Nope. It's part of canon, you mean it plas a little lose with continuity within that canon. If you can't use the correct words why should you be listened to?
Disco Klingons in no shape or form look like the Motion picture/tng Klingons .
TMP Klingons don't look like the ones from the rest of the TOS films and early TNG. They don't look like the ones from TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT, who don't look like the TOS/TAS ones who don't look like the KT ones.
Only L'Rell and Kol are different colours, the rest are all shades of brown. By series 2 L'Rell is now more brown and Kol's father is brown so chalk it up to the lighting. I don't know what you mean about shape. ?Do you mean the elongated skulls that only appear on a small number of them and could conceivably be hidden by their hair as is the case with L'Rell in series two? And what about their hair? Looks exactly the same as every other style of Klingon hair.
They look like fate Kelvin Klingons who ate skittles too much .
That's a good thing. The KT Klingons are the absolute pinnacle of the Klingon look. IF the DSC Klingons resemble them (and a lot do, it's mainly L'Rells house that deviates from the norm) then their onto a good thing.
In fanfiction sure. In canon no.
Klingons learnt about cloaks in ENT and will likely have taken them by force from the Xrillians or Sulaban. By DSC they are given their own cloaks by T'Kuvma as now they will actually know how to fix and maintain them as Kor does by taking his apart repeatedly until he's familiar with it. Kor does that before the Romulans even send scouting parties from their home space.
Ship designs for Klingons look nothing like the TOS/TNG designs .
Most do. The Sarcophagus does, the BortaS Bir, Qoj, they other two that look like the Qoj that I can't spell. You're also suffering from selective blindness on the Klingon ships outside of DSC that don't look like the K't'inga/Vor'cha. The ship Worf was accused of blowing up? Where's its wings eh?
The KT also doesn't look more advanced than it should. It also looks like a sequel to ENT and a prequel to what would be a KT TWoK. Except Yorktown, I'll grant that does look too advanced.
Picture on the viewer doesn’t = holographic imagine .
You've not seen TNG then. Their displays aren't 'pictures' they have a depth of field. When the camera changes position against the viewscreen the image on the inside of it shifts to show more of the room or person or whatever.
, saying Cannon is whatever seems to be in the moment nowadays!
Nope. If it's a Star Trek film or TV series it's canon. DSC is a TV series and it's canon. You still mean continuity and you clearly haven't seen Star Trek if you think DSC violated any continuity first.
Does DS9s Mirror Universe have cloaks? Does Vulcan have a moon? Is Klingon blood pink or red? Do Starships run on lithium? Make a big list of them first because they came out before DSC, start with TOS and we'll see you again in a couple of years when you're finished.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
actually, they're doing a very okay job of realigning previous canon to Discovery, not the other way around. Of course, this is mainly due to there being nobody of substance besides Michael Burnham in the entire Trek universe, everything is either explained as something she did, was done for her, or done to her, the universe revolves aruond her as demonstrated by the time-travel episode and her being involved with/related to every character of any importance, like some half-remembered 'missing link' throughout the entire setting, Burnham penetrates every aspect, she is truly the most important single character in the setting.
I thought you weren't watching the show? Or are the roommates strapping you to a chair clockwork orange style again?
I'm guessing he's still being forced into it because Spock and the search for has been the major drive in this series not Burnham. He's the one who has all the knowledge of the Red Angels and Discovery and Section 31 are looking for him not Burnham.
Has been told by YouTube Burnahm is behind every plot point and ignores every other character and their plots and agency in order to maintain that delusion.
T'Kuvma and his plan to unify the Empire have nothing to do with Burnham. Kol an his plan to take over the Empire have nothing to do with Burnham. L'Rell and her unification of the Empire have nothing to do with Burnham. The Emperor trying to find her position in a new universe have nothing to do with Burnham. Ash and Culber coming to terms with who they now are have nothing to do with Burnham. Pike getting over his guilt of sitting out the war has nothing to do with Burnham. Ariam being possessed by Brainiac has nothing to do with Burnham. Spock and the angels are only tangentially related to Burnham due to the Angel first appearing to him when she ran away. Tilly, Stammats and the spore plot have nothing to do with Burnham. Leyland being slowly usurped and his mysterious past have nothing to do with Burnham.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
> @patrickngo said: > valoreah wrote: » > > patrickngo wrote: » > > actually, they're doing a very okay job of realigning previous canon to Discovery, not the other way around. Of course, this is mainly due to there being nobody of substance besides Michael Burnham in the entire Trek universe, everything is either explained as something she did, was done for her, or done to her, the universe revolves aruond her as demonstrated by the time-travel episode and her being involved with/related to every character of any importance, like some half-remembered 'missing link' throughout the entire setting, Burnham penetrates every aspect, she is truly the most important single character in the setting. > > > > > I thought you weren't watching the show? Or are the roommates strapping you to a chair clockwork orange style again? > > > > > I'm not, I'm listening to what you fans are saying, and putting your descriptions together. Clearly Michael Burnham is the most important person in Star Trek-as in all the series, not just Discovery, for all the things she directly and indirectly connects with. Thus, canon is being adjusted to fit the character's importance in the whole of the setting, not just one series, based on arguments posed as to why all of the things in Discovery are just fine as far as whatever 'canon' exists, along with the various appearances of people and elements from other series in ways only Michael Burnham's story can fully explain, and now we've got a time-travel where the whole thing is about making sure Michael Burnham reaches adulthood, ergo, she must be the most important and significant figure in the Star Trek universe... > > based, hilariously, off the defenses put forth by her fans. I'm describing the elephant as it looks to my blind fingers.
