A nobody who was STILL the son of a prominent Vulcan Ambassador.
After several of us have pointed things out, you're dismissing it all in favor of "she should have been mentioned in previous series". Its making you come across as you just don't like the character PERIOD and won't listen to outside opinions on the subject to explain why Spock never talked about her.
> @rattler2 said: > luminaire#0745 wrote: » > > Not comparable. Sybok was a nobody.... > > > > > A nobody who was STILL the son of a prominent Vulcan Ambassador. > > After several of us have pointed things out, you're dismissing it all in favor of "she should have been mentioned in previous series". Its making you come across as you just don't like the character PERIOD and won't listen to outside opinions on the subject to explain why Spock never talked about her.
Spock is a very private person. I get it. However, it's not even Burnham or Spock that really irks me. It's Sarek. Take Star Trek 5 for example. We see Spock's pain and what is it. Spock's birth and what is Sarek's reaction?
Damn near disgust. But in this show he is literally jovial and doting on an adopted human? That makes ZERO sense. Gotta give me that Rattler.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Sarek wasn’t written very logical. What did he expect his son to look like being born from a human mother?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Are we sure that scene is strictly factual? My understanding was that Sybok took those fears from his followers' minds. There is no way Spock remembers his own birth.
We know from other canon sources that Spock and Sarek didn't always get along, and that [i]Spock[/i] was disgusted by his human half for much of TOS. Perhaps Spock projected his own fears/hate of his human half onto his father, which is very *cough* human *cough*.
Hell, as I noted above, Spock conveniently forgot his own two mutinies. His memory was nothing if not selective.
And "running over budget on a few episodes" =/= "hilariously over budget for entire series". If that were the case, CSI would never have cleared its first season, and any series with a "special guest star" episode would be doomed (as "special guest stars" generally demand a bit more than guild scale to appear).
Is possible Spock meant "successful" mutiny? For a Vulcan his statements are surprisingly imprecise at times.
If any of you watched " Will You Take My Hand " her record was expunged and she was returned to active duty with her rank restored.
That means there would be NO record of it.
No, that means she's been pardoned and there's no legally consequential record of it. But what she did is so well-known that common criminals have heard of it (Harry Mudd and the convicts on the shuttle in episode three), so unless you think the Men in Black came and neuralized everyone in known space, people are still going to know the mutiny happened.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
A nobody who was STILL the son of a prominent Vulcan Ambassador.
After several of us have pointed things out, you're dismissing it all in favor of "she should have been mentioned in previous series". Its making you come across as you just don't like the character PERIOD and won't listen to outside opinions on the subject to explain why Spock never talked about her.
Because everything you've "pointed" out has hinged on pretending like Spock is the only one who would know anything about Burnham, which is manifestly not the case.
Harry Mudd knew who Burnham was, the random prisoners on the transport knew who Burnham was and blamed her for the war. Spock is not the gatekeeper of Burnham knowledge.
Which is why ranting about Sybok is a red herring. Absolutely nobody outside of his family, and maybe i guess some members of the Vulcan government if they didn't like his cult, had any reason at all to know who Sybok was or anything about his background.
A whole lot of people, especially ANYONE in Starfleet, has very good reason to know exactly who Michael Burnham is, and pretty sure her rather unique background would come up even in just a cursory look. But sure, I mean, it makes sense that a bunch of random civilians instantly recognize Burnham, but why would anyone in Starfleet possibly know about the first mutineer in Starfleet history which precipitated the Battle of Binary Stars and the brutal and genocidal war with the Klingons that they nearly lost until the same mutineer ended it? Who has time for such obscure trivia?
Yes, after all we all know what a daily topic of conversation Lt. William Calley is. What day doesn't go by without an in-depth discussion of the My Lai Massacre, after all?
And how can you ever finish any conversation without bringing up Gavrilo Princip, the man with the single greatest responsibility for triggering the powder keg that was Europe and starting off World War One? Every schoolchild must be reminded daily of that name...
