^^^
(Commenting on the bolded section here): And in 1987 they did and it was called STAR TREK: The Next Generation (IE reboot complete)
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x01 - "The Vulcan Hello"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
(Commenting on the bolded section here): And in 1987 they did and it was called STAR TREK: The Next Generation (IE reboot complete)
I am not 100% on what you are trying to say. General Order #1 is the relevant version of the rule here. And neither it nor the Prime Directive only apply to natural disasters. Both versions also limit interference by the Federation, and both allow for mitigation of accidental interference while reducing any additional influence.
At no point was I trying to say that GO#1 barred Starfleet from trying to fix an issue they caused. We were discussing minimizing any additional effects/knowledge/interference during the fix.
I became a Star Trek fan in 1969 (age 6) - and I'll talk more about the basic differences between in (and the 23rd century era) and TNG (and the 24th century era); and why to me ST: D's pilot in DEFINITELY 'Star Trek' to me.
If to you Star Trek is "Earth is a Utopia" and "mankind has 'grown up' and is unified" <--- Then yes, TOS (which you admit to it being "before your time" and not seeing much of it), would probably NOT have made you a Star Trek fan.
I also think you comment of:
Is inaccurate and tells me you may never have watched TOS - "The Menagerie" because the situation Burnham is in in the first two episodes of ST: D IS similar.
In TOS - "The Menagerie": Spock hears (not directly during the episode, but the audience comes to understand how he did in others comments) that his former Captain has been grievously injured in a heroic act of saving Cadets of a ship that had a reactor accident - and his cognitive faculties are fine, but his body is fully paralyzed and he can't move of speak.
Spock then decides to mutiny (and fully steal/commandeer the 1701) so that he can return Captain Pike to a Planet of Super Telepaths that they encountered 12 years before, because he knows these Telepaths can (through illusion) gove Pike back his 'life'. The thing is these telepaths themselves warned that the Federation needed to avoid contact/trade because if Humans learned their abilities, the Human race would destroy itself like they had. As a result, Star Fleet has an on the Books directive that no one (in an emergency or otherwise) should go to their planet 'Talos IV' and to do do invokes the Death Penalty.
So, yes, Spock himself contemplated and carried out his mutiny (and was successful - and given the circumstances and Pike's condition - was spared the Death Penalty and although guilty of mutiny - reinstated to his rank and position.
Basically, Spock did do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
^^^
This is EXACTLY how Burnham views her situation here in TVH and BATBS:
- Once she got the info from Sarek on how Vulcans avoided future conflict with the Klingons after losing one ship - even though Sarek warned her to be careful and that the Klingons might not react to Humans do this as they had to Vulcans doing it; she felt it was the only way to possibly avoid conflict with the Kllingons in the instance; and THE ONLY WAY to save the crew and ship she loved.
- Thus after she pleads and actually demands that the Captain must listen to her and do as she says, or the ship will be attacked and likely everyone killed; and the Captain (due to her own past experiences) doesn't see it that way; Burnham decides that to save the ship and everyone on it - she has no choice but to knock the Captain out, and commit Mutiny to save the ship and everyone she loves,
In her mind, yes, she's knows she's doing the wrong thing, but for (again as she sees it) the right reasons. <--- In that way her actions are just like the actions Spock will take to 'save' Captain Pike 10 years (in universe) from now.
^^^
I didn't have a problem with it in that I could see why the character would both consider and carry out such an act given the information she had; and the situation they were in. It wasn't a "Black and White" thing and that's one thing I loved about the situation here.
In the TOS era - Humans STILL used money and worked for a living. Earth WASN'T yet a utopia, and Humans were just a bit more socially evolved then they are today. <-- That's what I loved about TOS; and that's why in 1987 when TNG premiered, I felt it was retconing what I had liked about Star Trek, and in effect sucking a lot of the actual humanity out of the show.
And that's the part I really enjoy about ST: D. I can completely understand why someone who really thinks TNG (and the 24th century era) was the best 'real' Star Trek, would find a lot of what happened in ST: D so far "Not Star Trek"; but maybe you guys now understand how many a TOS fan felt about TNG when it premiered, and it took many of us a long time (3 seasons) to even start really warming up to it.
