Michael Burnham in the Kelvin timline

[Malaika]

One has to wonder... in the Kelvin Universe, do Sarek, Amanda and Michael acknowledge Sybok's presence? I feel bad for the guy in DISCO... they act like he doesn't even exist

It's like they embrace the fact Roddenberry and DC Fontana didn't consider him canon..but by that logic, the next trek iteration would decanonize Michael too since the issue with Sybok wasn't the character itself but the fact it was Spock's brother and the original writers wanted Spock to be an only child instead for specific reasons. So maybe they ignore him just because they aren't interested (in fact, I doubt they'd care about Roddenberry not liking stv) which confirms that canon and continuity isn't always respected. It isn't a given.

I think Sybok is an easier retcon to handle though because he left when Spock was a kid so he wasn't part of his childhood. If they wanted to, he could always show up in the movies. With Michael, on the other hand, the retcon is so big in Spock's story and his family that it's hard to believe she could exist in this timeline too without us seeing her or getting a mention when we saw kid Spock.
But then again, Michael doesn't work much with tos continuity either. It is inevitable. With all the stuff that happened to Spock and she was never mentioned (eg when he died) not to mention old Sarek later mentioning only Spock and Amanda and Perrin (the second wife) when he remembered those he loved and his family. Disco made it obvious Sarek loves Michael and might even have a preference for her, so him not mentioning her later in life isn't a tiny little detail. Unless, again, she truly is a canon inserted character result of someone altering tos past.

My approach to retcons and continuity generally is like 'I don't care' lol, because I just know that new iterations/sequels/prequels always have these issues and you can't try to rationalize things too much. Sure, I prefer it when continuity is kept and things make sense. If someone made a sequel of these movies and they ignored big aspects of them I wouldn't be so forgiving, I'd consider it bad writing and lame period. But when it comes to tos and the old movies, there are details and aspects that new trek iterations might not have to necessarily mention.

Retcons aren't new to trek so it isn't a big unforgiveable thing but, to be fair, discovery's creative team is making it such a big deal that they will explain why Michael wasn't mentioned in tos and everything will make sense that they are the ones, in a sense, making it hard for fans to give them a pass. They are the ones exposing themselves to more criticism (as if trek fans needed encouragement lol) especially if the big reason they provide won't be believable. IMO they unnecessarily put themselves into a big trap with no way out, especially if they are building up hype with the promise of giving us all the answers but don't really give them in the end or the answer is too lame.
Maybe I'm pessimistic because I saw it happening in other shows (Lost anyone? Lmao), but I don't have much confidence that Discovery will be any different or less manipulative (of the audience).

 

[somebuddyX]

I don't feel too bad for Sybok because he gets to show up in a bunch of alternate novelverses when someone wants to show a different Vulcan. I loved the nods to ST5 in Tears of Eridanus like Sybok and Korrd.
I think a young Sybok in a Kelvin timeline comic or novel would be fun, because you could play him as more of a wildcard than Prime Sybok. And you could have Michael and Sybok interact in some Prime Novel too, which thinking on is an interesting arrangement: the emotional Vulcan vs the unemotional human.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I recall Orci and Kurtzman suggesting Sybok was "out there" somewhere in the Kelvin universe way back in '09. So they definitely gave him some thought (as they did Kirk's brother, although he was actually shot but ended up on the cutting room floor)

 

[Malaika]

Someone like Sybok may work with the aftermath of the vulcan diaspora if they wanted to use him. I suppose there are vulcans who became more insular after the tragedy, but there might be even more vulcans who choose a different path because they feel that logic, alone, didn't save their world once nor will save their race now. Or who knows, maybe what happened would change Sybok too in unexpected ways..

Anyway, baby Spock makes me really really sad. In a way, he still is an only child because one way or another, he is never allowed to not be alone in that house. Discovery is making his childhood even worse than I imagined, the poor kid had no joy.
I kind of like they explain why he wanted to be more vulcan than vulcans while making it clear that he's human and he always had feelings and he always was in touch with his human side too. It isn't something anyone has credit for, it's just the way he is. What changes between tos and kelvin Spock is that life experiences that might be different made it so he embraced both his sides sooner than tos Spock did. And maybe kelvin Spock never really got to the point he only wanted to be vulcan.
Even in st09 I never got the impression he wanted to deny his human side or wanted to pretend he doesn't have feelings. There definitely is something different about him even before vulcan gets destroyed.
Interestingly, he also has a girlfriend and this no doubt was a key element why he already was in a different emotional and personal journey compared to tos Spock at his age.

