Star Wars I-III, Gotham, and DSC: a study in prequels (and how DSC isn’t a TOS prequel?)

[Groppler Zorn]

As a non American, you could now start discussing President Ronald McDonald, and he would seem as real. Which is apt considering the discussion.
You honestly may as well make some of these guys up, because some of us have no idea who you are talking about. I though Quincy was a medical examiner dude.

I must admit I had to google who they both were. But once I realised that John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams the analogy made a little more sense.

In the overall realm of Trek, Spock is important - to the point where he changes timelines and creates alternate universes and brings down evil regimes without even visiting certain alternate universes.

Michael Burnham is less important than Spock in the grand scheme (at the moment at least - I’m betting she ends up becoming that head in Star Trek V), but she may well be important in her own special way - which I suppose she already has been in inadvertently causing, then seeking to end by a terror/hostage plot, the most important war of the 23rd century.

Is learning about Michael as fulfilling as learning about Spock?

I’ll let *you* decide.

But the answer’s “no”

/banter

 

[Nerys Myk]

That’s an interesting take on this analogy.

I suppose it comes back to the overarching impact of Spock (at least in-universe). I’d wager that Spock is the John Adams of this analogy for students in the 24th century.

Probably. But I wonder if Spock might be defined by his failures. He never achieved his goal of unifying Vulcan and Romulas and of course failed to save Romulas from destruction. His big success is bringing the Klingons to the meeting table.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Probably. But I wonder if Spock might be defined by his failures. He never achieved his goal of unifying Vulcan and Romulas and of course failed to save Romulas from destruction. His big success is bringing the Klingons to the meeting table.

And the Klingon peace summit was over a century before Romulus was destroyed. I think that may be Spock’s ultimate legacy sadly.

 

[dahj]

"Only Spock can go to Romulus" is 25th century kids slang for "let's blow shit up."

 

[CorporalClegg]

Hasbro's new line of Red Matter

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

(Finally trying to get caught up here, before I fall hopelessly behind. I know it's long AF, but please bear with me, all.)

A reboot by a thousand retcons!

...the right kind of "reboot" for Trek, in my book!

No need you know your onions when it comes to TOS and I like your interpretations - I should get better acquainted with TOS - a rewatch is in order I think!

Why, thank you very much! I would highly recommend it. (I prefer production order over airdate order and the original versions over the "remastered" ones, but YMMV, and I think it's the remastered ones that are up for streaming, without checking just now. I stick with my DVDs mainly.) It's still a great show in spite of its unevenness in places—a feature (or rather bug) pretty much ubiquitous among Trek series—and some very dated elements (also not unique to TOS). I re-watched it in its entirety for the first time in a number of years in between the first and second halves of DSC's first season, and in stark contrast to what others have alleged here, I certainly did not experience glaring discontinuities. I actually think they complement and inform each other well. One simply has to keep in mind (as if it were possible to forget!) that TOS was made more than half a century ago, with production values of that time, and with the intent of being seen on consumer equipment of the day, and fill in what's consequently "missing" with one's imagination.

It would have seemed more logical for Sarek to encourage Spock to join starfleet - until you know what happened in “Lethe” of course...

Yep, that's it exactly. To the top of the class you go, my padawan.

Which is an odd trait of Vulcans - prejudice is illogical (doesn’t Saavik make this point?)

I don't recall Saavik ever saying that. I do recall her complaining to Spock that Kirk was "so human" though.

Whether it's true or not depends, as do so many things, on one's point of view. In the interest of preventing this post from becoming even more overly lengthy than it already is—and at the same time spare myself the effort of trying to paraphrase it all over again (some of it I already did, earlier)—I'll refer you this post that I wrote for a thread about the "logic extremists" back when "Lethe" (DSC) was first released...

TALLERA: Very well. To answer your question, for several years, there has been a small, but growing movement of extreme isolationists on Vulcan... a group that believes contact with alien races has "polluted" our culture... and is destroying Vulcan purity. This group advocates the total isolation of Vulcan from the rest of the galaxy and the eradication of all alien influences from our planet.
PICARD: It sounds like a very... illogical philosophy.
TALLERA: Agreed. But extremists often have a logic all their own.