That would explain why your response made no sense. I thought you had replied to the wrong person.
just because something is or is not stated in a prior series does not mean a follow on is throwing canon to the wind. Kirk said in one episode there were only 12 like the enterprise. so is that 12 constitution class? or 13? or only 12 ships in starfleet? dependoing on your point of view any of the three statemetns can be construed as canon. Riley said there would be a dance in the bowling alley.. was he delusional? no plan I ever saw for a connie showed a bowling alley.
In the 1960s bowling was a big thing in working class America. It's a bit less so today.
But the complaint here has to do with what we saw. Since we never saw a holodeck in TOS, it's concluded that there was no holodeck. (Incidentally, what we've seen in DSC is more of a shooting gallery than a full-on holodeck; nobody's going to be holding any beach parties or dancing the night away in what we saw aboard the Discovery.) By the same token, since we never saw a bowling alley...
Patrick, if you want to critique the show, you should perhaps try watching the show, rather than reading what people who dislike it say and assuming they're giving you a clear picture. Michael Burnham is one of the central characters of the show, yes - but the entire universe no more revolves solely around her than, say, the entirety of the United Federation of Planets revolved around Will Riker just because he was a central character in TNG. Burnham isn't even the first officer of the Discovery (that would be Saru, with Pike in command); Burnham is still a valued advisor and science officer, but not in charge of much of anything. I'm sorry it chaps your hide that someone can make a mistake and then learn from it, but I thought it was pretty clear from the outset that the only Trek series that was going to feature unchanging paragons of virtue who never committed any serious errors was TNG.
In the 1960s bowling was a big thing in working class America. It's a bit less so today.
But the complaint here has to do with what we saw. Since we never saw a holodeck in TOS, it's concluded that there was no holodeck. (Incidentally, what we've seen in DSC is more of a shooting gallery than a full-on holodeck; nobody's going to be holding any beach parties or dancing the night away in what we saw aboard the Discovery.) By the same token, since we never saw a bowling alley...
There might be a few more physical props in a Discovery-style Holodeck, but they still could dance the night away or bowl with what we saw aboard the Discovery. A beach party would be slightly more difficult. Especially, if swimming is involved. The Discovery explanation was that holographic technology was removed from the Enterprise not that there was no Discovery-style Holodecks on Starfleet ships in the 2260s. It all depends on how much influence the Captain has on entertainment and a few other practical issues.
There might be a few more physical props in a Discovery-style Holodeck, but they still could dance the night away or bowl with what we saw aboard the Discovery. A beach party would be slightly more difficult. Especially, if swimming is involved. The Discovery explanation was that holographic technology was removed from the Enterprise not that there was no Discovery-style Holodecks on Starfleet ships in the 2260s. It all depends on how much influence the Captain has on entertainment and a few other practical issues.
The only holographic technology removed from the Enterprise was the holographic communications systems. As we see in TAS, the Enterprise still has a holographic rec-room.
I never said all holographic technology was removed just that holographic technology was removed. The Enterprise could have had a Discovery-style Holodeck, but there is no evidence that it existed or if Holodecks was unique to the Discovery and maybe a few of the newer Starfleet ships. It is pure speculation when the holographic rec-room shown in TAS was installed. Also, the holographic rec-room seemed closer to the Holodeck in TNG than what Discovery had. After all, the Discovery Holodeck would not be able to trap crewmembers in a pit and hedge maze and cause a blizzard while it is possible for TNG Holodeck. So even if the Enterprise had a Holodeck in 2257, it certainly wasn't the one shown in TAS.
There might be a few more physical props in a Discovery-style Holodeck, but they still could dance the night away or bowl with what we saw aboard the Discovery. A beach party would be slightly more difficult. Especially, if swimming is involved. The Discovery explanation was that holographic technology was removed from the Enterprise not that there was no Discovery-style Holodecks on Starfleet ships in the 2260s. It all depends on how much influence the Captain has on entertainment and a few other practical issues.
The only holographic technology removed from the Enterprise was the holographic communications systems. As we see in TAS, the Enterprise still has a holographic rec-room.
I never said all holographic technology was removed just that holographic technology was removed. The Enterprise could have had a Discovery-style Holodeck, but there is no evidence that it existed or if Holodecks was unique to the Discovery and maybe a few of the newer Starfleet ships. It is pure speculation when the holographic rec-room shown in TAS was installed. Also, the holographic rec-room seemed closer to the Holodeck in TNG than what Discovery had. After all, the Discovery Holodeck would not be able to trap crewmembers in a pit and hedge maze and cause a blizzard while it is possible for TNG Holodeck. So even if the Enterprise had a Holodeck in 2257, it certainly wasn't the one shown in TAS.
Why wasn't it? We have literally no data one way or the other. Pike ordered the removal of holographic communications from Enterprise, not every trace of holographic technology - your statement would be akin to assuming that when a ship is running radio silent, they can't listen to the radio either. The systems are unrelated.
