko. They also didn't time travel back to, or take a direct parft in the events of the TOS episode "Trials and Tribbilations."
VOY: Didn't have an episode where it was shown Tuvok was serving on the U.S.S. Excelsior under the command of Captain Hiharu Sulu (during the events of STVI:TUC) - and somehow Tuvok was on hand in the landing party (must have been invisible in the final cut of the film.)
ENT: Yeah, Trip and T'Pol didn't get their DNA stolen and used to make a Human/Vulcan Hybrid. (That Trip went out o his way to mention that although the child Elizabeth died - such a union would be possible if the procedure was properly performed.)
As I said, All of the spinoffs set AFTER TOS are fine. That makes sense! But doing a prequel set 10 years before TOS and having it's main character be an adopted sister to Spock to whom we've never heard of is a step too far. Established long after TOS Ended. As BillJ said. She's a 50 year after afterthought.
Gi
ENT: Yeah, Trip and T'Pol didn't get their DNA stolen and used to make a Human/Vulcan Hybrid. (That Trip went out o his way to mention that although the child Elizabeth died - such a union would be possible if the procedure was properly performed.)
I haven't watched more than the first 8 episodes of Enterprise. If not for the other entries in this post, I would have totally bought that this was just a joke, lol.
It makes sense in context.
Yep. Any chance of "it always looked liked TOS movie aesthetic" which would have been the easiest way to update (and fit with ENT) and was most likely GR's intent, went out the window with
1. Relics
2. Trials and Tribbleations
3. ENT's Mirror Universe episode.
As much as I like the (some times discussed idea) of things always looked like that, and that the movies look was the way it always was, and Klingons and the E always looked like that, and the (some times attached) idea of deleting TMP (thus removing the "refit" explanation for visual differences)...
those 3 aforementioned episodes draw the TOS aesthetic explicitly into canon.
Although, I've always felt it would be possible to build something with modern detailing, technology and refinement, while sticking to the basic TOS floorplan and color scheme....
It's obviously trying to appeal to the established fans loyalty to existing characters (ooh Spock has a sister!) whilst getting our backs up by embellishing 'canon'. (I hope they can get George Lucas in to help with the re-tweaking next re-releases).
I know it is and it's dumb. It's like the show runners didn't have enough faith in Burnham to be her own unique character people will love so they had to shoehorn her in as Sarek's adopted daughter. It was completely unnecessary.
It's like when the people behind the James Bond movies decided to make James Bond, Ernst Stavro Blofeld's adopted Brother. Hi James, I'm your evil arch enemy and you're also my adoptive brother. It's as ridiculous as it is stupid. Sarek and Mudd are fine on their own. They didn't need to overdo it by making Burnham Sarek's adopted daughter.
I agree with this. They'll probably do something similar in Discovery if they have the guts to actually bring in a Connie.
I never have liked the idea of the lead character being Spock's sister, adopted, ward of Sarek, or whatever you want to call it. It is just completely unnecessary. The canon part of it, I don't give a shit about. It just seems a contrivance to me, one in which they didn't have to do in order to tell us Star Trek stories.
The biggest problem with the idea,if you want the show to be canon is that if you make this kind of reveal it helps if you have Spock do it to lend credibility. Not only that, since this is supose to be the prime universe it would have to be Nimoy's version which basically brings home just how hard it will for this show to really feel like it belongs with the other shows. To much change in a time period to close to a previous show and no original actors to sort of validate those changes much like having the same TOS actors doing the TOS movies even if things no longer looked like the 60's.
I personally think it's a interesting idea to have her be Spock's sister but just not in the prime universe. I mean when you look at what they have shown us or have told us does their seem to be any real need for this to be a prime universe show from a creative perspective? I know people complain when people talk about the importance of continuity but continuity seems to be the only reason they must want this to be a prime universe setting so it will in theory elevate these stories by having them be part of the established universe. Perhaps a fear that if they did a pure remake people might think it's not important because it doesn't connect with any of the other shows.
Jason
I personally think it's a interesting idea to have her be Spock's sister but just not in the prime universe. I mean when you look at what they have shown us or have told us does their seem to be any real need for this to be a prime universe show from a creative perspective? I know people complain when people talk about the importance of continuity but continuity seems to be the only reason they must want this to be a prime universe setting so it will in theory elevate these stories by having them be part of the established universe. Perhaps a fear that if they did a pure remake people might think it's not important because it doesn't connect with any of the other shows.
Jason
I have to ask if the use of Sarek is that tie in character like we have seen in the past, such as McCoy, Quark, Picard and Cochrane and Spock?
Personally, I tend to agree that a reboot would have saved a lot of this headache but I'll judge how Discovery "fits" based upon how the story and characters are presented, and not just PR snips.
Continuity is becoming a bit of nuisance with all of this now.
Only problem with using Sarek as a tie in character it's not even the original Sarek. Recasting has happened before but never to such a beloved character in the prime universe except maybe Savvik. I agree that the continuity has become a nuisance but to me it's worst because it feels more like a limitation that isn't needed. If you can't duplicate the feel of a prime universe show why bring all the baggage from it into your show?. The reward doesn't seem to surpass the negatives.
I'm not seeing what they get out of the prime universe label other than they think it's a good way to get old school fans to watch, as if they wouldn't watch if they did a full on remake were Kirk is a robot learning the ways of humanity from a human Spock and McCoy is his hot sister. The Trek name alone is enough to get people curious and wanting to see what any new Trek show has to offer.
Jason
Only way to judge is to see how it tries to fit within the rest of the story. Which, as much as the aesthetic is not matching, the story could make that difference. If TMP didn't put people off, and Kirk acting like a bit of a jerk, then DSC's changes are not significant enough to warrant concern.
The Prime label has appeal as I can recall the upset comments that Abrams Trek had "destroyed" the Prime Timeline. So, there is a level of familiarity, for good or for ill, that the label could offer and then the writers tell their story. Yes, it is a gamble, with pros and cons. I have a feeling that the production team weighed all of those and, for their own reasons, opted for Prime.
If DSC fails, I have a feeling that a remake may be the next approach.
That one, I'll pass on.
Similar threads
