Number One, captain of the Enterprise

[Timo]

It's also quite possible that this won't be a seven-stop quest after all. Or that stopping at one of 'em Reds will provide, if not immediate answers to everything, then unconventional access to all the others, perhaps to be visited without the benefit of a starship.

...For all we know, the very first S2 episode will slam the Excuse Not To Spore Ever Again on the table, turning the hero ship into a conventional asset for good.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[lawman]

A woman in command on the Enterprise, I think half the fandom just had an aneurism.

How do you figure? You really think half of Trek fandom is sexist?

No Star Trek adventure has ever involved anybody specifying how many dozens of commanding officers the Enterprise has had. There is no known limitation, and e.g. no particular reason to think five skippers would not have held the command position between April and Pike, or between Kirk and Spock, or between Spock and Kirk.

Here's what we know: April was the first captain of the Enterprise. April became an ambassador 20 years before "Counter-Clock Incident" (c. 2250). Pike was captain by the time of "The Cage" (c. 2253, 13 years before "The Menagerie"), with Spock in his crew. Spock served under Pike for 11 years, 4 months; Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain and Kirk took command ("The Menagerie"). Kirk was in command by the time of "Where No Man" (c. 2265).

There is, in other words, a brief period (not more than three years) during which someone else could have captained the ship between April and Pike, although no such person has ever been mentioned. There's a comparable amount of time during which Pike could've been in command but not had Spock serving under him, although it's generally assumed that once Spock was on the Enterprise he stayed their, through its change of captains.

In order to avoid an unseemly multiplication of previously unmentioned captains who aren't actually relevant to the story about to be told in DSC S2, it seems most reasonable to stick to the familiar April-Pike-Kirk sequence. Of course, as others have noted, it's not uncommon in Trek for a first officer to take command of ship for the space of an emergency, a mission, or even as much as a few weeks, without formally replacing the captain of record... so it's probably safest to assume that's how DSC will handle Number One and the Enterprise whilst Pike is on "detached duty" or what-have-you aboard Discovery, for the length of however much story time S2 takes.

We will, of course, see for sure in a few months. But for now, that's how I'd bet.

Or when Jellico replaced Picard (ceremony and all) only for Picard to come back. Number One being the official captain of the Enterprise doesn't contradict anything, she could have her own five year mission with Pike coming back in 2262 and commanding it again before Kirk takes over.

Theoretically. But the reasoning above is why I think we won't actually see Pike as an ongoing regular on DSC... at least not unless we get Spock along with him (thus preserving the "served under" remark), but that would make DSC a very different type of show, so I also don't expect that.

 

[Takeru]

Theoretically. But the reasoning is why I think we won't actually see Pike as an ongoing regular on DSC... at least not unless we get Spock along with him (thus preserving the "served under" remark), but that would make DSC a very different type of show, so I also don't expect that.

The "served under" would still work even if Spock remained on the Enterprise, he already served under him and he would again later.

But let's be honest here, if Discovery contadicts TOS it's not a big deal, as long as the broad strokes fit everything is fine. Not even TOS itself cared about details from a few episodes ago so why should a new show decades later?

 

[Timo]

And the thing is, DSC would be extremely hard pressed to contradict anything, unless they outright blow up NCC-1701 for good or kill Pike or Spock. We're still years away from the beginning of TOS, and a lot can change between now and then. A lot always has, in Trek.

Which is why I feel "assuming the simplest" carries no significant merit. Storytelling tries to steer clear of simple. Real world isn't simple, either. And there's precedent for change and complexity in this particular mixture of fantasy and verisimilitude.

As regards the Spock under Pike thing, the only thing quoted is the total number of years, months and days (11, 4, 5), which perfectly allows for interruptions and an early start if need be. Spock may be juniorish in "The Cage", but he is already Lieutenant rather than Ensign or Lieutenant (jg), and seems to be Pike's Chief Science Officer rather than a lowlier underling. Perhaps the two already share a couple of years of service history, meaning Spock is entitled to two or three seasons of DSC interrupting his direct working relationship with Pike.

Things would be different were "The Cage" somehow established as an early joint adventure for the two, or indeed the first (of note). This doesn't happen, though.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

There is another option. They did say they are going to continue the Klingon parts of the story. What if Pike and Enterprise are part of that story while Discovery is elsewhere. The Klingons have never been fond of the Enterprise since Archer's time, and this particular Enterprise might be one of those ships that has been a thorn in their collective sides for decades by the time of its loss at Genesis.

 

[mdtauk]

There is another option. They did say they are going to continue the Klingon parts of the story. What if Pike and Enterprise are part of that story while Discovery is elsewhere. The Klingons have never been fond of the Enterprise since Archer's time, and this particular Enterprise might be one of those ships that has been a thorn in their collective sides for decades by the time of its loss at Genesis.

I took it to mean that we would cut to Ash and L'Rell on Q'onos, and see them come to terms with what the other has done, and see the problems L'Rell faces trying to lead her people

 

[Tuskin38]

We live in a bizarro world where a TOS prequel is running by Voyager speed rules,

The same TOS that had the Enterprise reach the edge of the galaxy and the centre of the galaxy in unreasonable amounts of time?

 

[GNDN18]

The "served under" would still work even if Spock remained on the Enterprise, he already served under him and he would again later.

That’s a good point. Kirk said Spock served under Pike for “several years.” Spock confirmed that by stating the length of his service. He didn’t follow that with a mawkish “He was my commanding officer from the day I left the Academy.” His service needn’t have been continuous.

And, despite the preceding quotes from memory, AP is probably right.

