Not necessarily. Spock is one who has worked to embrace the Vulcan way, which means that it would no be logical for him to assault her in any way. Being the victim of bullying himself would not necessarily mandate he turn around and bully his sister. To Spock she may simply be another reminder of his human side that he has been mocked, teased for and constantly reminded of his "disadvantage." Far from embracing Michael, I see him as being very cold to her and treating her very formally. That's a lot of assumptions built in there. And, personally, I would have no problem monkeying with an iconic character, nor do I care that shows do it. Also, if DISCO is a reboot, as many are purporting, why care? Spock isn't the same Spock.
That D7/K'tinga with the longer (and possibly tapered) nacelles looks abit like John Eaves update for the Star Trek: Renegades fan film.
Eaves worked on Renegades? I didn't know that. Their K'Tinga is ugly. Though I like the nacelles. Still better then Season 1's DSC Klingon ships though.
I suggested no such *mandate*… it was one of a number of possibilities offered, including protector. That would obviously make Starfleet service a very unlikely choice for Spock. Oh, I know it isn't. The reason to discuss it is so others consider it, as well. After all, dismissive efforts by some Tweeters aside, we hair-itics and nullisporians aren't fixated on makeup and tech and set dressing minutiae. Those are simply the most readily obvious and easy-to-prove differences.
Perhaps "mandate" was the wrong term. Regardless, I do not think Michael's inclusion would alter Spock as much as others may think. Spock demonstrates a very strong desire to be "Vulcan" much in the same way Worf values Klingon ways. However, the logic of the Vulcans gives Spock a more pragmatic attitude and one willing to distance himself from his human side. I think that would include Michael to a degree. Save for the obvious racism against him by the Vulcan Science Academy. I won't even pretend to understand this. I'll simply chalk it up to whatever "context" you brought with you to the BBS from Twitter and that's it. I don't see it as relevant to our current discussion.
True, and this is the exact opposite of Burnham. Interestingly, you have discovered the anti-Worf. My point is simply that if Nicolai's life with Worf around is a lot different than it otherwise would've been. He would be a different person in a Worf-less universe, just as I would argue Spock was in the actual Prime universe. There's no indication he knew of it given that Burnham didn't. I think it was quite understandable. Some folks see a point made about (insert makeup, drive tech, NCCs, ship design, recrystallized dilithium, or what-have-you) as one of many facts and try to dismiss the point as being fixated on (insert makeup, drive tech, NCCs, ship design, recrystallized dilithium, or what-have-you). My point was simply that while those are very visible breaks with prior continuity and thus readily arguable, they're merely the low-hanging fruit. You asked why I care about Spock being changed by an alien sister's presence, and I am answering that it's the same thing as "(insert blah-blah)" . . . it's YADI.
Ah. Thank you for putting the words why I like Michael so much. Worf was so annoying to me. I couldn't quite place my finger on the reason why, especially given the similarity. I do not think so. Especially considering that Spock was notoriously tight lipped regarding his personal life and still conducted himself as a consummate Vulcan and Starfleet Officer. If there was an influence I would speculate it was minor, at best, due to his interactions with his mom, and whether or not he regarded Michael as his 'sister" at all. Given the bullying and Spock's rejection of the Vulcan Science Academy I am surmising that there was something amiss for him to decline. [LEFT][SIZE=4][COLOR=rgb(20, 20, 20)] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/LEFT] YADI? Honestly, you are not making a lot of sense here. The differences in continuity are not in dispute. It's a matter of whether or not they are big enough to qualify as reality breaking. In my view, they are not. And, no, I am not just talking about visuals. I am referring to events and characters as well. The points of contentions include the spore drive, Mirror Universe and Klingon War. In my mind, the ones that are most problematic are the Mirror Universe and the Spore Drive. At this point in time in the show, I am not willing to come to a decisive conclusion as not all information is in yet, and it is highly illogical to draw a conclusion without all the facts. Once the fate of the Spore Drive is known I'll decide. Until then, I view Discovery as it's own show and take events in to account when viewing other shows.
Judging the show’s continuity errors right now makes no sense, because you have no idea what’s going to happen in the next few seasons of the show. It’s still an on going story. It could easily be explained next season, or the season after. Had it been cancelled before these continuity issues were explained, I’d be right here with you complaining about some of them But since the series isn’t over, I don’t see the point in complaining.