In the end - there's no "I'm right/You're wrong here." You can like some incarnations of 'Star Trek' and not like others; but that doesn't make you any less of a Star trek fan; and the version of Star trek you like will always be around for you to enjoy; and if you're lucky, another incarnation of Star trek will come along that's closer to what you like about 'Star Trek'.
Last edited:
The place I work at has 50+ offices throughout the country. Each office has its own style and tone, but we're all part of the same firm with the same mission, goals, accounts and so on. Why can't Discovery be the same? Why does "Prime" have to refer to tone and style? It doesn't.
Just because these things were not mentioned does not mean they did not exist. By your logic, every single event, character, issue not identified by the original series crew is not cannon. That's simply not true. #NotAReboot
Something like the old "Not Valid In The State Of Utah" that was apparently on some marriage certificates even before same-sex marriage was legalized anywhere? I never did get why Utah would not recognize marriage certificates from outside their jurisdiction. Seriously, if you meet the requirements in one state or country in terms of age and identity, then they shouldn't question it.
So in this case, whether its in Utah, or on Vulcan, if Amanda was say, 16 when she married Sarek (with her parent's permission), could the Vulcan authorities arrest Sarek for rape if Amanda gave birth to Spock when she was 17, even though they had a marriage license from Earth saying that they were legally husband and wife?
Anyway, I saw about 3/4 of episode 1. Just like in the US, the NFL game ran over on CTV, and pushed everything back by about 20 minutes, so by my VHS recording stopped about 3/4 of the way through the episode.
Going by 3/4 of an episode, I wasn't really impressed with the show. It was kind of drawn out, and what was up with the Klingons and the coffin thing. I thought Klingons weren't interested in the bodies, and considered them empty shells once the person was dead. Also what happened to their "Rocky Mountain" heads or even the smooth head versions? Not to mention their hair and beards?
The Federation respects the cultural and religious beliefs of all it's member worlds.
The federation will not allow any world membership who's leadership is underpinned by religion or class.
The federation will not allow any world membership who's leadership is underpinned by religion or class.
Except for Bajor and Ardana.
Of course he does. Because he's motherf*cking Spock, and he knows what he's doing.
But seriously. You make a decent case for the analogy here, but I see a couple of relevant differences. One: non-diegetically, "The Menagerie" was the 16th episode of Star Trek produced. Viewers had 15 previous episodes (or at least 10, even in broadcast order) to become familiar with Spock, his sensibilities, his motivations, his loyalties, and his relationship to Kirk. We knew and trusted him. With Michael Burnham, we had half an episode, and it's not the same.
Two: diegetically, what Spock did was arguably the exact opposite of what Burnham did. He was acting out of loyalties built over years of shared duty. She was acting against those loyalties.
I'm not saying I find her unsympathetic or uninteresting (I don't), or even that I disagree with your general assessment of TOS (I don't). Still and all, I found the mutiny plot a bit contrived.
On a completely separate note...
Not quite sure what you're getting at here, or what it's in response to. Are you suggesting that Federation policy is hypocritical on this? To me it actually seems eminently principled and consistent: freedom of personal beliefs is important and worth protecting, and therefore any world that instead allows one particular belief system to dominate others is ineligible for Federation membership. It's akin to the way the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause of the First Amendment work as complements to one another.
Bajor got kicked out almost, for turning back to a caste system. Just because their politicians are religious, it does not mean that their political process for selecting "ministers" is selected via divine mumbo jumbo.
Those cloud minders lied. LIED... Kirk didn't know about the troglodytes, so it's probable that anyone playing by the rules, signing these ####ers up, didn't know about the Ardanan underclass either.
Hmmm... This planet was mention in the Enterprise episode Precious Cargo.
Those cloud minders lied. LIED... Kirk didn't know about the troglodytes, so it's probable that anyone playing by the rules, signing these ####ers up, didn't know about the Ardanan underclass either.
Hmmm... This planet was mention in the Enterprise episode Precious Cargo.
What do you call it when you tell someone that their marriage is fake because they got married some where foreign?