Like their violent impulses, xenophobic sentiments have always been present among Vulcans. Over the centuries they have risen and fallen in their prevalence and influence on the culture; at times they have ascended into common currency and executive authority, yeilding in the 22nd century militarism and intense micro-management of neighboring "protectorate" worlds' affairs, then secretive isolationism in the 23rd, while at others they have been reduced to the acts of fringe extremists, but nonetheless they always waits to crop up again, as at this moment in the 24th. I don't find that dynamic at all unrealistic.

Like @Greg Cox said above, interaction with other species (particularly openly emotional ones like humans) challenges Vulcans' views of themselves and confronts them with uncomfortable realizations about the limits of their logic. It's a natural reflex to want to avoid that unpleasant self-examination, a defense mechanism. It's that basic fear of "the other" that blindly focuses on how different they are from you in order to avoid the deeper insecurities that arise out of a nagging consciousness of how alike you actually are. Is it not logical, if something or someone is perceived as being the source of discomfort, to seek to "eliminate the destructive element," either by removing it or removing oneself from it?

Sarek goes very much against this grain, both personally and professionally. This is a distinctive element of his character that is now being built upon further in DSC. Spock was always dead wrong in his deep-seated insecurity that Sarek felt disappointment at finding him "so human" rather than the love, pride, admiration, perhaps even envy for his son that were later revealed to Picard. That much is no new revelation here. Sarek thinks it's perfectly logical and agreeable to embrace humans, on all levels. Just look at his choice of wives, and his devotion to Michael. It's no coincidence that she, Spock, and Sybok are all his children. None of them are typical Vulcans; perhaps what some of us, like some of them, need to realize is that this is may be more because of their father's influence than despite it.

Suffice it to say, in all things, it must always be borne in mind that the very reason Vulcans are so obsessed with logic as a cultural philosophy in the first place is because they aren't naturally logical. Quite the opposite. It's all too easy sometimes for them to blurr the line between controlling their innate irrationality and denying it—and denial actually defeats control. This is one of the central lessons Sarek sought to impart to Spock as a child; see "Yesteryear" (TAS), and again ST'09, which largely coincides with its depiction on this particular point...

SAREK: Emotions run deep within our race. In many ways, more deeply than in humans. Logic offers a serenity humans seldom experience. The control of feelings, so that they do not control you.​

I've collated more quotes on this subject from all series here and here. Recall also what Spock tells Valeris (who was in fact originally supposed to be Saavik, and who too believed her own prejudices to be perfectly logical) in TUC: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom...not the end." It took Spock a long time and multiple lives to understand this, and his troubled relationship with both his father and other Vulcans in his formative years was a hindrance to this end, causing him to overcompensate. That's a thread which runs through "Journey To Babel" (TOS) as well:

SPOCK: Sarek understands my reason.
AMANDA: Well, I don't. It's not human. That's not a dirty word. You're human, too. Let that part of you come through. Your father's dying.
SPOCK: Mother, how can you have lived on Vulcan so long, married a Vulcan, raised a son on Vulcan, without understanding what it means to be a Vulcan?
AMANDA: Well, if this is what it means, I don't want to know.
SPOCK: It means to adopt a philosophy, a way of life, which is logical and beneficial. We cannot disregard that philosophy merely for personal gain, no matter how important that gain might be.
AMANDA: Nothing is as important as your father's life.
SPOCK: Can you imagine what my father would say if I were to agree, if I were to give up command of this vessel, jeopardize hundreds of lives, risk interplanetary war, all for the life of one person?
AMANDA: When you were five years old and came home stiff-lipped, anguished, because the other boys tormented you, saying that you weren't really Vulcan, I watched you, knowing that inside the human part of you was crying, and I cried, too. There must be some part of me in you, some part that I still can reach. If being Vulcan is more important to you, then you'll stand there, speaking rules and regulations from Starfleet and Vulcan philosophy, and let your father die...and I'll hate you for the rest of my life.
SPOCK: Mother
AMANDA: Oh, go to him. Now. Please.
SPOCK: I cannot.​

There is certainly an ostensibly "logical and beneficial" rationale to Spock's stubbornness there, but as McCoy pointed out, he could just as easily have turned command over to Scotty, and we ultimately saw that Kirk himself would have fully supported such action. Spock's own professed rationality was clouded by his denial of his deeper emotional conflicts...much as Michael's was in "The Vulcan Hello" (DSC).