I guess this is what CaptainGeko would feel like if he read one of patrickngo "The-Devs-Hate-The-Klingons-And-PvP"-Post. An incredibly amount of assumptions and speculation presented as the only logically possible conclusion from the tiny insights and comments he gathered.
But to clarify:
There is no implication anywhere in this season of Discovery that Burnham is essential to the survival of the Federation. The only fact is that a time traveler did intervene in the past to save her, by telling - many years ago, when they both were still children - Spock where his sister ran off to.
The same time traveler also intervened to save a bunch of people from WW3 that would have died in a bombing by displacing them to a different planet where their founded a colony that survives to the present-day. The time traveler also saved a bunch of Starfleet officers from a crashed starship (or rather, its actions caused the Discovery to investigate it and find those marooned people), and also saved the Kelpians from potential extinction ,plus a number of other things where we still haven't figured out what actually went on there. Why he or she is doing it is unknown - it could be all these puzzle pieces are needed to avert a catastrophe, or they are all needed to guarantee a catastrophe. Or maybe it's just doing it out of the goodness of its heart to save a few people here and there. We don't know.
People here are speculating on what might have been different about the timeline if Burnham hadn't existed, some wonder if Burnham wasn't intended to exist in the original timeline, but it's all highly speculative, because we haven't actually seen such a timeline, unlike Tapestry. (The It's a wonderful life episode you mention).
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
But to clarify:
There is no implication anywhere in this season of Discovery that Burnham is essential to the survival of the Federation.
This is true. Burnham may hold a piece of the puzzle, but she is not the end all key to the puzzle.
All the arguments against Burnham's existence is worse than all the rants against Janeway and Archer combined. And frankly... its getting old.
Burnham's very existence has altered the original timeline that the Red Angel came from. She is the first Starfleet mutineer. She altered the outcome of the Battle at the Binary Star by killing T'Kuvma. Burnham saves a vital dilithium mining colony by figuring out how to use the Tardigrade as a navigational system and maybe a few other incidents involved with the Spore Drive depending on how quickly the Tardigrade navigational system was developed. She may or may not have caused the Spore Drive to be created and Section 31 to gain more power depending on the outcome of the Battle of the Binary Star in the original timeline. Unfortunately, war is very good at creating certain technology like the atom bomb. Burnham is responsible for unleashing Empress Georgiou on the galaxy.
So there is at least 4 ways that Burnham has altered the timeline not including the creation of the Spore Drive or Section 31 gaining more power. Since the protagonist is an individual that didn't exist as an adult in the original timeline, then there will be many more changes to the timeline due to their existence. I seriously doubt that any of these changes is why the Red Angel saved Burnham.
But to clarify:
There is no implication anywhere in this season of Discovery that Burnham is essential to the survival of the Federation.
This is true. Burnham may hold a piece of the puzzle, but she is not the end all key to the puzzle.
All the arguments against Burnham's existence is worse than all the rants against Janeway and Archer combined. And frankly... its getting old.
Burnham's very existence has altered the original timeline that the Red Angel came from. She is the first Starfleet mutineer. She altered the outcome of the Battle at the Binary Star by killing T'Kuvma. Burnham saves a vital dilithium mining colony by figuring out how to use the Tardigrade as a navigational system and maybe a few other incidents involved with the Spore Drive depending on how quickly the Tardigrade navigational system was developed. She may or may not have caused the Spore Drive to be created and Section 31 to gain more power depending on the outcome of the Battle of the Binary Star in the original timeline. Unfortunately, war is very good at creating certain technology like the atom bomb. Burnham is responsible for unleashing Empress Georgiou on the galaxy.
So there is at least 4 ways that Burnham has altered the timeline not including the creation of the Spore Drive or Section 31 gaining more power. Since the protagonist is an individual that didn't exist as an adult in the original timeline, then there will be many more changes to the timeline due to their existence. I seriously doubt that any of these changes is why the Red Angel saved Burnham.
We don't know that wouldn't have happened without her. There is nothing to suggest she is irreplaceable for any of the things she does. The Tardigrade for example is found without her in the first place, and Lorca would order someone else to study it. Maybe an extra red shirt has to die to distract it for the escape of the rest of Stamets away team. T'Kuvma and Kol fulfill similar roles in the war, even if their motivations are different, that isn't to say that it would significantly change how the war is lead, until the Battle of Pahvo.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Okay, finally got around to watching last Friday's episode.
Has it occurred to anyone that just maybe it was the Red Angel's interference that created the Prime timeline? All we know about the Red Angel's origins thus far is that it's human, wearing an extremely-advanced exosuit, which has travelled back in time to prevent the extermination of all sentient life in the Milky Way. That is the extent of our knowledge of the Angel's home timeline. For all we know, all Trek up until this point has been part of the timeline altered by the Angel.
In fact, I would submit people are getting the priorities the wrong way round: if the Angel considered Burnham vital to its stratagem, it would have revealed itself to her, not Spock. Instead, it approached Spock as a child and gave Spock the knowledge to save his foster-sister - perhaps in a bid to gain his trust. Fast-forward to DSC's present, and the Angel approaches Spock again, providing him with the locations of the red signals - positioned at locations of imminent tragedy - two months before they appear to Starfleet. It also provides Spock with a meeting place, where Spock attempts a mind-meld (chalk up yet another example of him mind-melding with an unknown entity of unknown but clearly significant telepathic power), and learns that the Angel originates from a timeline where some force destroys all known sentient life in the Galaxy (specifically, we see it destroy Earth, Andor, and at least two other worlds (I'm assuming the writers got Andor the Gas Giant mixed up with its moon Andoria, the Andorian homeworld)). The result of Spock obtaining knowledge of the future is the erosion of his foundation of logic, which causes him to become mentally dysfunctional.