Looking back, I see the prologue as an example of the plot making the characters, not the characters making the plot. They had an end goal and they moved the "Burnham" character to that goal. She did not develop to that goal naturally and we did not see her progress from A to B to etc. Instead, she went all the way to Z, bypassing the stops on the way.
I heard a point raised on a YouTube video. The Klingons are described as "inviolably honorable", yet in the same episode they are described as committing "terror raids" against the Federation. Terror raids are never based in honor. This is a stunning inconsistency.
I was watching "The Phage" earlier today. They managed to describe a celestial body as a "rogue planetoid", a "planet", and then as a "moon" in less than 10 minutes. Which is it? It is the same situation here - which is it? Are the Klingons in the Discovery universe honorable or not honorable?
I heard a point raised on a YouTube video. The Klingons are described as "inviolably honorable", yet in the same episode they are described as committing "terror raids" against the Federation. Terror raids are never based in honor. This is a stunning inconsistency.
I was watching "The Phage" earlier today. They managed to describe a celestial body as a "rogue planetoid", a "planet", and then as a "moon" in less than 10 minutes. Which is it? It is the same situation here - which is it? Are the Klingons in the Discovery universe honorable or not honorable?
Why would 24 houses, from 24 corners of the empire, arrive within seconds of each other, minutes later, in Federation space, 2 days from a federation colony?
Where the frack was the Neutral zone, the neutral zone bases, and some fricking mine fields?
Michael should have been asleep for days, not hours after she got back from being cooked.
Where the frack was the Neutral zone, the neutral zone bases, and some fricking mine fields?
Michael should have been asleep for days, not hours after she got back from being cooked.
Last edited:
I was hoping that was explained in part 2. All those ships showing up like that with pin point precision and pin point timing seemed quite unrealistic.
Except for Bajor and Ardana.
To be fair, though, Ardana became a member of the Federation relatively early in its history. The constitutional rule about not admitting member worlds with a theocratic or strict caste system may not have been in existence at the time Ardana applied for membership and was accepted. In the wake of the incidents depicted in "The Cloud Minders (TOS)" the system of governance both on the surface of the planet and in the city of Stratos may have begun to change to reflect more progressive attitudes about the rights of all of their citizens.
Last edited:
Have you met the Klingons???
Two points:
1. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. What Klingons might see as a glorious raid against Federation imperialists, the Federation sees as an unprovoked attack against a innocent colony.
2. There is nothing more honorable than victory: we have seen episode after episode where Klingons spout about honor but what they really mean is personal victory. They write the honor into it afterward. That is the whole reason Worf confronts Gowron at the end of DS9 - the klingon leadership cloaks all its actions under the banner of honor, but they aren't always.
In the pre-DSC assumption about the Klingon Neutral Zone it was believed it had been in existence for decades going back to perhaps the early 23rd century as per Spock's lines about the history between the two powers in Star Trek VI. Now that DSC has inferred that the Empire more or less went into isolation around the time the Federation was founded and had only scattered encounters with the UFP over the next hundred years it's possible the Klingon Neutral Zone doesn't yet exist in this series.
But they still know where the Klingons live, and that they are bastards.
4 days (16 light years) from Earth, in a hundred year old ship (They told us this in Broken bow).
End of Season one is going to see the creation of the Klingon Neutral Zone.
4 days (16 light years) from Earth, in a hundred year old ship (They told us this in Broken bow).
End of Season one is going to see the creation of the Klingon Neutral Zone.
Qo'noS is four days away from Earth at Warp 5 so it would definitely be within range of the considerably faster Federation starships of the DSC era. If the Federation wanted to it could blockade or preemptively attack the Empire and try to neutralize the greatest threat of that time period. Both sides seem to have been doing everything possible to avoid contact with the other with only random border massacres and raids over the decades to punctuate the silence.
If the Neutral Zone isn't already in place then it sure doesn't feel like it. The two sides behave much like the Federation and Romulans did for more than a century after the end of that particular war.
If the Neutral Zone isn't already in place then it sure doesn't feel like it. The two sides behave much like the Federation and Romulans did for more than a century after the end of that particular war.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