Now that point has me interested in seeing what happened with Sybok. I didn’t really care about him up to now (I treat Star Trek V as an extended dream sequence) but in the context of this point, it’d be very interesting to see how Sarek drove Sybok away - a point the latter may well have yelled at his father...

I agree that it could be very interesting indeed to explore Sybok's background and his relationship to both Sarek and Spock further, although it's probably doubtful that they will. Speculating on the matter, any number of very different tacts could be taken, as it's all left very open by the film. Perhaps Sarek's failure there was that his attempts to impart to Sybok similar lessons were taken too much to heart, leading Sybok to misguidedly reject logic altogether. Or perhaps it was more the opposite, and it was seeing his "exceptionally gifted" eldest son rejected and "banished" by his own culture for questioning it that led Sarek to re-evaluate his own support of their dogmatic attitudes in the first place. Or something somewhere in between.

We don't know the nature of Sarek's relations with Sybok's mother, referred to only as "a Vulcan princess," nor whether they predated or postdated his meeting of Amanda. Was his liaison with either of them perhaps an affair whilst married to the other, or a triangle of some other sort? Entirely unknown. A deleted scene suggests that Spock was a child when Sybok was exiled, and that he initially wished to join him, but ultimately all that's established in the film as released is that Sybok at one time knew Spock as an "outcast boy." For all we know, he was already an exile from polite society before Spock was even born, and only ever met him without Sarek's knowledge during one of Spock's frequent secretive excursions as described in "Unification" (TNG):

SAREK: I never knew what Spock was doing. When he was a boy, he would disappear for days into the mountains. I would ask him where he had gone, what he had done. He refused to tell me. I insisted that he tell me. He would not. I forbade him to go. He ignored me. I punished him. He endured it, silently, but always he returned to the mountains. One might as well ask the river not to run. But secretly I admired him, that proud core of him that would not yield. ​

It's a very open field, and potentially quite a fertile one, IMO. And as for how Michael might fit in with that part of the picture, if at all, the possibilities are equally open. She was born in 2226 per her personnel file as examined by Voq in "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not For The Lamb's Cry" (DSC), but I don't recall it being established exactly how old she was when she was orphaned, nor precisely how long after that she became Sarek's ward, although we do know per "Lethe" (DSC) that Amanda took her to a book exchange on the seventh moon of Eridani D for her tenth birthday, which would have been in 2236. Spock was born in 2230 per Star Trek Beyond, when she would have been around four. (It's possible I'm overlooking some other references in the first season that might clarify...I'll have to pay particular attention to that when next re-watching, and going forward.)

I actually think The Final Frontier gets a bad rap from too many. Sure, it has issues, but for the most part it really serves the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate well, and overall somehow manages to recapture the "feel" of the original show better than any of the other films for me, including the goofiness (and, again, the unevenness). It's not the best, nor my favorite, but it's a worthy entry in the set, with some truly great moments.

Wow - imagine the emotional impact of Michael (inadvertently) causing Sarek’s predisposition to Bandaii syndrome - he could have a doctor inform him of this at some point. Even Sarek may struggle to contain his emotions at that news... and it would give more depth to the events we see in TNG

Personally, I would rather they didn't take it quite that far, as it might come off a little too pat and on-the-nose. I tend toward preferring it as something we can wonder about implicitly without it necessarily having to be so explicit. But that's me.

This is the only bugbear I have with all this - the “classified”, record expunged thing seemed like a cop out to me (I’m too harsh on DSC!). I’d have preferred they didn’t go near those topics at all, but ENT introduced cloaks etc so the door was opened long before DSC turned up

I think her record being expunged was an eminently logical way of handling it, and thought so from the very beginning of the show, before it ever came to pass. I quite enjoy how it takes Spock's line in "The Tholian Web" (TOS) and turns it into a deft deflection that falls perfectly in line with his numerous other "embracings of technicality" as depicted both before and after, a clever way of preserving both the original text and his character as established, while still allowing DSC to tell the story it wanted to tell. I totally support that sort of alteration.