The other appearances of the Angel can be interpreted as interactions with the ship which responded to the signals - in this case, Discovery. It led Discovery to the Hephaestus before the asteroid it landed on collided and was destroyed; it led Discovery to the human colony prior to its destruction by a meteor shower; it led Discovery to the sphere before its death, and then to Kaminar (though how the near-extinction event would happen without Saru's intervention with the Ba'ul is beyond me). But it's main point of contact for its intervention in this timeline has been Spock: it's mission seems to depend on Spock's help.
Since the protagonist is an individual that didn't exist as an adult in the original timeline...
Sisko didn't exist before DS9. Janeway didn't exist before Voyager. Archer didn't exist before Enterprise.
That argument makes it sound like nothing exists outside of the ship. So therefor the ONLY ship that exists in that time period is obviously Enterprise, and the only people that exist are obviously the Enterprise Crew.
The galaxy is a lot bigger than one ship and one crew. You want to know where Burnham is during TOS? Obviously not on Enterprise. By TOS she's probably a Captain in her own right commanding another ship on the other side of the Federation, and thus why we never see her in TOS. Maybe she's in command of the USS Dallas somewhere on patrol along the frontier, or maybe the USS Concordia on some survey mission.
There are any number of much more easily explainable reasons for why Burnham is never seen in TOS outside of "she is an anomaly" that make far more sense when you remember that Starfleet is not made up of just one frakkin' ship!
But to clarify:
There is no implication anywhere in this season of Discovery that Burnham is essential to the survival of the Federation.
This is true. Burnham may hold a piece of the puzzle, but she is not the end all key to the puzzle.
All the arguments against Burnham's existence is worse than all the rants against Janeway and Archer combined. And frankly... its getting old.
Burnham's very existence has altered the original timeline that the Red Angel came from. She is the first Starfleet mutineer. She altered the outcome of the Battle at the Binary Star by killing T'Kuvma. Burnham saves a vital dilithium mining colony by figuring out how to use the Tardigrade as a navigational system and maybe a few other incidents involved with the Spore Drive depending on how quickly the Tardigrade navigational system was developed. She may or may not have caused the Spore Drive to be created and Section 31 to gain more power depending on the outcome of the Battle of the Binary Star in the original timeline. Unfortunately, war is very good at creating certain technology like the atom bomb. Burnham is responsible for unleashing Empress Georgiou on the galaxy.
So there is at least 4 ways that Burnham has altered the timeline not including the creation of the Spore Drive or Section 31 gaining more power. Since the protagonist is an individual that didn't exist as an adult in the original timeline, then there will be many more changes to the timeline due to their existence. I seriously doubt that any of these changes is why the Red Angel saved Burnham.
We don't know that wouldn't have happened without her. There is nothing to suggest she is irreplaceable for any of the things she does. The Tardigrade for example is found without her in the first place, and Lorca would order someone else to study it. Maybe an extra red shirt has to die to distract it for the escape of the rest of Stamets away team. T'Kuvma and Kol fulfill similar roles in the war, even if their motivations are different, that isn't to say that it would significantly change how the war is lead, until the Battle of Pahvo.
Which is why I limited her involvment with the Tardigrade to the mining colony and not another event. Stamets or someone else could have figured out how they could use the Tardigrade as a navigation system, but not in time to save the mining colony. Changing the Klingon leader would change the war since Kol and T'Kuvma would make different decisions.
Burnham's very existence has altered the original timeline that the Red Angel came from. She is the first Starfleet mutineer. She altered the outcome of the Battle at the Binary Star by killing T'Kuvma. Burnham saves a vital dilithium mining colony by figuring out how to use the Tardigrade as a navigational system and maybe a few other incidents involved with the Spore Drive depending on how quickly the Tardigrade navigational system was developed. She may or may not have caused the Spore Drive to be created and Section 31 to gain more power depending on the outcome of the Battle of the Binary Star in the original timeline. Unfortunately, war is very good at creating certain technology like the atom bomb. Burnham is responsible for unleashing Empress Georgiou on the galaxy.
So there is at least 4 ways that Burnham has altered the timeline not including the creation of the Spore Drive or Section 31 gaining more power. Since the protagonist is an individual that didn't exist as an adult in the original timeline, then there will be many more changes to the timeline due to their existence. I seriously doubt that any of these changes is why the Red Angel saved Burnham.
^ Complete and utter nonsense. This is like reading a Midnight's Edge post.
How so? We have at least four instances where Burnham changed the original timeline that the Red Angel came from.
Since the protagonist is an individual that didn't exist as an adult in the original timeline...
Sisko didn't exist before DS9. Janeway didn't exist before Voyager. Archer didn't exist before Enterprise.
That argument makes it sound like nothing exists outside of the ship. So therefor the ONLY ship that exists in that time period is obviously Enterprise, and the only people that exist are obviously the Enterprise Crew.
