Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x09 - "Terra Firma, Part 1"

Nah it'll be Spock after the visit from PU Kirk. Spock will tell Killy his father threw Burnham on the trash heap that Georgiou picked her up from.

 

the actor of the original Airiam in MU.

https://twitter.com/HannahCheesman/status/1337886929753346053?s=19

 

i found her really creepy, as if she could slice your throat while smiling widely.

Same goes for Burnham, but in a different way.

 

I’m so done with this mirror universe garbage.
Honestly this episode gave me flashbacks to the camp awfulness of those 70’s Buck Rogers episodes.
Godawful.

 

I LOVED how the actress has portrayed Killy. Even if you are a homicidal maniac, it doesn't preclude that you are a positive and jovial person too!

 

she was always so kind, especially to the children.

 

That is not accurate. I watched the same video. He specifically mentions that the GoF was used again in non-canon sources such as TAS' "Yesteryear" and various novels. But he says it was never used again in canon sources, ie on screen on a TV show or movie. And he is correct about that. And Roddenberry may have proposed a story idea with the GoF but that story was never put to film. Story ideas are not canon.

Also, you are leaving out part of his criticism. Yes, he makes the "sacrosanct" argument but he also makes another argument. He criticizes Discovery for going back to Harlan Ellison's rejected idea of making the GoF humanoid. He says that while he likes Ellison as a writer, he argues that Ellison's original idea of a humanoid GoF was not in keeping with "true Trek" because it was too fantasy and Trek should be science-fiction. He quotes from the TNG Bible that specifically says that Trek is science-fiction, not fantasy. So he argues that if Discovery wanted to use the GoF that they should have gone with the depiction in City of the Edge of Forever, not Ellison's original idea.

Personally, I find the argument a bit strange because Ellison was the creator of the GoF. You would think that the creator would get a say in how the concept should be done. And yes, I get that his original concept was not used in canon. But I would think that Discovery should be respected for going back to what the actual creator of the concept wanted to do.

On a side note, I also take issue with his rant about how Discovery is not true Trek because it violates the rules laid out in the Trek bibles. RMB reads several of the rules from the TOS and TNG bibles (the documents that describe what the shows are about and how the writers should write for the shows). He reads the rules that say Trek is science-fiction not fantasy. He reads the rule that say the characters should be highly competent and people who are better than we are and people we should aspire to be like. He reads the rule that says that the characters should not run off on love affairs but should put duty first. He argues Discovery violates these rules.

The fact is that even TOS and TNG probably violated their own writing bibles a couple times in order to tell a good story that they wanted to tell. The writer's bibles are usually guidelines, not hard fast commandments.

Also, the TOS and TNG bibles don't apply to Discovery because Discovery is a different show. And Discovery would have its own bible for the writers. Discovery only needs to follow its own writer's bible, not the writer's bible of past shows.

 

TNG Bible: Star Trek is Sci-fi not fantasy

also TNG: Introduces Q before pilot teaser scene is over!

 

Ah yes, because "character's body is resurrected by a magic planet while his immortal soul resides in his best friend, which is remedied by a lady touching both him and his friend at the same time" is such a hard sci-fi plotline. Which was made possible in the first place by the main characters throwing duty out the window for personal reasons, I might add.

 

if he says that Yesteryear is not canon he’s completely incorrect: TAS has been recanonized around 15 years ago and even when it was not considered canon much of the background from that episode was, being repeatedly singled out as an exception.

i wonder how a humanoid-looking Guardian is any different from beings such as Trelane or Apollo.

 

Yes. Like I said, Trek has violated its own rules plenty of times in service of a good story. So the idea that the Trek bible "rules" are sacrosanct is silly.

I actually think that some of these Trek "rules" are really bad rules because they are too restrictive and actually impede good story telling. If the writers did follow them perfectly, it would eliminate a lot of potentially good story ideas.

 

My bad. I think I added the canon and non-canon. RMB does say that GoF was used in Yesteryear and novels but not on screen in Trek series or movies after TOS.

 

Why does anyone care what this Burnett guy thinks? I’d never even heard of him until a thread a couple of weeks ago. His opinion means no more or less than anyone else’s.

 

I have him on FB, he’s a bit of an ass. Him and James Cawley probably get together and jack off over their self appointed guardian of Trek status. I only know who RMB is because of Free Enterprise, that said I would’ve liked to see his work on Axanar come to light.

 

Preator Shinzon appreciates your support

 

Please look at my post again. I quite clearly use the "TAS" initialism.

Roddenberry's proposal was not dismissed on the basis of respect for Ellison, which is the basis of Burnett's argument. Paramount was simply not interested in giving Roddenberry anything but an advisory role in future Star Trek films. On the other hand, they were more effectively tied down when it came to TNG: had Roddenberry proposed a similar story at that point, there is no reason to believe a Guardian of Forever story would be rejected.

The point is this: there was no rule, explicit or implicit, that would prevent a canonical Guardian of Forever story, and Roddenberry felt comfortable creating one for a canonical Star Trek film. Burnett, who makes a living as an expert on Star Trek production, especially the TOS-era crew films, knows this.

These are just details. They are only relevant if one accepts the foundations of Burnett's argument: that Discovery is not legitimate Star Trek. He uses it to intensify the sense of violation that those who believe as him should feel. Nevertheless, his basic argument is "get off my lawn."

 

James Cawley? I thought Vic Mignogna and Alex Peters were the bad ones. This is the first I heard of criticism of Cawley, of all people.

 

he sure does!

Of course he would not have done that because he was trying to keep tos references to minimum (even if he did naked now).

indeed.

 

Robert Meyer Burnett is an assholic blowhard. Who gives a fuck what he has to say about anything, particularly Trek.

 

Seems like half the discussion on this thread is derivative of RMB’s recent rant.

Totally agree. What’s James Cawley done, other than create an awesome “Field of Dreams” destination for Star Trek fans? Seems like a righteous dude to me.