That doesn't change the fact Pike's line above proves he wasn't the Captain they intended to meet at Vulcan.
And could you quote what they're saying? That's awful lot of audio to scrub through.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x01 - "Brother"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
And could you quote what they're saying? That's awful lot of audio to scrub through.
Except it doesn't do that.
Again, I invite you to offer up a different rationale that takes the producers' After Trek comments into account along with what we are shown in "Brother".
Why would he refer to himself in the third person?
And he wouldn't have said he was commandeering the Enterprise if he was the assigned captain.
Seriously man, why do you have such a hard time admitting when you're wrong? First AMAZO, and now this. I'm not even that stubborn.
You trying to quantify what Their Real World Thinking was as compared to what They Actually Wrote for the Episode.
It's two different things and they are not analogous.
He's not; he's acknowledging that he was aware of their original orders.
I'm not going to admit that I'm wrong when I don't believe that I am wrong based on what we have been told and were shown.
It really isnt.
"What they actually wrote for the episode" was driven by "What their real-world thinking was".
Which didn't include HIM.
Nowhere in the episode, nowhere in the writing, do they say Pike was the Captain they were picking up at Vulcan. ZERO EVIDENCE.
There's more evidence against your theory than there is for it. The show's actual dialogue is against you.
Things can change. Ideas they had for Season 2 during Season 1 may have been abandoned before production started.
I disagree and believe that what we were shown in Brother and told on After Trek supports my position.
Maybe I shouldn't be presenting this in such "black-and-white" terms, but I honestly can't think of another explanation that doesn't discount what the producers of DSC themselves stated on After Trek about how the ending of Will You Take My Hand? drove their decision-making for the entirety of Season 1.
Ideas and plans change. Maybe they scrapped those ideas.
No, no it doesn't and so far, no-one here agrees with you. That should be a sign.
They didn't say they reverse engineered the Season, they said they KNEW where they were going to end the season (IE with the appearance of the 1701) <---- That's a lot different. Writers start a story knowing how it will end; and then they write it toward said ending - but that's not 'Reverse Engineering' anything
For about five minutes, then several months later, what we see actually presented in the episode isn't what you believe They originally espoused.
But, it's all good, you've got yourself dead set against seeing the logic presented to you by many more folks than myself, so this is the point where we go
and agree to disagree.
Starting with an ending and then writing to achieve that ending is the definition of "reverse-engineering".
The only thing they'd need to do is make it so the Discovery is somewhere where they can run into the Enterprise. That doesn't really require an entire season worth of forethought.
Actually, Reverse Engineering is starting with a Complete Idea and using it to get to where you want to be when finished.
What TV/Movie Writers do is take a Kernel of an Idea and then flesh it out completely along the way to getting where They want the story to go.
It's subtle, but it is different.
And the path They take to get there, almost always includes a whole lot of changes from the original thought.
What TV/Movie Writers do is take a Kernel of an Idea and then flesh it out completely along the way to getting where They want the story to go.
It's subtle, but it is different.
And the path They take to get there, almost always includes a whole lot of changes from the original thought.
And yet the producers did give that moment, by their own admission, "an entire season's worth of forethought".
You really ought to take a listen to the two Disco Trek discussions I linked to because Heather Barker covers what was said on After Trek pretty solidly and bases a chunk of discussion around those comments and their implications.
No, no they didn't.
Heather Barker - who has actually met and interacted with the producers - disagrees with you, as per the discussions I linked to earlier.
Which means AT THAT TIME, that is what They were thinking.
Things do change over several months of writing a story, you do realize that, right?
Because,
Even after seeing your evidence.
Perhaps just a small adjustment of your thought process is in order, just to take in the length of time that passed between what you have quoted and what became the final product?
They really don't integrate in the way you believe they do.
And yet we have exact quotes otherwise.
Seriously man, plans can change.
Pike was not the captain at Vulcan, the show's writing and dialogue disagrees with you on that point.
I'm not debating this anymore because it's pointless.
How can it have been reversed-engineered if NOTHING from the Season 1 has anything to do with Discovery meeting up with Enterprise except in the last (cliffhanger) episode when Discovery meets up with Enterprise. It may have been planned, but they didn't sit there and say "oh, season 2 will be about Pike and the Enterprise crewmembers on Discovery, so let's write a story arc for season 1 that doesn't even mention the Enterprise".
Last edited:
An example of reverse-engineering: what Henry Starling wanted to do with Captain Braxton's Aeon timeship in the 1990s. Taking something you find and don't understand how it works and using your tools and skills to work backwards from the finished product to determine how it's intended to function, building your own similar creation based on that gleaned knowledge and using your own native resources.
An example of not-reverse-engineering: the Enterprise showing up in Discovery.
An example of not-reverse-engineering: the Enterprise showing up in Discovery.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
