This statement is BS.
Sybok in Discovery
- Thread starter Delaware123
- Start date
This statement is BS.
How so? DSC introduced a completely different vessel as the Klingon D7, which has looked the same from ENT all the way though to DS9. In the DISCOverse, that's the D7 and what we've seen for the past 50 years is as canon as Klingons with hair.
I'd be cool with it--Sybok was actually a good character. I just wish they hadn't made him Spock's "brother". I've always thought that cheapened him somehow--maybe because it was a lazy decision by the writers.
Changes in visual style and design do not "decanonize" previously-used visual styles and designs.
Not at all.
Family is a big theme of the film - and to that Spock's real family juxtaposed against his surrogate family. We see him literally go to great heights to help his surrogate brother, but the best he can muster for his real brother is to not kill him in self defense.
Then there is the whole Cain and Abel element to it.
Sure it does. The D-7 will look like this henceforth on Star Trek: Discovery. The old look no longer counts as far as TV Trek goes. It'll only appear on merchandise and maybe occasional TOS novel covers.
No, the statement is accurate
STV had plenty good things: The trio at the campfire. The new shuttles (I know, nitpick). The three ambassadors on Numbus III. "Spock" "Yes?" "You have to become one with the horse". Sybok. McCoy's father-backstory. "What does God need with a starship?" A more shabby, lived-in look at the Trek universe. Hell, even Uhuras' dance session
And it was ambitious. It introduced new concepts (Nimbus III, Sha'ka're), it was willing to go the whole theological debate route. And it dared to have an action-adventure movie NOT focused around a central villain.
It also flundered as hell. The execution - the dialogue, the acting, the vfx - were very poor at times. And it certainly is the weakest of the TOS movies. But still. It has it's merits. It's not a very great movie on it's own. But it IMO enriches the TOS-movie universe a LOT.
Mind you, that was my least favorite part of it. Nothing required the author to put anything in about it.
Is it just me or has the long-revered Trekkie ability to retcon or fit canon together left us once geekery went mainstream? Back in the 90s, we'd be like Fox Mulder pinning string and pictures to corkboards trying to make it all fit.
"Maybe D7 is a classification of ships like dreadnought or battlecruiser...."
I'd be curious to see what the brother-sister dynamic would be like.
But what's the point when The Powers That Be aren't even trying? This isn't a mistake which slipped through the cracks, it's a deliberate new visual history for Star Trek.
Those Powers That Be are only going to do more and more of the same, so you can either accept that it's something new or you're in for a world of ongoing hurt and misery trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
They were ALWAYS not trying, though.
I think the show-runners have established that the 24 houses of the Klingon Empire are very different from each other, and also have very different ships / tech. e.g. they don't all have cloaking tech. It could be that the "D-7 cruiser" we saw belongs to one of the currently-dominant houses. The classic D-7 we know and love could show up in the future.
With David Goodman indicating a Spock autobiography could be a thing, it would be interesting to see how Sybok is addressed there.
I don't hate things or people too much. It's a word I try not to use often. I hate Star Trek V. It is a stupid movie that would have been almost too bad for MSt3K, if it hasn't had Trek tacked on to it. I saw it on opening day with my lawn mowing money, and it killed trek for me. I did not regularly watch anything Trek again until Deep Space 9.
But whether I like it or not, its canon. The 2nd pilot had the Enterprise leaving the Galaxy (and a 21st century starship doing it before them). So if they want 1701A to go to the Galactic core, what can one do? Maybe they had one more good use of the spore drive. Maybe 1701A has a Bazillion decks because it's really a Tardis. Maybe the plot is the same odd "I'm an atheist but I am SUPER obsessed with God" Roddenberry plot. But its canon. Add fart jokes.
I just would like they find ways to avoid every dealing with it again. Fine, let it be canon. But never mention it, or Sybock or anything else having to do with it.
But whether I like it or not, its canon. The 2nd pilot had the Enterprise leaving the Galaxy (and a 21st century starship doing it before them). So if they want 1701A to go to the Galactic core, what can one do? Maybe they had one more good use of the spore drive. Maybe 1701A has a Bazillion decks because it's really a Tardis. Maybe the plot is the same odd "I'm an atheist but I am SUPER obsessed with God" Roddenberry plot. But its canon. Add fart jokes.
I just would like they find ways to avoid every dealing with it again. Fine, let it be canon. But never mention it, or Sybock or anything else having to do with it.
ST V is far and away my least-favorite TREK movie, but now that I think about it, I think we do need to address Sybok on DISCOVERY. If, as it seems, we're going to be delving deep into Sarek's past and family relations, we're going to have deal with his black-sheep Vulcan son at some point . .. which could be really interesting.
Just being in a bad movie doesn't make Sybok a bad character.
Just being in a bad movie doesn't make Sybok a bad character.
Similar threads