The galaxy is a lot bigger than one ship and one crew. You want to know where Burnham is during TOS? Obviously not on Enterprise. By TOS she's probably a Captain in her own right commanding another ship on the other side of the Federation, and thus why we never see her in TOS. Maybe she's in command of the USS Dallas somewhere on patrol along the frontier, or maybe the USS Concordia on some survey mission.
There are any number of much more easily explainable reasons for why Burnham is never seen in TOS outside of "she is an anomaly" that make far more sense when you remember that Starfleet is not made up of just one frakkin' ship!
You have misread what I have said. We have two timelines in Discovery, the original timeline that the Red Angel came from where Burnham was killed or severely injured as a child and we have the Discovery timeline where Burnham was saved by the Red Angel. I have never said that Sisko, Janeway, and Archer never existed before their shows since Burnham's situation is completely different from their situation. The timeline was changed for Burnham to be a Starfleet Officer while Sisko, Janeway, and Archer weren't involved in some timeline change as a kid as far as we know. We don't know where Burnham was in TOS, but she was certainly not a Starfleet Officer in the original timeline that the Red Angel came from.
You have misread what I have said. We have two timelines in Discovery, the original timeline that the Red Angel came from where Burnham was killed or severely injured as a child and we have the Discovery timeline where Burnham was saved by the Red Angel. I have never said that Sisko, Janeway, and Archer never existed before their shows since Burnham's situation is completely different from their situation. The timeline was changed for Burnham to be a Starfleet Officer while Sisko, Janeway, and Archer weren't involved in some timeline change as a kid as far as we know. We don't know where Burnham was in TOS, but she was certainly not a Starfleet Officer in the original timeline that the Red Angel came from.
We don't KNOW what Burnham was doing in TOS. At all. So one cannot say for a fact she was not in Starfleet.
All we know is that the Red Angel is trying to prevent galactic armeggedon. Honestly no different than sending Archer and the NX-01 to stop the Xindi from destroying Earth, which in turn would have prevented the formation of the Federation.
What we are seeing is clearly a case of nudging key people in the right direction to prevent a disaster. Not seeing Burnham in TOS is not evidence of absense. It is absence of evidence, which means there is no evidence to draw any conclusion.
Saying that Burnham is not in Starfleet because we never saw her is the same as going into a house for a paranormal investigation, finding no evidence of any activity, and saying "Yes it's haunted because the ghost didn't reveal itself to us". With nothing to back it up.
The most plausible theory is that the Red Angel is trying to preserve the timeline with as little direct interaction as possible. Nudging here and there to ensure everything goes as it should, which would lead into TOS and not oblivion. And as I said earlier, the reason we never see Burnham in TOS is because she's on a ship that never interacted with USS Enterprise in TOS.
I'm starting to think starkaos comes from an alternate timeline. It's the only explanation as to how he's managing to watch a different show to everybody else.
In the Prime Timeline Burnham has created zero temporal anomalies. In the Starkaos Timeline she's Barry Allen, Doc Brown, and The Doctor all rolled into one.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
We don't know where Burnham was in TOS, but she was certainly not a Starfleet Officer in the original timeline that the Red Angel came from.
Nor were Kirk, Sisko, Picard, or Janeway, since the Red Angel's timeline has all the major Federation worlds being blown up.
We don't know when all the major Federation worlds were blown up in the Red Angel's timeline. It could have happened 500 years or 1000 years from now. Although, it is possible that the destruction schedule has been accelerated due to Airiam being infected and likely sending out that signal.
You have misread what I have said. We have two timelines in Discovery, the original timeline that the Red Angel came from where Burnham was killed or severely injured as a child and we have the Discovery timeline where Burnham was saved by the Red Angel. I have never said that Sisko, Janeway, and Archer never existed before their shows since Burnham's situation is completely different from their situation. The timeline was changed for Burnham to be a Starfleet Officer while Sisko, Janeway, and Archer weren't involved in some timeline change as a kid as far as we know. We don't know where Burnham was in TOS, but she was certainly not a Starfleet Officer in the original timeline that the Red Angel came from.
We don't KNOW what Burnham was doing in TOS. At all. So one cannot say for a fact she was not in Starfleet.
All we know is that the Red Angel is trying to prevent galactic armeggedon. Honestly no different than sending Archer and the NX-01 to stop the Xindi from destroying Earth, which in turn would have prevented the formation of the Federation.
What we are seeing is clearly a case of nudging key people in the right direction to prevent a disaster. Not seeing Burnham in TOS is not evidence of absense. It is absence of evidence, which means there is no evidence to draw any conclusion.
Saying that Burnham is not in Starfleet because we never saw her is the same as going into a house for a paranormal investigation, finding no evidence of any activity, and saying "Yes it's haunted because the ghost didn't reveal itself to us". With nothing to back it up.
The most plausible theory is that the Red Angel is trying to preserve the timeline with as little direct interaction as possible. Nudging here and there to ensure everything goes as it should, which would lead into TOS and not oblivion. And as I said earlier, the reason we never see Burnham in TOS is because she's on a ship that never interacted with USS Enterprise in TOS.
If the timeline that the Red Angel came from is TOS timeline, then Burnham was never a Starfleet Officer in TOS, but there is no evidence that the Red Angel came from TOS timeline. All we know is that Burnham was not a Starfleet Officer in the Red Angel's original timeline. Since we don't know what timeline the Red Angel came from, then it is irrelevant where Burnham was during TOS.