I can understand feeling the classification of the MU being a cop-out, but really it's quite believable that Kirk and his crew (except perhaps pokerfaced Spock?) wouldn't be privy to everything...more believable than if they were, actually. I doubt the captain of any present or past naval vessel knows the full breadth of secrets, great or small, that his or her government is sitting on...not even close to it, I'd guess. So why should we think a future one would?

-MMoM

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

The shadow of it is even in the original series with Spock's ObiWan moment in the Immunity Syndrome. Whoever invented it, it's a particularly stupid concept. How two individuals who are supposedly touch telepaths can communicate in real time at light years distant with no handwavey technological explanation is lost on me. Vulcans have apparently naturally evolved the ability to break the laws of physics in a major way.

I see no reason why telepathy should need to obey the laws of physics, personally. It's a phenomenon that transcends the physical. As for the "touch" aspect, there were other occasions in TOS where this was not a strict limitation, such as "A Taste Of Armageddon" and "The Omega Glory" (TOS). Of course, we're talking wholly different orders of distance here, but perhaps your Obi-Wan comment is apt, and this is where Yoda would tell us the only difference is in the mind (no pun intended). On the other hand, there seem to be specific circumstances in each of the longer-distance cases which might prove key. The Intrepid was an entire ship full of Vulcans, so perhaps their individual abilities were working in concert and thus amplified. Trip/T'Pol and Sarek/Burnham were each intimate pairings with a special bond of one sort or another—one might even use the term "soulmates" (albeit not necessarily in the same sense for each)!

However, the presentation of Spock, and these events with Spock, has always been that they are in some way remarkable. By writing in a family member who goes through so many of the same or similar issues, it all begins to look very clumsy.

Again, which things? Bill's list really isn't of things that were unique or remarkable about Spock as an individual prior to DSC.

Spock was never interested in pursuing command himself. It was certainly not remarkable that he was a first officer. If anything, only that he was first officer of the Enterprise under Kirk, and only in hindsight from the standpoint of Janeway's era, and to mixed opinion even then. "Unification" (TNG) rather suggests it is his reputation as one of the Federation's "most celebrated Ambassadors" for which he is generally noteworthy, with his historic role in supporting Gorkon's peace initiative (at which time he was but a Federation Special Envoy, not yet a full ambassador) representing the beginning of that legacy, and most of it beyond that being still unknown to us.

Spock may well have become famous for ending the war his infamous sister (rightly or wrongly) received blame for starting, but irrespective of anything portrayed in DSC, fighting Klingons was certainly no novelty in TOS, which clearly establishes at least sporadic hostilities stretching back decades...

"Errand Of Mercy" (TOS):

KIRK: We have legitimate grievances against the Klingons! They've invaded our territory, killed our citizens! They're openly aggressive! They've boasted that they'll take over half the galaxy!
KOR: And why not? We're the stronger! You've tried to hem us in, cut off vital supplies, strangle our trade! You've been asking for war!
KIRK: You're the ones who issued the ultimatum to withdraw from the disputed areas!
KOR: They are not disputed! They're clearly ours!​

"The Trouble With Tribbles" (TOS):

KIRK: Mister Spock, immediate past history of the quadrant?
SPOCK: Under dispute between the two parties since initial contact. The Battle of Donatu V was fought near here 23 solar years ago. Inconclusive.​

Going by the example of ST'09, it's entirely possible Spock himself was the one who devised the Kobayashi Maru program in the first place, even if things weren't quite the same in the Prime Timeline. (And for that matter, perhaps here his idea of a "no-win scenario" as a test of character for headstrong upcoming cadets like Kirk was even inspired by his foster sister's experience?) At any rate, his not having taken the test was in no way remotely suggested to be unique or noteworthy in context of TWOK.