It's also interesting that kelvin Spock seems to have some aspects better or happier than tos Spock. .but on the other hand, tos Spock (at kelvin Spock age) never saw his planet getting destroyed and his mom dying. It's almost like it's the price kelvin Spock has to pay for maybe being a bit happier than tos Spock overall. They both gain and lose some.

I think kelvin Spock and disco Spock mirror each other a lot, and they show what can happen to the same person if you change some of their experiences. Destiny doesn't exist.

 

[M'Sharak]

Discovery is making his childhood even worse than I imagined, the poor kid had no joy.

I'm not up on the latest with that show, so not sure whether this qualifies, but just a general reminder to all:

when discussing another incarnation of Trek which is currently releasing new episodes, remember to place inside SPOILER tags mention of any plot points which may constitute spoilers for anyone who has not yet seen recent episodes.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Michael owns discovery and is the centre of everything even for a main character.

Kelvin film could have benefited from her.

No, she isn't. She really isn't. I'm sorry to butt in like this (more or less), but this kind of misconception is starting to irk me somewhat, as it's not true and it's used to bash the character a bunch (not that you're personally doing this; it is a thing, though).

As for the question: no, there'd be no narrative reason for Michael to be mentioned. Spock never talks about his family unless he absolutely has to. His best friend didn't even know he had a brother before said brother hijacked the Enterprise. It would be out-of-character for Spock to say anything regarding a foster sister unless relevant to the plot, and she would be off doing something else, anyway.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I think Sybok is an easier retcon to handle though because he left when Spock was a kid so he wasn't part of his childhood. If they wanted to, he could always show up in the movies. With Michael, on the other hand, the retcon is so big in Spock's story and his family that it's hard to believe she could exist in this timeline too without us seeing her or getting a mention when we saw kid Spock.

Sybok was not a retcon it was a revelation; meaning the subject of the character wasn't shoved into TOS retroactively. Burnham is a retcon because her series implanted a history before everything I knew of the character of Spock and then rewriting what was established to make it stick. Like 1701 being a "Constitution class" when it's visually clear her plaque on the bridge reads "STARSHIP CLASS", but so called prequel shows are desperately trying to claim the Forefathers of Star Trek did it wrong.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Now, that's not talking semantics, that's bending reality to fit preconceptions. The scenario is exactly the same.

 

[Ovation]

Sybok was not a retcon it was a revelation; meaning the subject of the character wasn't shoved into TOS retroactively. Burnham is a retcon because her series implanted a history before everything I knew of the character of Spock and then rewriting what was established to make it stick. Like 1701 being a "Constitution class" when it's visually clear her plaque on the bridge reads "STARSHIP CLASS", but so called prequel shows are desperately trying to claim the Forefathers of Star Trek did it wrong.

Pretty sure TNG had Picard call it Constitution Class in Relics. But don’t let that interfere with your vitriolic distortions of actual prequels.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I remember one of my fanfic ideas for Kelvinverse was Sybok forming a group of Vulcan terrorists to attack Romulan outposts/colonies as retaliation for their homeworld's destruction. Like in Prime universe, Sybok is using their pain for his own agenda. The Romulan Empire puts it on the Federation to sort this out or else they'll see their non-action as condoning the terrorists' actions, thus a declaration of war.

What I liked about this idea is taking something that didn't work so well in Prime (the Sybok story) and making something good out of it. A contrast to just reusing Khan simply because he's popular among fandom.

 

[M'Sharak]

Pretty sure TNG had Picard call it Constitution Class in Relics.

There, and also in an earlier episode, "The Naked Now":

RIKER: Historical. That's it. I remember I was reading a history of all the past starships named Enterprise.
DATA: Enterprise history. Aberrant behavior. Medical cross reference,
(Picard enters)
RIKER: Captain, I believe we've have the answer to what happened over there.
PICARD: (reading the screen) The Constitution class Enterprise, Captain James T. Kirk commanding.
RIKER: Similar conditions. They were monitoring a planet that was breaking up, not a collapsing star as in this case. But there were the same huge shifts in gravity,​

Like 1701 being a "Constitution class" when it's visually clear her plaque on the bridge reads "STARSHIP CLASS",

Visually clear to whom - audiences watching television during the series' original run? Even given 21st-century screen sizes and resolutions, even with freeze-framing and zooming in, can you name an episode and scene from TOS in which the dedication plaque is "visually clear"? Not here. Nor here. Nor here. Where, then?

 

[fireproof78]

As for the question: no, there'd be no narrative reason for Michael to be mentioned. Spock never talks about his family unless he absolutely has to. His best friend didn't even know he had a brother before said brother hijacked the Enterprise. It would be out-of-character for Spock to say anything regarding a foster sister unless relevant to the plot, and she would be off doing something else, anyway.