That seems to be an ongoing theme here. Your suggestion is no different than the plot of Butterfly from the Iconian arc. The only difference is that the part of a chunk of space rock is being played by Micheal Burnham. I see everyone would rather indulge in personal attacks then actually read what you said.
The bigger question is "Why do you care?". Star Trek has one (or more) Time Illuminati organizations who's primary role is to prevent "unregulated" changes to the timeline. The only changes that happen, are allowed so as to cultivate the desired future. Since everything is already pre-determined, where is the risk? The stakes? Once it became "oh, it's a timey-whimey plot", it killed any sense of suspense since the Time Illuminati won't allow changes outside of a pre-determined outcome.
Comments
And yet people are trying with you. You've not actually countered any response just dribbled more stupid onto your idiotic tangent.
Nope. It's part of canon, you mean it plas a little lose with continuity within that canon. If you can't use the correct words why should you be listened to?
TMP Klingons don't look like the ones from the rest of the TOS films and early TNG. They don't look like the ones from TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT, who don't look like the TOS/TAS ones who don't look like the KT ones.
Only L'Rell and Kol are different colours, the rest are all shades of brown. By series 2 L'Rell is now more brown and Kol's father is brown so chalk it up to the lighting. I don't know what you mean about shape. ?Do you mean the elongated skulls that only appear on a small number of them and could conceivably be hidden by their hair as is the case with L'Rell in series two? And what about their hair? Looks exactly the same as every other style of Klingon hair.
That's a good thing. The KT Klingons are the absolute pinnacle of the Klingon look. IF the DSC Klingons resemble them (and a lot do, it's mainly L'Rells house that deviates from the norm) then their onto a good thing.
In fanfiction sure. In canon no.
Klingons learnt about cloaks in ENT and will likely have taken them by force from the Xrillians or Sulaban. By DSC they are given their own cloaks by T'Kuvma as now they will actually know how to fix and maintain them as Kor does by taking his apart repeatedly until he's familiar with it. Kor does that before the Romulans even send scouting parties from their home space.
Go on, give me the timestamp from the episode that says 'Klingons got cloaks from Romulans'.
Most do. The Sarcophagus does, the BortaS Bir, Qoj, they other two that look like the Qoj that I can't spell. You're also suffering from selective blindness on the Klingon ships outside of DSC that don't look like the K't'inga/Vor'cha. The ship Worf was accused of blowing up? Where's its wings eh?
So do a lot of people. It's not relevant to your argument though. I despise the Excelsior Class but Star Trek III is still canon.
Nope. It looks more advanced than TOS but fits right in as sequel to ENT and a prequel to TWoK.
The KT also doesn't look more advanced than it should. It also looks like a sequel to ENT and a prequel to what would be a KT TWoK. Except Yorktown, I'll grant that does look too advanced.
You've not seen TNG then. Their displays aren't 'pictures' they have a depth of field. When the camera changes position against the viewscreen the image on the inside of it shifts to show more of the room or person or whatever.
That's good because you're not given a single point why anybody should. Must try harder.
Nope. If it's a Star Trek film or TV series it's canon. DSC is a TV series and it's canon. You still mean continuity and you clearly haven't seen Star Trek if you think DSC violated any continuity first.
Does DS9s Mirror Universe have cloaks? Does Vulcan have a moon? Is Klingon blood pink or red? Do Starships run on lithium? Make a big list of them first because they came out before DSC, start with TOS and we'll see you again in a couple of years when you're finished.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I'm guessing he's still being forced into it because Spock and the search for has been the major drive in this series not Burnham. He's the one who has all the knowledge of the Red Angels and Discovery and Section 31 are looking for him not Burnham.
Has been told by YouTube Burnahm is behind every plot point and ignores every other character and their plots and agency in order to maintain that delusion.
T'Kuvma and his plan to unify the Empire have nothing to do with Burnham. Kol an his plan to take over the Empire have nothing to do with Burnham. L'Rell and her unification of the Empire have nothing to do with Burnham. The Emperor trying to find her position in a new universe have nothing to do with Burnham. Ash and Culber coming to terms with who they now are have nothing to do with Burnham. Pike getting over his guilt of sitting out the war has nothing to do with Burnham. Ariam being possessed by Brainiac has nothing to do with Burnham. Spock and the angels are only tangentially related to Burnham due to the Angel first appearing to him when she ran away. Tilly, Stammats and the spore plot have nothing to do with Burnham. Leyland being slowly usurped and his mysterious past have nothing to do with Burnham.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
> valoreah wrote: »
>
> patrickngo wrote: »
>
> actually, they're doing a very okay job of realigning previous canon to Discovery, not the other way around. Of course, this is mainly due to there being nobody of substance besides Michael Burnham in the entire Trek universe, everything is either explained as something she did, was done for her, or done to her, the universe revolves aruond her as demonstrated by the time-travel episode and her being involved with/related to every character of any importance, like some half-remembered 'missing link' throughout the entire setting, Burnham penetrates every aspect, she is truly the most important single character in the setting.
>
>
>
>
> I thought you weren't watching the show? Or are the roommates strapping you to a chair clockwork orange style again?
