Season 2 Teaser

[lawman]

Which is fine.

All of Star Trek was 50 years ago. What of it? If you're willing to dismiss the very dialogue used to introduce Pike —

MENDEZ: You ever met Chris Pike?
KIRK: When he was promoted to Fleet Captain.
MENDEZ: About your age. Big, handsome man, vital, active.
KIRK: I took over the Enterprise from him. Spock served with him for several years.
SPOCK: Eleven years, four months, five days.​

— as "meaningless and throwaway," then what part of TOS are you not willing to throw away? And if you're so blasé about that, what other parts of Trek continuity would you consign to the trash heap as well?

If the producers of DSC were making a reboot, that would be a different matter, but we've been reassured in every conceivable way that they're not. And as long as they're not, then the most important part of Trek lore and continuity, its very spine, is TOS. That's not something to piss away for the sake of some half-baked latter-day prequel. Indeed, what would it even be a prequel to, if you dismiss the original?...

 

[Paul Weaver]

That's just not true

Which episodes specified that Pike was captain of the enterprise immediately Kirk?

 

[lawman]

Which episodes specified that Pike was captain of the enterprise immediately Kirk?

It's in the first part of "The Menagerie," in the dialogue that I just quoted.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Or just admit that Discovery is its own thing and they're going to make decisions that are best for the show, regardless of whether it lines up or not.

If they want to go full AU, I'm fine with it, though I have absolutely no issues reconciling what we've seen so far with the prime universe, either. At the very least, an ongoing tv show could give us the kind of truly unconnected new universe that the Abrams films should have been.

But as long as this is actually supposed to be prime, I think this particular bit is something valuable enough to not be completely written over just because they want him on the show. Especially since it doesn't need to be written over for him to be on the show, anyway.

Which episodes specified that Pike was captain of the enterprise immediately Kirk?

The Menagerie, Part 1. The direct quote's right above your post. 'I took over the Enterprise from him'.

 

[BillJ]

If the producers of DSC were making a reboot, that would be a different matter, but we've been reassured in every conceivable way that they're not.

They are going to do their own thing. Prime is just a designation designed to keep the blowback experienced by the Abrams films to a minimum.

 

[Paul Weaver]

It's in the first part of "The Menagerie," in the dialogue that I just quoted.

30 seconds before (thus after I'd loaded the page)

So to be consistent with that it's clear that Pike had to be in charge of the enterprise, and a captain, at the time Kirk takes over.

Doesn't mean Pike couldn't be Disco captain for a few years, then go back to the enterprise, however
* Spock joining the academy in 2250
* Spock having served with Pike for 11 years
* Kirk taking over in 2265 or maybe 2264
Doesn't leave a lot of wiggle-room


On the other hand, it's 1 line in a 50 year old episode, and TOS itself contradicted far more than that.

 

[Uhura's Song]

I suspect Pike captaining Disco will be a temporary thing. One mission.

EDIT: Seems obvious he comes on for a season & then they they to do a Pike show with he and Romjin as Number One. If they both click. CBS is in franchise mode.

 

[lawman]

Doesn't leave a lot of wiggle-room

Indeed. "The Cage" was described as 13 years before "The Menagerie," so if the latter episode is set in 2266, that places the earlier one in 2253. The usual understanding is that April commanded the Enterprise from 2245-2250 or '51, and Pike commanded it from that point to 2264, until it was handed over to KIrk, during the last 11 years of which (2253-'64) Spock served under him. As we know Spock didn't enter the Academy until 2249 (18 years before the events of "Journey to Babel" in 2267), there's not much latitude for him being on the Enterprise any earlier than that, either.

...and TOS itself contradicted far more than that.

People keep saying that, as if it excuses anything. First of all, I don't think it's true — backstory from TOS actually fits together into a surprisingly consistent continuity. But to whatever extent it is true, the kind of inconsistencies that creep in when you're creating a show from scratch, on the fly, are very different from inconsistencies introduced deliberately despite knowledge of a well-established continuity; the former are no excuse for the latter, as the latter are far more easily avoided. Really, it's just a backhanded tu quoque rationale, and that's an argumentative fallacy.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

30 seconds before (thus after I'd loaded the page)

So to be consistent with that it's clear that Pike had to be in charge of the enterprise, and a captain, at the time Kirk takes over.