His uncharged mutinies in "This Side Of Paradise" (TOS) and "The Menagerie" (TOS) were only notable as initially presented because they were out of character for him personally; it wasn't until years later in "The Tholian Web" (TOS) that any suggestion of mutiny itself being novel arose. That was always bolted on.

Our Spock had nothing whatsoever to do with the crossover in "Mirror Mirror" (TOS), nor its aftermath in the MU; that was the Mirror Spock. (And it was his legacy which led Mirror Kira and others to know of that particular incident as an important historical "first" in "Crossover" [DS9], with our Kirk accordingly a famous figure in it.) From our side of the looking glass, this was neither Kirk's nor Spock's first experience with a parallel universe at all, with that being rather "The Alternative Factor" (TOS)...wherein it should further be noted that Spock states right up front that the possibility of their existence has already been conceded by the science of the day. (One wonders, does he perhaps know more than he's letting on in both circumstances, bound by oath of secrecy to give no more than helpful hints, like Data in "Clues" [TNG]? It's an interesting "theoretical possibility" isn't it?)

Speaking of which, with respect to time travel, like cloaking, that cat has been well and truly out of the bag since ENT. It's certainly not fair to hold that against DSC now. But in any case, no one actually implies the concept is totally unknown in "The Naked Time" (TOS) anyway. What happened there was Spock suggested trying out an untested intermix formula (not one that he himself devised, BTW) in order to facilitate Scotty's new cold-start routine of the engines, and this led to the accidental discovery that it could throw them into a time warp (presumably in conjunction with the slingshot effect portrayed later in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday"/"Assignment: Earth"/The Voyage Home, as they were spiraling toward Psi 2000 at the time). Nothing in DSC thus far reduces the novelty or significance of this. It was still unexpected, and Spock still helped to save everyone.

According to T'Pring in "Amok Time" (TOS), he was then "much known...almost a legend" among his own people, for reasons unspecified. Those reasons could be virtually anything, positive or negative. It could be because, as in the Kelvin Timeline, he was the first to decline attendance of the Science Academy. Or it could be due to his pedigree, in one sense or another. Kirk assumed his family was "important" on the indication of an apparent association with T'Pau, who herself was the first to decline a seat on the Federation Council, but the matter was never clarified. "Yesteryear" (TAS) suggests at least some Vulcans looked on Sarek as a traitor for marrying a human (although here again it's likely that, as in ST'09, Spock's peers who tormented him to this effect would have dressed up their discriminatory heckling as merely testing his emotional resolve). For all we know, Spock was "legendary" as a freak and object of intense controversy on his home planet, with T'Pau being the only one who would deign to officiate at his wedding! (Think about "only Nixon could go to China" here...)

For me one question raised by Michael as Spock’s foster sister is “what do we learn from her?”

With Spock we learn that logic and emotion have their places and are equally valid both on their own and together (on a very fundamental level- I know I could go further here). I struggle to see what can be gleaned from watching Michael struggle to be a human with a Vulcan upbringing.

She fails to understand T’Kuvma’s fanaticism and thinks that Klingon honour can be appealed to when I’m doubtful the Vulcan hello tactic would have worked at all.

She fails to convince her captain and fellow officers of her plans.

She mutinies and immediately realises how wrong she was.

She then struggles to atone for the mutiny and also to acclimatise to life on a starship with many humans. If this isn’t a product of her Vulcan upbringing then she has an introverted personality or an attitude problem (likely the former and there’s nothing wrong with that).

What do we take from her? What do we learn about starfleet, the federation, Star Trek, the human condition itself from her character?

I always felt there were lessons about humanity to learn from Spock. Does casting Michael in a similar role teach us the same things just in a modern context? As an elder (aging) millennial (sorry) I wonder whether I am supposed to see myself reflected in Micheal Burnham? If not, then who?

Disclaimer: post is not meant to sound confrontational - the sooner the internet learns to convey tone of voice the better...!