 

[Timo]

Heck, we already did this gig, with McCoy's "for 27 years I have been ship's surgeon aboard the USS Enterprise" in TUC. The writers have their own ideas, those are ill thought out or later contradicted, we mop up the mess. Fortunately, "The Menagerie" is quite ambiguous on key things.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Locutus of Bored]

You guys understand that none of this is real, right? Because some of you take this way too seriously and I worry about you.

 

[Tuskin38]

Justin Long?!

 

[Kemaiku]

While I get what you're saying, with Trek's track record of speed/time/distance that 30,000 light year journey could have taken a day or a week.

We live in a bizarro world where a TOS prequel is running by Voyager speed rules, even though the mere existence of the lead ship makes Voyager's entire journey into a joke.

Meh, just makes sense that they make him take over a ship that can just jump to any of them when it wants. Otherwise Starfleet would send the next operational Constitutuon class ship there and recall Discovery to Earth altogether, and order the Enterprise to stand down for repairs at a proper base.

 

[lawman]

But let's be honest here, if Discovery contadicts TOS it's not a big deal, as long as the broad strokes fit everything is fine. Not even TOS itself cared about details from a few episodes ago so why should a new show decades later?

Ah, and therein lie threads that are thousands of posts long. Suffice it to say that I'm in the camp that emphatically disagrees.

We're still years away from the beginning of TOS, and a lot can change between now and then. ... Which is why I feel "assuming the simplest" carries no significant merit.

Occam's Razor?

As regards the Spock under Pike thing, the only thing quoted is the total number of years, months and days (11, 4, 5), which perfectly allows for interruptions and an early start if need be.

As I acknowledged. Not much, but it's there, albeit only a couple of years' worth. Still, I'll be surprised if they abide by the letter of established continuity only by distorting the spirit of it.

Well, okay, not necessarily surprised, given what we've seen so far. But disappointed.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Anson Mount and Rebecca Romaine are pretty big casting choices ...

And Rebecca is a pretty big lettuce, too.

(It's "Romijn").

 

[Greg Cox]

But let's be honest here, if Discovery contadicts TOS it's not a big deal, as long as the broad strokes fit everything is fine. Not even TOS itself cared about details from a few episodes ago so why should a new show decades later?

Exactly. A decent respect for continuity is all very well and good, but there's no need to be fundamentalist about it. Not every line needs to be treated as holy writ nor is of equal importance. And, as has been abundantly pointed, we know next to nothing about PIke and his career aside from "The Cage" and a few lines of exposition in "The Menagerie." Pike's stint as captain of the Enterprise is largely a blank slate, waiting to be filled in.

(And April owes his "canonical" status to one Saturday morning cartoon and a single line of text on DISCOVERY. So there's not much that's authoritative about him.)

 

[fireproof78]

But let's be honest here, if Discovery contadicts TOS it's not a big deal, as long as the broad strokes fit everything is fine. Not even TOS itself cared about details from a few episodes ago so why should a new show decades later?

But, what will we argue over?

For the record, I completely agree. I think that fans tend to get to hung up on the details rather than the broad strokes of events. This largely comes from different writers deciding on what they want to focus on (i.e. Meyer deciding that Chekov was present with Khan).

 

[Timo]

Occam's Razor?

It's always been a bogus concept. I mean, "simplest" is utterly subjective. And simplest what? One needs to draw borders, to establish a region of applicability, so that the whole is simple even if none of the components are. Or vice versa.

Which gets us nowhere anyway, because reality does not bend to Ockham's will. He is wrong on basically everything to do with nature, where nothing is simple and nothing can be reduced to laws that would be both simple and actually applicable. Starting out with simple leads us astray. Aiming for simple makes us describe something other than reality.

Fiction... Is worse than reality. What good is a razor when everybody wears a false mustache? Fiction is never simple. If it attempts to be, it just stumbles. People don't like simple.

Basically, the razor is only good in politics. That is, in choosing the simplest possible lie to tell. Of which "Occam's Razor" has always been one.

Timo Salonoemi

 

[Longinus]

It's always been a bogus concept. I mean, "simplest" is utterly subjective. And simplest what? One needs to draw borders, to establish a region of applicability, so that the whole is simple even if none of the components are. Or vice versa.

Which gets us nowhere anyway, because reality does not bend to Ockham's will. He is wrong on basically everything to do with nature, where nothing is simple and nothing can be reduced to laws that would be both simple and actually applicable. Starting out with simple leads us astray. Aiming for simple makes us describe something other than reality.

Fiction... Is worse than reality. What good is a razor when everybody wears a false mustache? Fiction is never simple. If it attempts to be, it just stumbles. People don't like simple.

Basically, the razor is only good in politics. That is, in choosing the simplest possible lie to tell. Of which "Occam's Razor" has always been one.

Timo Salonoemi

This explains so much...

 

[lawman]

[Occam's Razor has] always been a bogus concept. I mean, "simplest" is utterly subjective.

Not really. What it means is that as a matter of logic, among competing explanations for a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest hypothetical assumptions is preferable. Multiplying hypotheses only reduces the falsifiability of the overall explanation, which is undesirable.

Obviously it's not an irrefutable law of nature, but ceteris paribus, it's a sensible rule of thumb. It works in law, it works in science, it works in lots of areas of life that involve weighing evidence.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The same TOS that had the Enterprise reach the edge of the galaxy and the centre of the galaxy in unreasonable amounts of time?

It only became unreasonable when Voyager and DS9 came along and retroactively made crossing the galaxy a 75-80 year journey.