>
>
>
>
> I'm not, I'm listening to what you fans are saying, and putting your descriptions together. Clearly Michael Burnham is the most important person in Star Trek-as in all the series, not just Discovery, for all the things she directly and indirectly connects with. Thus, canon is being adjusted to fit the character's importance in the whole of the setting, not just one series, based on arguments posed as to why all of the things in Discovery are just fine as far as whatever 'canon' exists, along with the various appearances of people and elements from other series in ways only Michael Burnham's story can fully explain, and now we've got a time-travel where the whole thing is about making sure Michael Burnham reaches adulthood, ergo, she must be the most important and significant figure in the Star Trek universe...
>
> based, hilariously, off the defenses put forth by her fans. I'm describing the elephant as it looks to my blind fingers.
That would explain why your response made no sense. I thought you had replied to the wrong person.
Patrick, if you want to critique the show, you should perhaps try watching the show, rather than reading what people who dislike it say and assuming they're giving you a clear picture. Michael Burnham is one of the central characters of the show, yes - but the entire universe no more revolves solely around her than, say, the entirety of the United Federation of Planets revolved around Will Riker just because he was a central character in TNG. Burnham isn't even the first officer of the Discovery (that would be Saru, with Pike in command); Burnham is still a valued advisor and science officer, but not in charge of much of anything. I'm sorry it chaps your hide that someone can make a mistake and then learn from it, but I thought it was pretty clear from the outset that the only Trek series that was going to feature unchanging paragons of virtue who never committed any serious errors was TNG.
There might be a few more physical props in a Discovery-style Holodeck, but they still could dance the night away or bowl with what we saw aboard the Discovery. A beach party would be slightly more difficult. Especially, if swimming is involved. The Discovery explanation was that holographic technology was removed from the Enterprise not that there was no Discovery-style Holodecks on Starfleet ships in the 2260s. It all depends on how much influence the Captain has on entertainment and a few other practical issues.
I never said all holographic technology was removed just that holographic technology was removed. The Enterprise could have had a Discovery-style Holodeck, but there is no evidence that it existed or if Holodecks was unique to the Discovery and maybe a few of the newer Starfleet ships. It is pure speculation when the holographic rec-room shown in TAS was installed. Also, the holographic rec-room seemed closer to the Holodeck in TNG than what Discovery had. After all, the Discovery Holodeck would not be able to trap crewmembers in a pit and hedge maze and cause a blizzard while it is possible for TNG Holodeck. So even if the Enterprise had a Holodeck in 2257, it certainly wasn't the one shown in TAS.
But to clarify:
There is no implication anywhere in this season of Discovery that Burnham is essential to the survival of the Federation. The only fact is that a time traveler did intervene in the past to save her, by telling - many years ago, when they both were still children - Spock where his sister ran off to.
The same time traveler also intervened to save a bunch of people from WW3 that would have died in a bombing by displacing them to a different planet where their founded a colony that survives to the present-day. The time traveler also saved a bunch of Starfleet officers from a crashed starship (or rather, its actions caused the Discovery to investigate it and find those marooned people), and also saved the Kelpians from potential extinction ,plus a number of other things where we still haven't figured out what actually went on there. Why he or she is doing it is unknown - it could be all these puzzle pieces are needed to avert a catastrophe, or they are all needed to guarantee a catastrophe. Or maybe it's just doing it out of the goodness of its heart to save a few people here and there. We don't know.
People here are speculating on what might have been different about the timeline if Burnham hadn't existed, some wonder if Burnham wasn't intended to exist in the original timeline, but it's all highly speculative, because we haven't actually seen such a timeline, unlike Tapestry. (The It's a wonderful life episode you mention).
This is true. Burnham may hold a piece of the puzzle, but she is not the end all key to the puzzle.
All the arguments against Burnham's existence is worse than all the rants against Janeway and Archer combined. And frankly... its getting old.
Burnham's very existence has altered the original timeline that the Red Angel came from. She is the first Starfleet mutineer. She altered the outcome of the Battle at the Binary Star by killing T'Kuvma. Burnham saves a vital dilithium mining colony by figuring out how to use the Tardigrade as a navigational system and maybe a few other incidents involved with the Spore Drive depending on how quickly the Tardigrade navigational system was developed. She may or may not have caused the Spore Drive to be created and Section 31 to gain more power depending on the outcome of the Battle of the Binary Star in the original timeline. Unfortunately, war is very good at creating certain technology like the atom bomb. Burnham is responsible for unleashing Empress Georgiou on the galaxy.
So there is at least 4 ways that Burnham has altered the timeline not including the creation of the Spore Drive or Section 31 gaining more power. Since the protagonist is an individual that didn't exist as an adult in the original timeline, then there will be many more changes to the timeline due to their existence. I seriously doubt that any of these changes is why the Red Angel saved Burnham.
Has it occurred to anyone that just maybe it was the Red Angel's interference that created the Prime timeline? All we know about the Red Angel's origins thus far is that it's human, wearing an extremely-advanced exosuit, which has travelled back in time to prevent the extermination of all sentient life in the Milky Way. That is the extent of our knowledge of the Angel's home timeline. For all we know, all Trek up until this point has been part of the timeline altered by the Angel.