There's a lot to unpack there, but in terms of the opening two-parter...following the rules won't necessarily save you if your opponent is playing by a completely different rulebook, yet by the very same token, throwing out your rulebook and trying to play by theirs won't necessarily save you either, especially if they're more ruthless than you. Sometimes there is such a thing as a no-win scenario, and you're going to lose either way. The point of the story is to show Burnham, Starfleet, and the Federation—the people we generally expect to be the heroes who always win—utterly failing at every turn, making one poor choice after another, because there are no good choices to be made. And then the rest of the season is largely about them struggling to put the pieces back together after being laid low, and having to re-evalute themselves and their principles in the process.

the Picard show might inform us that the manoeuvre he first performed on the stargazer against the Ferengi was originally called the “Burnham manoeuvre” as she performed it first a century ago and Michael was Picard’s hero. I’m not saying that’s a good or a bad thing either way, but it could happen in order to change the “secret” status of Michael Burnham in all Trek following DSC).

I think it quite likely that she will receive reference going forward, but come on now. They wouldn't do that. (I hope not anyway!) Myself, I've found that in re-watching TNG recently, I've taken to referring facetiously to anyone who tries to be a hero by defying orders and going rogue, thinking it's the right thing to do, even though it turns out not to be—which sometimes seems to happen with alarming frequency—as "a regular Michael Burnham!"

I really think, looking back, where I knew the show was in trouble for me. "I'm going to tell you how the Vulcans beat the Klingons, but don't you use it!", to a person with PTSD over the Klingons.

It made no sense.

It did seem rather... illogical for a Vulcan.

Here again, perhaps it was a misstep on his part, as her actions were on hers; missteps and their consequences are the whole theme of that story, after all. Yet, if someone you cared for came to you asking for information upon which to base an ostensibly rational decision, even if you suspected that person might be in danger of acting irrationally, would it really be better to withhold that information from them? Would that not be equally nonsensical and illogical, and merely place them in greater danger of making a poor decision, out of ignorance? He did try to guide her towards understanding that it was a leap to think a "Vulcan Hello" would work in the present situation. The horse led to water can't be made to drink...but would keeping the horse away from the water really be an answer to that dilemma?

And with all that out of the way, I shall now pass out.

-MMoM

 

[Locutus of Bored]

The shadow of it is even in the original series with Spock's ObiWan moment in the Immunity Syndrome.
Whoever invented it, it's a particularly stupid concept. How two individuals who are supposedly touch telepaths can communicate in real time at light years distant with no handwavey technological explanation is lost on me. Vulcans have apparently naturally evolved the ability to break the laws of physics in a major way.

Spock and the Intrepid Vulcans were connected over the Mindmeldium Network. Spock became one with the Spores and was thereafter known among them as Sporck, master of interstellar telepathy and the ability to eat both soup and meat with the same utensil.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

I don't recall Saavik ever saying that. I do recall her complaining to Spock that Kirk was "so human" though.

I think that’s the bit I’m thinking of! I’d watch TWoK again but it’s not my favourite one (heretic!!! Burn him!!!). In fact I might even have been thinking of Data in “farpoint” where he tells Riker that prejudice is “very human” - so much Trek in my brain haha!

I agree that it could be very interesting indeed to explore Sybok's background and his relationship to both Sarek and Spock further, although it's probably doubtful that they will.

True - which is a shame if they don’t bring in Sybok - since DSC wants to focus on the house of Sarek it would seem to make sense... I’ll keep my fingers crossed!

it was seeing his "exceptionally gifted" eldest son rejected and "banished" by his own culture for questioning it that led Sarek to re-evaluate his own support of their dogmatic attitudes in the first place

The fact that they banished him seems illogical as well to me. Vulcans have been presented as a generally progressive and tolerant people - except where their rigid cultural norms are concerned. They’re so terrified [sic] that they’ll lose their precious logic that they’ll go so far as to actually exile someone who doesn’t fit in with the cultural norm. Segregating logical versus non logical Vulcans is a recipe for disaster - hello Romulans - and those Vulcans in Enterprise where T’Pol got that mind meld disease. The Vulcans need to get woke

We don't know the nature of Sarek's relations with Sybok's mother, referred to only as "a Vulcan princess,"

If I was to hazard a guess I’d say it could have been an arranged marriage like Spock’s was with T’Pring. I doubt the marriage to Amanda was arranged - the dialogue in “journey to Babel” doesn’t suggest that (but doesn’t preclude it either...)

