Plus ENT went out of its way to directly reference the Eugenics Wars on multiple other occasions so them not bringing them up when visiting Detroit in the year 2004 is fine.
So, just to clear up this logic trainwreck, you only care about DSC, the show that brought back Spock, Pike, Number One, the Enterprise, Sarek, Amanda, Vina, Mudd, gave Spock an adopted sister instead of creating an unrelated character so they could have an excuse to revisit him and Sarek, spent an entire season incorporating Pike's crew and ship into the narrative, went to the Mirror Universe for the umpteenth time, had another conflict with the Klingons for the umpteenth time, brought back Section 31, etc., but THE VERY SHOW DSC SPENT A SEASON SETTING UP TO TAKE PLACE IN THIS ERA is dipping too far into the "nostalgia card" well for you to deal with by reintroducing a few recognizable contemporary characters who actually served on the Enterprise before (in TOS) so sort of make sense if you fudge the details a bit?
I like DSC too, but it's got tons of playing the "nostalgia card", so citing that an excuse for dropping this show, when by its very premise and full season of development on Disco you should have already known it was going to play upon nostalgia and bringing back recognizable TOS characters, doesn't make a ounce of sense.
The point should be whether they do something new and interesting and more fully developed with those characters versus their original depictions in TOS, and that should be the litmus test of whether it was wrong or not to use the "nostalgia card" that shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. I think Uhura, Chapel, and M'Benga have a lot of room to grow and do something fresh and exciting with the characters, and I look forward to it. You shouldn't be so kneejerk close-minded about it.
With Strange New Worlds, I see no logic or reasoning behind the inclusion of Uhura, Chapel, and M'Benga other than nostalgically pandering to people who are only fans of the original Star Trek, and I don't care enough about '60s Trek to want to support that kind of philosophy.
DSC's nods to the past make sense narratively and logistically, and the series is so significantly different from previous Star Trek in its format and presentation that said nods are offset.
With Strange New Worlds, I see no logic or reasoning behind the inclusion of Uhura, Chapel, and M'Benga other than nostalgically pandering to people who are only fans of the original Star Trek, and I don't care enough about '60s Trek to want to support that kind of philosophy.
There was the aforementioned DY-100 rocket with boosters in Rain Robinson's office, so they didn't totally ignore the existence of things related to the Eugenics Wars, they just chose not to have it be a part of the episode because it would have been confusing for new viewers and out of sync with our reality.Then Voyager traveled back in time to 1996, literally the climax of the Eugenics Wars, and no mention was made of them.
Tying Burnham to Spock is a decision in the same vein as including McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint, Picard and the Enterprise-D in Emissary, and Quark and the DS9 station in Caretaker.
With SNW, you've already got that kind of link pre-baked into things with Pike, Spock, and Una; you don't need to add more legacy characters solely because they have a history of association with the original Enterprise.
That's a very nice arbitrary set of standards that you just pulled out of the hind end of space (to borrow from Mr. Adventure) to justify your glaring double-standard regarding DSC's vs. SNW's use of the so-called "nostalgia card".DSC's nods to the past make sense narratively and logistically, and the series is so significantly different from previous Star Trek in its format and presentation that said nods are offset.
Perhaps there's a chance to give some positive and familiar black and women role models more development on the screen for a new generation, without some of the sexist baggage of the 60s?With Strange New Worlds, I see no logic or reasoning behind the inclusion of Uhura, Chapel, and M'Benga other than nostalgically pandering to people who are only fans of the original Star Trek, and I don't care enough about '60s Trek to want to support that kind of philosophy.
There are differences between cameo appearances and forcing characters into a story that really didn't need to be there and could have been interchanged with new characters.Tying Burnham to Spock is a decision in the same vein as including McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint, Picard and the Enterprise-D in Emissary, and Quark and the DS9 station in Caretaker.
With SNW, you've already got that kind of link pre-baked into things with Pike, Spock, and Una; you don't need to add more legacy characters solely because they have a history of association with the original Enterprise.
I didn't realize Dr. McCoy was secretly Dr. Pulaski's grandfather from a brief relationship with Dr. Ann Mulhall or Dr. Miranda Jones, and that he returned to TNG throughout Season Two to have awkward confrontations and then reconciliation with his granddaughter. Oh wait, that didn't happen and they're nothing alike, because one is just a cameo, and the other is a defining part of a wholly new character's identity that they constantly referenced and even brought her brother back on the show for a season to deal with.Tying Burnham to Spock is a decision in the same vein as including McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint, Picard and the Enterprise-D in Emissary, and Quark and the DS9 station in Caretaker.
Need's got nothing to do with it. You don't need to use Pike and the Enterprise, either. But it's fun, and it gives you a chance to flesh out the character more and do something new and interesting with them. Just as they can do with M'Benga, Chapel, and Uhura.With SNW, you've already got that kind of link pre-baked into things with Pike, Spock, and Una; you don't need to add more legacy characters solely because they have a history of association with the original Enterprise.
Sarek wasn't an one off hand off character like McCoy, Picard and Quark. He was a reoccurring character, who along with Amanda figured greatly in the plot. Similarly, Harry Mudd figured greatly in two episodes. So how are those not "pandering"?Tying Burnham to Spock is a decision in the same vein as including McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint, Picard and the Enterprise-D in Emissary, and Quark and the DS9 station in Caretaker.
With SNW, you've already got that kind of link pre-baked into things with Pike, Spock, and Una; you don't need to add more legacy characters solely because they have a history of association with the original Enterprise.
Failed at that for me since Burnham's interactions with Sarek and Spock and Amanda are probably among my favorites out of Discovery. Not for nostalgia but seeing these characters in a new light.But Burnham being an adopted sister of Spock really had no purpose other than to grab Trek fans with a dose of nostalgia and try to get them to watch.
Tying Burnham to Spock is a decision in the same vein as including McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint, Picard and the Enterprise-D in Emissary, and Quark and the DS9 station in Caretaker.
With SNW, you've already got that kind of link pre-baked into things with Pike, Spock, and Una; you don't need to add more legacy characters solely because they have a history of association with the original Enterprise.
Fuck, no. McCoy wasn't even name-dropped in TNG after "Farpoint."Tying Burnham to Spock is a decision in the same vein as including McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint
Fuck, no. McCoy wasn't even name-dropped in TNG after "Farpoint."
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.