In fact, I would submit people are getting the priorities the wrong way round: if the Angel considered Burnham vital to its stratagem, it would have revealed itself to her, not Spock. Instead, it approached Spock as a child and gave Spock the knowledge to save his foster-sister - perhaps in a bid to gain his trust. Fast-forward to DSC's present, and the Angel approaches Spock again, providing him with the locations of the red signals - positioned at locations of imminent tragedy - two months before they appear to Starfleet. It also provides Spock with a meeting place, where Spock attempts a mind-meld (chalk up yet another example of him mind-melding with an unknown entity of unknown but clearly significant telepathic power), and learns that the Angel originates from a timeline where some force destroys all known sentient life in the Galaxy (specifically, we see it destroy Earth, Andor, and at least two other worlds (I'm assuming the writers got Andor the Gas Giant mixed up with its moon Andoria, the Andorian homeworld)). The result of Spock obtaining knowledge of the future is the erosion of his foundation of logic, which causes him to become mentally dysfunctional.
The other appearances of the Angel can be interpreted as interactions with the ship which responded to the signals - in this case, Discovery. It led Discovery to the Hephaestus before the asteroid it landed on collided and was destroyed; it led Discovery to the human colony prior to its destruction by a meteor shower; it led Discovery to the sphere before its death, and then to Kaminar (though how the near-extinction event would happen without Saru's intervention with the Ba'ul is beyond me). But it's main point of contact for its intervention in this timeline has been Spock: it's mission seems to depend on Spock's help.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Sisko didn't exist before DS9. Janeway didn't exist before Voyager. Archer didn't exist before Enterprise.
That argument makes it sound like nothing exists outside of the ship. So therefor the ONLY ship that exists in that time period is obviously Enterprise, and the only people that exist are obviously the Enterprise Crew.
The galaxy is a lot bigger than one ship and one crew. You want to know where Burnham is during TOS? Obviously not on Enterprise. By TOS she's probably a Captain in her own right commanding another ship on the other side of the Federation, and thus why we never see her in TOS. Maybe she's in command of the USS Dallas somewhere on patrol along the frontier, or maybe the USS Concordia on some survey mission.
There are any number of much more easily explainable reasons for why Burnham is never seen in TOS outside of "she is an anomaly" that make far more sense when you remember that Starfleet is not made up of just one frakkin' ship!
Which is why I limited her involvment with the Tardigrade to the mining colony and not another event. Stamets or someone else could have figured out how they could use the Tardigrade as a navigation system, but not in time to save the mining colony. Changing the Klingon leader would change the war since Kol and T'Kuvma would make different decisions.
How so? We have at least four instances where Burnham changed the original timeline that the Red Angel came from.
You have misread what I have said. We have two timelines in Discovery, the original timeline that the Red Angel came from where Burnham was killed or severely injured as a child and we have the Discovery timeline where Burnham was saved by the Red Angel. I have never said that Sisko, Janeway, and Archer never existed before their shows since Burnham's situation is completely different from their situation. The timeline was changed for Burnham to be a Starfleet Officer while Sisko, Janeway, and Archer weren't involved in some timeline change as a kid as far as we know. We don't know where Burnham was in TOS, but she was certainly not a Starfleet Officer in the original timeline that the Red Angel came from.
We don't KNOW what Burnham was doing in TOS. At all. So one cannot say for a fact she was not in Starfleet.
All we know is that the Red Angel is trying to prevent galactic armeggedon. Honestly no different than sending Archer and the NX-01 to stop the Xindi from destroying Earth, which in turn would have prevented the formation of the Federation.
What we are seeing is clearly a case of nudging key people in the right direction to prevent a disaster. Not seeing Burnham in TOS is not evidence of absense. It is absence of evidence, which means there is no evidence to draw any conclusion.
Saying that Burnham is not in Starfleet because we never saw her is the same as going into a house for a paranormal investigation, finding no evidence of any activity, and saying "Yes it's haunted because the ghost didn't reveal itself to us". With nothing to back it up.
The most plausible theory is that the Red Angel is trying to preserve the timeline with as little direct interaction as possible. Nudging here and there to ensure everything goes as it should, which would lead into TOS and not oblivion. And as I said earlier, the reason we never see Burnham in TOS is because she's on a ship that never interacted with USS Enterprise in TOS.
In the Prime Timeline Burnham has created zero temporal anomalies. In the Starkaos Timeline she's Barry Allen, Doc Brown, and The Doctor all rolled into one.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
We don't know when all the major Federation worlds were blown up in the Red Angel's timeline. It could have happened 500 years or 1000 years from now. Although, it is possible that the destruction schedule has been accelerated due to Airiam being infected and likely sending out that signal.
If the timeline that the Red Angel came from is TOS timeline, then Burnham was never a Starfleet Officer in TOS, but there is no evidence that the Red Angel came from TOS timeline. All we know is that Burnham was not a Starfleet Officer in the Red Angel's original timeline. Since we don't know what timeline the Red Angel came from, then it is irrelevant where Burnham was during TOS.
The bigger question is "Why do you care?". Star Trek has one (or more) Time Illuminati organizations who's primary role is to prevent "unregulated" changes to the timeline. The only changes that happen, are allowed so as to cultivate the desired future. Since everything is already pre-determined, where is the risk? The stakes? Once it became "oh, it's a timey-whimey plot", it killed any sense of suspense since the Time Illuminati won't allow changes outside of a pre-determined outcome.