I actually think The Final Frontier gets a bad rap from too many. Sure, it has issues, but for the most part it really serves the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate well, and overall somehow manages to recapture the "feel" of the original show better than any of the other films for me, including the goofiness (and, again, the unevenness). It's not the best, nor my favorite, but it's a worthy entry in the set, with some truly great moments.

Tbf I tend to agree. TFF has some nice character moments in it (“sulu look, the sun’s come out - it’s a miracle!”), it’s just that some elements of the story are a bit undercooked. Which is how I feel about some of DSC actually!

I’m sure no matter what they do in DSC or Star Trek: Picard, the debate will rage on.

Consensus among Star Trek fans is as likely as the falling of the moon...

 

[JirinPanthosa]

DSC is not a prequel to TOS, it's an unrelated story that just takes place earlier in the timeline.

 

[jaime]

DSC is not a prequel to TOS, it's an unrelated story that just takes place earlier in the timeline.

Featuring some of the same characters, same settings and...it’s a prequel at this point for sure.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Featuring some of the same characters, same settings and...it’s a prequel at this point for sure.

I feel like we're getting Pythony-pedantic here, but a prequel is not just a story that takes place in the same world but earlier, it has to specifically set up the original. Discovery is more a side story.

Just like I would not consider Fargo season 2 a prequel to season 1 just because there are some of the same characters. The stories are not directly related.

Whereas Enterprise I would consider a prequel because its goal is directly to set up the founding of the Federation.

Discovery is about as much a prequel to TOS as Frasier is a sequel to Cheers.

 

[Tuskin38]

DSC is not a prequel to TOS, it's an unrelated story that just takes place earlier in the timeline.

It fits the dictionary definition of a prequel

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Dictionary.com:

1. a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age.

That leaves it a little ambiguous whether there just has to be a single character who appears at a younger age or whether it has to be a continuation of the same story with the same characters. Yeah, Sarek appears, Spock is going to appear, but they aren't the main characters and the main narrative is not their narrative.

Anyway pulling dictionary definitions is not a strong argument when the classification in question is a recently evolving one.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I think the continuation of themes and narrative is a much more defining aspect of whether or not something is sequel/prequel, especially given the modern trend of expanding IP universes. I think there's a lot more to it than just being chronologically sequential.

I mean, imagine if WWI and WWII were both fictional movie franchises made by the same studio and same writers/directors/producers/etc and presented as being "in the same universe." Now ignoring all academic cause/effect analysis that's well beyond the scope of my analogy, would you really consider them "sequel" film series, even if say the former had appearances by Churchill, Truman and such?

 

[BillJ]

DSC is not a prequel to TOS, it's an unrelated story that just takes place earlier in the timeline.

It plays like a reboot to me. Some things are familiar, others not so much. Like their version of Pike, seems much closer to the Abrams version than "The Cage".

 

[Nerys Myk]

Dictionary.com:

1. a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age.

That leaves it a little ambiguous whether there just has to be a single character who appears at a younger age or whether it has to be a continuation of the same story with the same characters. Yeah, Sarek appears, Spock is going to appear, but they aren't the main characters and the main narrative is not their narrative.

Anyway pulling dictionary definitions is not a strong argument when the classification in question is a recently evolving one.

"Prefigure" is probably the key part of that definition, not the example of using the same characters at a younger age.
Is it really "evolving"? The word seems to be older than I am and it's pretty much meant the same thing for over half a century.

 

[Tuskin38]

Plus they only used one of the definitions

 

[F. King Daniel]

It plays like a reboot to me. Some things are familiar, others not so much. Like their version of Pike, seems much closer to the Abrams version than "The Cage".

They even aged him up with grey in his hair. Gave him a variant of Kelvin Pike's "Punch it!" over the iconic Trek "Engage!" which began with original Pike.

But with Kutzman in full control now, I'm not too surprised they'd take a stronger influence. Season two even swaps out the Disco S1 warp speed effect for the Kelvin version.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

They even aged him up with grey in his hair.

They did what now? He was already graying at the temples in "The Cage":

-MMoM