Doesn't mean Pike couldn't be Disco captain for a few years, then go back to the enterprise, however
* Spock joining the academy in 2250
* Spock having served with Pike for 11 years
* Kirk taking over in 2265 or maybe 2264
Doesn't leave a lot of wiggle-room


On the other hand, it's 1 line in a 50 year old episode, and TOS itself contradicted far more than that.

As somebody else said, if Spock becomes a part of the crew as well, there's no issue at all. Nothing says all their years serving together were on the Enterprise. Also, I wonder if we have any actual reference or not as to how long Spock actually spent at the Academy. Brilliant as he is, it may be possible he graduated early (or was allowed to 'transfer credits', so to speak, from his high quality Vulcan education).

Even if neither of these is true, I'd still be perfectly fine with the line if, say, Spock remained permanently on the Enterprise while Pike went back and forth between the Enterprise and the Discovery (perhaps he'd remain officially in command of the Enterprisee while having a close relationship with the new CO of Disco, or something similar). Or even if the Discovery and the Enterprise were just assigned the same mission for an extended period of time.

In general, I wouldn't say it's a matter of preserving that one line so much as of preserving what Pike represents in the franchise. He only had one appearance in TOS, yet became a huge part of the franchise anyway (much bigger, for instance, than any of the Romulan or Klingon commanders) precisely because he's the guy who passed the torch (including the Enterprise and Mr. Spock to boot) to Captain Kirk. That's a position that holds power for people. So much so that even in the reboot films where Kirk's entire history is altered, Pike, rather than being forgotten in this completely different timeline, becomes the guy who literally talks Kirk into being in Starfleet (and promotes him straight to Captain). So I don't think it's too much to ask that he eventually go back to the Enterprise and fulfill that little symbolic function which is basically entirely responsible for anyone even remembering his name in the first place. Especially because, and I know I've said this several times already, it could be done very easily and without interfering with DSC's story.

 

[CorporalClegg]

— as "meaningless and throwaway," then what part of TOS are you not willing to throw away? And if you're so blasé about that, what other parts of Trek continuity would you consign to the trash heap as well?

Everything is fair game.

It's art, not real life.

 

[lawman]

As somebody else said, if Spock becomes a part of the crew as well, there's no issue at all. Nothing says all their years serving together were on the Enterprise.

True enough. But I'll be seriously surprised if the DSC producers take things in that direction.

 

[lawman]

Everything is fair game.

It's art, not real life.

Right. Why not paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa?...

 

[CorporalClegg]

Because that's against the law.

And it's a fallacy.

 

[Tuskin38]

Right. Why not paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa?...

That isn’t the same thing at all

 

[BillJ]

Because that's against the law.

And it's a fallacy.

If someone owns it, they can do anything they want to it.

 

[lawman]

Because that's against the law.

And it's a fallacy.

So "it's against the law" is the only reason you'd consider a much-loved and time-tested work of art to be sacrosanct from post hoc alterations?

Seriously, I'm getting the impression here that you jus't don't like the original Star Trek and don't really give a damn about it.

 

[CorporalClegg]

If someone owns it, they can do anything they want to it.

Fair enough.

 

[Tuskin38]

So "it's against the law" is the only reason you'd consider a much-loved and time-tested work of art to be sacrosanct from post hoc alterations?

Seriously, I'm getting the impression here that you jus't don't like the original Star Trek and don't really give a damn about it.

TOS and Mona Lisa are hardly similar culturally

 

[Grendelsbayne]

True enough. But I'll be seriously surprised if the DSC producers take things in that direction.

In all honesty, I'll be seriously surprised if Pike himself is anything more than a recurring character after this season is over, even if he is popular. I expect him to be a part of this season similar to how Lorca was a part of last season (though obviously without the heel turn).

 

[BillJ]

Seriously, I'm getting the impression here that you jus't don't like the original Star Trek and don't really give a damn about it.

I can't speak for anyone, but I think there's a certain amount of acceptance that Kurtzman and company are going to do what they are going to do. Some folks are simply eager for something called "Prime" whether it matches up with the rest of the universe or not.

I don't know a lot about art, but there was something from an episode of Regular Car Reviews that stuck with me about "New Historicism". Basically, a product, even if it is done by the same writer/artist will be different if enough time has passed, even if it is the same basic story. I tend to feel this is pretty accurate. Even if they match up names and dates, so many things have changed in fifty years that Discovery is simply a completely different animal than the original Star Trek. No matter how much it wants to be TOS, it simply can never be that.

It starts at 3:42 in the video:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies