News Martin-Green: Burnham, Spock And Trek Canon

[AutoAdmin]

A new news article has been published at TrekToday:

Another Star Trek: Discovery panel took place at Fan Expo Canada 2018, and one of the topics concerned Spock. In attendance at...

Continue reading...

 

[Search4]

No news is no news.

 

[Mudd]

Aren't they about due for another interview with Wiseman or Rapp, to reassure fans again that the original cast of characters is still on the show along with Burnham and Pike and Spock?

 

[Lord Garth]

^ That's Thursday.

 

[DaveyNY]

^ That's Thursday.

Yeah, but it won't show up around here until next Tuesday.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

SMG:

I just think it’s genius to have us be set where we are, ten years before TOS, and to have Burnham be connected to that institution that is the family of Sarek and Amanda and Spock. I just am so appreciative of it. It’s so full. It’s so full; it’s wrought with everything. And then I end up being two degrees separated from Captain Pike and that’s really interesting too, to be able to have that sort of connection to the canon. I really loved that because one of the things we are doing in our iteration, on Star Trek: Discovery, is being our own thing, but also keeping that connection with us in the canon and having that connective tissue. So, I really appreciate it, and it is juicy!
​

Glad to see she really enjoys working on the show

Regarding the “genius” of having DSC set when they are in-universe, I’m not seeing a clear reason why she thinks that. She states that it’s the connection to Spock which is “full” and “wrought with everything”, which we’ve seen in Lethe for sure. But Michael’s connection to Sarek wasn’t the main theme running through s1 so I wouldn’t say the genius of DSC is solely to do with Spock. She then notes that the connection with Pike gives a “sort of” connection with canon (which sums DSC up pretty well I think!), and then the fact that DSC can do its own thing whilst “keeping that connection with canon”. That seems to be the root of the genius of DSC as SMG sees it - at least as she explains here.

Yet, other than saying that Spock is there and they can connect to canon (which could have happened anywhere in the Trek timeline) I’m not seeing much else in the way of the reasoning behind her description of DSC’s apparent genius.

It’s genius marketing having it set 10 years before the iconic series of the franchise, but she doesn’t mean that, surely?

I can’t watch the video rn - does she say any more that might explain this?

P.s. Lethe was juicy. The rest of it I don’t agree with her.

 

[Lord Garth]

SMG:

I just think it’s genius to have us be set where we are, ten years before TOS, and to have Burnham be connected to that institution that is the family of Sarek and Amanda and Spock. I just am so appreciative of it. It’s so full. It’s so full; it’s wrought with everything. And then I end up being two degrees separated from Captain Pike and that’s really interesting too, to be able to have that sort of connection to the canon. I really loved that because one of the things we are doing in our iteration, on Star Trek: Discovery, is being our own thing, but also keeping that connection with us in the canon and having that connective tissue. So, I really appreciate it, and it is juicy!
​

Glad to see she really enjoys working on the show

Regarding the “genius” of having DSC set when they are in-universe, I’m not seeing a clear reason why she thinks that. She states that it’s the connection to Spock which is “full” and “wrought with everything”, which we’ve seen in Lethe for sure. But Michael’s connection to Sarek wasn’t the main theme running through s1 so I wouldn’t say the genius of DSC is solely to do with Spock. She then notes that the connection with Pike gives a “sort of” connection with canon (which sums DSC up pretty well I think!), and then the fact that DSC can do its own thing whilst “keeping that connection with canon”. That seems to be the root of the genius of DSC as SMG sees it - at least as she explains here.

Yet, other than saying that Spock is there and they can connect to canon (which could have happened anywhere in the Trek timeline) I’m not seeing much else in the way of the reasoning behind her description of DSC’s apparent genius.

It’s genius marketing having it set 10 years before the iconic series of the franchise, but she doesn’t mean that, surely?

She's just talking the show up. Don't read too much into it.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

She's just talking the show up. Don't read too much into it.

Totes which she’s going to do I guess!

 

[Tuskin38]

She's just talking the show up. Don't read too much into it.

I think she genuinely likes the show.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think she genuinely likes the show.

I think so too, but she's also talking it up. When you want to put your best foot forward, you always talk up.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I find it interesting that we're getting a better understand of Spock as a character by showing an aspect of his life never addressed before. I think it would be interesting to bring in a young Sybok as well, show how they all play off each other.

 

[gblews]

I think she genuinely likes the show.

She sounds like she is very new to the franchise and is totally fascinated by the depth of the legacy. For an actor, I can understand how exciting it may be for her to suddenly realize exactly what she has stepped into. In terms of television, the only thing like it is Doctor Who.

I also think that what she is expressing is her excitement about playing a role that actually touches the most iconic character in the franchise.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Her connection to Spock and Sarek is the core essence of the character.

SMG gets that. Fortunately.

 

[Jadeb]

Her connection to Spock and Sarek is the core essence of the character.

That notion is depressing. First woman of color to lead a Trek show and the character’s “core essence” is a connection to two guys from the ‘60s show?

I’d be happy if they didn’t mention Spock or Sarek again for a long time. Maybe season 3 ...

 

[Tuskin38]

That notion is depressing.

I don't understand why.

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

Her connection to Spock and Sarek is the core essence of the character.

SMG gets that. Fortunately.

That notion is depressing. First woman of color to lead a Trek show and the character’s “core essence” is a connection to two guys from the ‘60s show?

I’d be happy if they didn’t mention Spock or Sarek again for a long time. Maybe season 3 ...

I get where both these opinions are coming from. From a woke-ness standpoint, it would have been really nice if she were the first woman of color to lead a Star Trek show to stand on her own as a character without connection to past Trek or male characters, but the entire premise of the show is a bit half and half with that thematically anyway.

Spock and Sarek are the core essence of her character that we start out with (and I agreee, I love that she gets that and runs with it), but we're only in the first season and I suspect that as the series goes on, she grows into her character exactly the way all our previous captains and crews grew into theirs and became their own. S1 Picard and S7 Picard are pretty damn different as the show evolves. Now, that may or may not have been by design, as the first couple seasons of TNG were wonky, but that's how it ended with the writers figuring out who Picard was over time. I didn't like that Picard was kind of a hard ass and was awkward around kids...and was like an anti-Kirk at the beginning of the series...but I'm sure glad I didn't give up on the show because of that!

Burnham may have been designed to connect Discovery to Star Trek through Spock and Sarek, while covering the checkpoints of female lead of color (I have no problem with diversity being built into the show by design in this way, it's like a normal thing in ST), but that's probably not how its going to end. She's going to be Michael Burnham at the end, and not just a Sarek's adopted kid.

 

[Jadeb]

I didn't mind the connections so much in season 1 -- they are kind of thematically appropriate. But now we're back at the same well for season 2. I wish they could just let Burnham breathe and become more than a collection of backstory.

It's similar to how I felt about the long trip to the MU. I don't mind it in theory, but must it be so soon?

 

[Refuge]

That notion is depressing. First woman of color to lead a Trek show and the character’s “core essence” is a connection to two guys from the ‘60s show?

I’d be happy if they didn’t mention Spock or Sarek again for a long time. Maybe season 3 ...

Discovery as a whole is riding the coattails of that '60s show, it didn't have the content to be its own show. What is worse with Burnham is that she gets to be overshadowed by any other (non '60s) character as well. I think for Season Two it would've been to her advantage as a character to get her own identity, oh and drop the dreary voice-overs.