News Kurtzman: Why We Gave Spock A New Adopted Sibling

[WarpFactorZ]

Unless Michael's transitioning, I'm guessing the wedding of Sarek's son - that Picard once mentioned attending - was Spock's.

Cut dialogue from that scene:

RIKER: I remember studying his career in school. The treaty of Alpha Cygnus Nine, the Coridan admission to the Federation, the Klingon Alliance.
PICARD: I met him once, many years ago, very briefly at his son's wedding.
RIKER WHISPERS SOMETHING IN PICARD'S EAR.
PICARD: What?!! But with the name Michael, I thought....Oh, bugger all!

 

[Noname Given]

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...

Jason

I think the JJ Abrams Star Trek cast would like to have a word with you. You can call it a technicality (yes, it's not the 'Prime Universe' but the popularity of that Star Trek feature film series shows that fans will accept a recasting with no real issue.

Plus, Star Trek isn't the only multi-generational IP to have major characters recast. The Superman and Batman IPs recast every few years and have been since they first appeared on film in the 1940ies.

To think 'Well the Star Trek Prime Universe is EXTRA special and recasting any of the original characters will mean failure and the fanbase will not accept it. And, yes, some won't, but these are usually the same type who also usually say "Only TOS is Star Trek" or "Only TNG is Star Trek...:, etc.

But yeah, recasts of the original TOS crew have been done and have largely been accepted and woven into the mess that is the Star Trek Multiverse. So, 'Sarek' being recast for a series that takes place 10 years prior to TOS - no problem.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

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.

Burnham is older than Spock, so it makes more sense for Sarek to be introducing her.

As for having Nimoy's Spock do it ... um... how do I break the news to you?

Only problem with using Sarek as a tie in character it's not even the original Sarek.

um... how do I break the news to you?

If you can't duplicate the feel of a prime universe show why bring all the baggage from it into your show?.

Huh? What? If we have a cameo of Lt. Kirk coming up, will you only accept 84 year old Shatner in front of the camera to believe it's authentic?

 

[fireproof78]

Burnham is older than Spock, so it makes more sense for Sarek to be introducing her.

As for having Nimoy's Spock do it ... um... how do I break the news to you?



um... how do I break the news to you?



Huh? What? If we have a cameo of Lt. Kirk coming up, will you only accept 84 year old Shatner in front of the camera to believe it's authentic?

I hear they are doing wonderful things with computer generated technology these days.

 

[Noname Given]

I hear they are doing wonderful things with computer generated technology these days.

Uh huh - if it's anything the Star Wars Rogue One "Princess Leia" end scene - No, just no.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

If Discovery fails the next step is an Adult Swim cartoon repurposing the Filmation series.

That one, I'll pass on.

That one, I'll be there immediately.

 

[mswood]

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?.
Jason

You do realize that Sarek was recast in the Prime Universe when it when he was shown at a younger age then the start of TOS.

Yes it's a contivience, but the franchise is full of them. From the TNG DS9. VOY, and ENT having some form of connection to TOS. We also got the original series characters trying to bridge their film with TNG. All series have done it, it's simply business and none of them are above it.

 

[Jayson1]

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.

I agree that it is something that we will have to just wait and see about. Chances are we might get a split in terms of how people think about it in the end. Some will see it as canon and others won't. The most interesting angle is those who like the show but also don't think of it as canon. The real Trek arguments though are in the future when some people start to consider TOS as not being part of canon. That is when the real nerd wars will begin.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

You do realize that Sarek was recast in the Prime Universe when it when he was shown at a younger age then the start of TOS.

Yes it's a contivience, but the franchise is full of them. From the TNG DS9. VOY, and ENT having some form of connection to TOS. We also got the original series characters trying to bridge their film with TNG. All series have done it, it's simply business and none of them are above it.

Not only that but we saw a young Picard played by a different actor in "Tapestry." I think their is always a acceptance that flashbacks to people when they are young are not really seen as recasting at least not in how we think of the term. Also you see these things were the original actors are involved as well or in the case of young Sarek you got Nimoy's version of Spock seeing that moment. It's not so much about the recasting as it is how well it fits in with what is already established and I think anytime you have the orginal actors playing themselves it basically covers any number of changes you want to do to canon..

Jason

 

[BillJ]

That one, I'll pass on.

Bring it on!

Plus, Star Trek isn't the only multi-generational IP to have major characters recast. The Superman and Batman IPs recast every few years and have been since they first appeared on film in the 1940ies.

Big difference being they didn't try to tell us they existed in the same continuity with a couple of exceptions. And those exceptions didn't exactly turn out stellar.

 

[Jayson1]

I think the JJ Abrams Star Trek cast would like to have a word with you. You can call it a technicality (yes, it's not the 'Prime Universe' but the popularity of that Star Trek feature film series shows that fans will accept a recasting with no real issue.

Plus, Star Trek isn't the only multi-generational IP to have major characters recast. The Superman and Batman IPs recast every few years and have been since they first appeared on film in the 1940ies.

To think 'Well the Star Trek Prime Universe is EXTRA special and recasting any of the original characters will mean failure and the fanbase will not accept it. And, yes, some won't, but these are usually the same type who also usually say "Only TOS is Star Trek" or "Only TNG is Star Trek...:, etc.

But yeah, recasts of the original TOS crew have been done and have largely been accepted and woven into the mess that is the Star Trek Multiverse. So, 'Sarek' being recast for a series that takes place 10 years prior to TOS - no problem.

The Abrams Universe Is kind of unique in that it's kind of a reboot and kind of a remake. Seeing everyone younger is always been seen as more acceptable when trying to show established characters with new actors yet because it's a new universe it also doesn't feel like it needs to stat consitent with the Prime Universe. It's kind of neat IMO and one of the reasons I like those movies. You basically can accept as canon as some alternate timeline of a more classic remake if you want to as well and it's hard to say either choice is wrong.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

Burnham is older than Spock, so it makes more sense for Sarek to be introducing her.

As for having Nimoy's Spock do it ... um... how do I break the news to you?



um... how do I break the news to you?



Huh? What? If we have a cameo of Lt. Kirk coming up, will you only accept 84 year old Shatner in front of the camera to believe it's authentic?

I know Nimoy can't play Spock and Shatner couldn't play a young KIrk. It's one of the main issue's in trying to sell this new show as a prime universe prequel by putting it so close to the TOS time period. When you put something that close to a another show it's natural people will want some crossovers with the other show in terms of familiar tech,visuals and actors and that is something this show can't really do because TOS happened so many years ago.

Jason

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I hear they are doing wonderful things with computer generated technology these days.

Tarkin should have introduced Burnham.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I know Nimoy can't play Spock and Shatner couldn't play a young KIrk. It's one of the main issue's in trying to sell this new show as a prime universe prequel by putting it so close to the TOS time period. When you put something that close to a another show it's natural people will want some crossovers with the other show in terms of familiar tech,visuals and actors and that is something this show can't really do because TOS happened so many years ago.

Jason

Heck, we can't even have Wil Hwheaton play older Wesley, because older Wesley supposedly looks like this:

 

[Jayson1]

Heck, we can't even have Wil Hwheaton play older Wesley, because older Wesley supposedly looks like this:

Well it does make you wonder how the Q's power would work with that kind of wish. You in theory might want to have a body that you think would look great when making that wish instead of simply going for what body you would be destined to have if you just aged in the normal way.

Jason

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It isn't a retcon. They never said Spock never had a sister.

They never said he wasn't a Taurellian Pig Worm either, so that must mean he can be one.

Oh yes they did, unless "Taurellian Pig Worm" is just another name for a half-human half-Vulcan.

 

[uniderth]

Oh yes they did, unless "Taurellian Pig Worm" is just another name for a half-human half-Vulcan.

No. They only said what he IS not what he's NOT. And since they never said he's NOT a Taurellian Pig Worm, that means he could be. That's the Logic we're using here. Right?

 

[fireproof78]

I agree that it is something that we will have to just wait and see about. Chances are we might get a split in terms of how people think about it in the end. Some will see it as canon and others won't. The most interesting angle is those who like the show but also don't think of it as canon. The real Trek arguments though are in the future when some people start to consider TOS as not being part of canon. That is when the real nerd wars will begin.

Jason

That goes with my theory that TOS is actually dramatic recreations within universe about Kirk's historic mission.

Tarkin should have introduced Burnham.

I'd watch that

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No. They only said what he IS not what he's NOT. And since they never said he's NOT a Taurellian Pig Worm, that means he could be. That's the Logic we're using here. Right?

No. We just use regular logic.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Yeah. Like, take any 200 level Logic class and you learn about Absence of Evidence...the first or second week.