Exactly. Despite fan interpretations and assumptions (Spock is the first Vulcan in Starfleet, even though that is never mentioned is one I use to subscribe to) Spock was very tightlipped about his family life. The idea that Michael needed to be mentioned at all is unlikely, given Spock's nature.

I would like to know what about Michael is needed in the Kelvin films?

 

[TrickyDickie]

As I understand it, the class goes like this:

USS Constitution was the first heavy cruiser of the design that Enterprise and her sister ships followed. That may or may not have been 'on paper'....i.e. the vessel bearing the name Constitution need not have been actually built before others in the line. It's more the first name used in the design plans that establishes the class, rather than the first one built. It's been debated whether Enterprise was the first vessel of the design that was built, or Constellation, or the Constitution herself. I think that various novels have it various ways, but I'm not sure that canon has ever established which named ship in the Constitution-class was actually constructed first.

The orbiters in the space shuttle fleet were actually Constitution-class, because that was the first name that was used, before President Ford signed the order to rename the full-scale test orbiter 'Enterprise'. ('Pathfinder' was only a half-scale test orbiter.)

'Starship' Class covers more than just the heavy cruisers. But, Enterprise is within the class of starships.

Starship Class comes first.

Then, within that, Constitution-class.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There, and also in an earlier episode, "The Naked Now"

That's in the eyesight of Gene's Vision, too.

It might be worth mentioning that in the original version of "The Naked Now" the illustration for the Enterprise was the refit configuration, even though they were looking at a readout that described the Psi 2000 mission. Whether the intent was that the refit (or the NCC-1701-A successor, for that matter) was Constitution-class, the dialog makes it clear that the Enterprise that went to Psi 2000 was Constitution-class. If the intent was that the refit also was Constitution-class, then one could reasonably speculate, I think, that the USS Constitution was refit accordingly as well. That graphic was corrected for TNG-R (remastered) to depict the TOS configuration of NCC-1701.

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x03/nakednow052.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x03/nakednow_hd_162.jpg

In any case, Roddenberry had total control of TNG at this point. Fontana even said that Roddenberry personally rewrote her script to add sexual content and other debasing scenes over her objections, which is why she elected to use her pseudonym.

D.C. Fontana asked for her name to be removed after rewrites changed the episode significantly from her original intent. (Star Trek: The Next Generation - The Continuing Mission, pp. 59-60) Fontana stated, "While the script was given a good reaction by almost everyone, the Roddenberry pattern of dealing with scripts befell it. After a staffer turned in the official second draft of the script, they were not allowed to touch it again. No matter how good a script appeared to be, it would be rewritten by Gene Roddenberry. If possible, scenes of sexual content would be inserted into the script. When two such scenes were put into 'The Naked Now', in addition to other scenes which I felt debased the female characters of the series, I put my sentiments into a frankly worded memo of comment on the script. My comments were ignored." (The Fifty-Year Mission: The Next 25 Years, p. 77) In the episode's writing credits, "J. Michael Bingham" is a pseudonym for D.C. Fontana.​

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Naked_Now_(episode)

If Roddenberry had wanted the Enterprise that went to Psi 2000 to be something besides Constitution-class, it would have been.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

One has to wonder... in the Kelvin Universe, do Sarek, Amanda and Michael acknowledge Sybok's presence?

That depends on what happened to Sybok to turn him into the rebel we saw in ST V, and how old he was at the time. Sybok was, IIRC, about 9 years old when the timelines diverged, so if this hypothetical event happened after that, it may not have occurred in the Kelvin timeline.

As for Michael: She was also born before the divergence (Memory Alpha says she was born in 2226, which would make her 7 at that point), but her fate in the Kelvin timeline is pretty much an open book. Any one of the suggestions put forth in this thread would work. But since we're not ever likely to see that timeline again, we'll probably never know.

Like 1701 being a "Constitution class" when it's visually clear her plaque on the bridge reads "STARSHIP CLASS"

Two different meanings of the word "class". Constitution class as in, the first ship of that class to be built was called Constitution. "Starship class" in that this is what KIND of vessel it is. Meaning, it's a starship, not a cargo carrier or some other smaller craft. So it would have been more accurate to say "Starship TYPE" rather than "Starship Class" (taken literally, this would require that the first one would be called USS Starship ), but there we are.

Indeed, the Franklin from STB has "Starship class" on ITS plaque, but in Balthazar Edison's personnel file, it's listed as "Freedom class". Both are true. And, therefore, all the other classes of ship we see in DSC (and the initial Trek movies) are all "Starship class", but their actual ship classes are all unique.

Edit: What @TrickyDickie said.