Ah, see, as long as we are comparing alien orphans, I'd say Burnham grates on me as much as Jeremiah Rossa, especially given her flagrantly irrational and arrogant behavior in the pilot. She may as well have howled. I am not clear on what his talkativeness would have to do with the character being changed or not by the addition or subtraction of a variable like "human sister". That relationship is likely to be entirely different. I'm not clear on how Spock's regard is involved. Even if he viewed her as a houseguest, the presence is sufficient. That's possible, but it is as possible that no institutional racism was involved and that it was all internal decision-making of Spock's. "Yet Another Discovery Inconsistency" Okay. Where'd I lose you? Just out of curiosity, what would it take? Well, let me zero in on a point that might offer some progress. Humans in the Discovery Mirror Universe (DMU) are very light-sensitive, and per Burnham the whole place looked less brilliant, even astophysical phenomena. This has never been the case or even hinted at in previous Prime Mirror Universe(s) outings. Given Lorca's long stay in the regular Discovery universe, it does not seem a transient anomaly but instead a birth issue, one which Mirror Kirk, Mirror Spock, et al. should share. And yet this was clearly not so in "Mirror, Mirror". Additionally, the Defiant 1764 was clearly different than the TOS version. So, do you accept that it was the *same* mirror universe when story-critical biology facts suggest otherwise? After all, there could be many parallel universes into which USS Defiants from still other universes fell, just as there were 100,000 quantum realities that had Enterprise-Ds show up in the same place at the same time. For safety, I would take the opposite tack, since if you're wrong it is much harder to unravel than to fold it in latter when your verdict (and the facts) are more clear.
The Terrans could have modified her over the last 100 years. In fact one of the show writers said that. Though since it wasn’t stated on screen it isn’t canon.
Oh, no, one *must* hold it as separate now. Your argument makes plain just how important that is. By analogy, imagine if Christians found a tablet with five other commandments and included them right away before finding out decades later they were the joke from that skit about fifteen commandments (until a tablet drops to the ground and breaks). It'd be a helluva lot harder to detangle their influence from Christian thought after all that time. Indeed, if I had my druthers, I would have a copy of Memory Alpha from early 2009 so that JJ-Trek facts that have been ported over weren't included as canon, such as the JJ-Trek dating of Spock's birth. It would be a huge pain to go through all the articles editing out the JJ-verse and Discovery data now.
Or you could stop treating Star Trek like it’s holy script, and treat it as it is, a tv show. Where things can change without the need of several paragraphs of explanation. We didn’t need an explanation when the Klingons changed between TOS and TMP, we don’t need an explanation now.
. . . or that was simply how it looked. After all, if they went to all the trouble to modify the ship secretly from elsewhere and elsewhen, why not change the registry?
Ugh. Jeremiah Rossa was extremely annoying. I can't even begin to see how Michael compares, but if she does, I don't fault you for not liking her. I am unclear as to what changes in Spock behaviors would be observed? I guess I'm wondering what is expected to be different? Likely, but still unremarkable by Spock until it logical to discuss it. Sufficient for what though is my question? What changes are expected to be different between Spock as presented in TOS and how he might otherwise be? Perhaps. I'm not convinced that there wasn't an implicit bias towards Spock, and Sarek's attitude regarding Starfleet is more interesting in light of Spock and Burnham's choices. Ah. A subset of "YATI". Pretty much the part where apparently discussing visual changes is low hanging fruit. It's fairly obvious that any change will be regarded as indicating Discovery is in a different quantum reality, visual, character or otherwise. Spock to die. Pike to die. Enterprise to be destroyed. Earth destroyed. Vulcan destroyed. Captain Kirk of the Starship Potemkin. Admiral McCoy. Sybok as a member of Starfleet. Encountering the Tribbles. A Horta crew member. Dr. Daystrom being anything other than black. Dr. Soong. More than 12 to 13 Constitution class starships. Q. One that was clearly addressed by the time of Mirror, Mirror. I've already remarked on this elsewhere. I think that In a Mirror Darkly appeared (at least to my perception) to be lighted more darkly than regular Enterprise or TOS. It appeared in the Mirror Universe 200 years ago. No changes are possible? Certainly there are. I just don't see it different enough to say "Different reality! Abandon all you know!" If it isn't part of Trek continuity then what have I lost?
No, your claim that I was treating Trek like a religion and engaging in "incoherent rambling" (nice edit, by the way) was merely an insult. The word "analogy" has a much different meaning. Perhaps you should consider taking a break to calm down. Time and I were having a decent conversation, I think.