What I'm getting at here is that there are some people whose notoriety is such that they don't need to be mentioned over and over. Hell, Col. Green didn't get a mention in TOS until the episode where he appeared to show up - does that mean it's some huge violation of continuity? Or does it just mean that people don't talk about it endlessly?
Also, why would Kirk and Crew even mention Burnham? Because she's Spock's 'foster sister'*?
No one gave Spock serious flack when it emerged the Romulans were very similar to Vulcans, so why would anyone bring up who his 'foster sister'* was?
Also, let's be clear here, because some people have chosen to ignore this: Kirk and McCoy didn't even know Sarek was Spock's father until Journey to Babel. They may have known Burnham was Sarek's ward, but they didn't know Spock was Sarek's son, so they wouldn't have been able to make the connection.
*Inverted commas because Burnham was Sarek's ward, not his daughter. Subtle difference.
Burnham wasn't the President of the UFP, nor the leader of a Great House of the Klingon Empire, and unless you were discussing the events that led to the Klingon War, it seems unlikely her name would come up.
Also, why would Kirk and Crew even mention Burnham? Because she's Spock's 'foster sister'*?
No one gave Spock serious flack when it emerged the Romulans were very similar to Vulcans, so why would anyone bring up who his 'foster sister'* was?
Also, let's be clear here, because some people have chosen to ignore this: Kirk and McCoy didn't even know Sarek was Spock's father until Journey to Babel. They may have known Burnham was Sarek's ward, but they didn't know Spock was Sarek's son, so they wouldn't have been able to make the connection.
*Inverted commas because Burnham was Sarek's ward, not his daughter. Subtle difference.
I would argue that Sarek counts as a foster father.
for the argument about why no one on kirk's ship not knowing who burnham was well no one on discovery knew her adopted father was at first or knew she was related to spock in any way until SHE told them only philipa did at the time
lorca did mention that he did look over her record and never mentioned it at all to her in fact she had to tell him and the doctor he reaised her after her birth parents died .....
Spock is a very private person. I get it. However, it's not even Burnham or Spock that really irks me. It's Sarek. Take Star Trek 5 for example. We see Spock's pain and what is it. Spock's birth and what is Sarek's reaction?
Damn near disgust. But in this show he is literally jovial and doting on an adopted human? That makes ZERO sense. Gotta give me that Rattler.
Vulcans are not robots, first of all: it's frequently forgotten by both fans and writers that the Vulcans suppress their emotions because they're much stronger than those of most other humanoids.
As for Sarek, taking into account the fact Vulcans can seem sociopathic at times due to the above, even Spock himself thought Sarek was a terrible father. Among other things he's stuck-up and emotionally repressed even by Vulcan standards. That's why Spock getting to mind-meld with Picard in "Unification" and feel what a bit of what his father felt for him (via Picard's previous mind-meld in "Sarek") was such a big deal, Sarek having died offscreen by that point without them reconciling or even significantly speaking in decades.
Also think about something that I heard from a con panelist earlier this year: the mention from TOS that Sarek was disappointed that Spock chose to go to Starfleet Academy instead of the Vulcan Science Academy. Now combine that with the events recalled in "Lethe", where we see how the VSA board told Sarek he could either have his human foster daughter or his half-human son attend but not both, and chose to give up Burnham's slot so Spock could go, but then Spock chose to join Starfleet instead. So Sarek betrayed something his loved one had been working towards all her life, for nothing. And he never explained that to Spock (onscreen at least), because as previously mentioned, he's stuck-up and emotionally repressed even by Vulcan standards.
Literally everything about James Frain's version of Sarek makes complete sense, it just requires you to think about some very subtle and very Vulcan behaviors. Sarek is a lousy dad but he does deeply love his children and both of his human wives (we have independent confirmation via Picard), and the fact he frakked up so badly with all three kids eats at him all the way to TNG.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
This is actually a very well reasoned and argued post. I wish I could be as clear and succinct in my own posts. I will have to think on it a while before I know if I agree or not, but it is a fabulous argument.
for the argument about why no one on kirk's ship not knowing who burnham was....
Who ever made that claim? Nobody ever mentioned her, just as you can go through an entire US military deployment without ever hearing anyone mentioning the name of, say, Lt. Pat Tillman. It's not that they don't know the name, it's that the topic just doesn't come up that much.
From what I've seen in Discovery Burnham's family records are not public knowledge, so a junior member of the Enterprise crew would probably not know she had any connection to Burnham.
Only person who really was suspicious of Spock in "Balance of Terror" was Lt. Stiles a junior member of the crew, who logically wouldn't have any interest in Spocks family before the episode and wouldn't know about his connection to Burnham. As for the rest they never truly doubted Spock's loyality so brinning up Burnham even if they knew about her would be irrelevant.
All that aside, you make a good point: the setup was such that any accidental Federation contact with the sarcophagus ship was going to result in war. From the Klingon PoV it mattered not which ship, crew, or officer was there. What mattered was the "Remember the Alamo" setup they were manufacturing.
Nobody knows the name of the man who fired "The Shot Heard 'Round The World" but everyone remembers Paul Revere. Why? Advertising. Burnham's name got put out there as the 'cause' and once a rumor gets going, it never comes home.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Also, again, while it may have been known by Kirk's crew that she was Sarek's Ward, they didn't know Spock was Sarek's son until 'Journey to Babel'. That means they didn't know Spock had any connection to Burnham whatsoever, so WHY WOULD SPOCK MENTION IT?
Again, Spock never volunteered information about his family. Kirk and McCoy only learned Spock was Sarek and Amanda's son when they met them. They only learned Spock was related to T'Pau when they met her. They only learned Sybok was his half-brother when they met him.
If Kirk doesn't know Spock is the Son of Sarek, how is he supposed to know Spock is Burnham's foster-brother?
Now, the thing is, her still having a career after all that (and she does, Discovery goes to pains to show it), suggests that 'some Federation citizens are more equal than others' to a level you normally see in banana republics or Feudal states during the pre-renaissance, with friends,relatives and inlaws of high officials enjoying a much looser standard, and Starfleet having the top tier of the social hierarchy (Like party leaders in the Soviet Union).
so in a way, they did, indeed, create a 'darker, grittier' version here-the Federation is a dystopian society ruled by hereditary elites and a military junta, which preaches democracy (but you already know the outcome of evry election, and there may only be one name on the ballot.)
...
What?
Did you actually watch the show?
Okay...
Firstly, Lorca basically abducted Burnham from the Prison shuttle and 'pressed' her into service (as a specialist). Admiral What's-her-name specifically calls him out on this, making it clear that this is not typically acceptable behaviour and that Burnham had no business serving aboard a starship after her mutiny (also making it clear in the same discussion that Burnham was unfairly scapegoated for the war, so yes, it was general knowledge).
What you're ignoring here is the context that Burnham was pardoned and reinstated after saving the Federation from literally the brink of total defeat. She was awarded for redeeming herself from her disgrace, which she herself makes clear. Furthermore, by your own logic Kirk should never have commanded a ship again after TSFS. Why did he? Because he redeemed himself by literally saving the planet (and the Federation by extension). Notice the similarity here?
Finally, none of this indicates anything remotely approaching a Federation of 'hereditary elites' or of a 'military junta' anymore than Britain employing censorship and covering the country in checkpoints made Britain a dictatorship. The Federation was at war.
Korea is still at war. Vietnam was thoroughly devastated by its war, which the North won (but it turned out Stalinist Communism and the Vietnamese way of life don't really mesh, so it's not what it once was). And you're talking about civilian populations, which tend to have interests that diverge from those of deployed military personnel.
By the time of TOS, the shooting war between Federation and Empire is over (you may recall that part of the reason for the tri to Organia was to deny the Empire a beachhead that might tempt them to restart the shooting, because negotiations were apparently fairing pooly at the time), and the Federation doesn't seem to be much the worse for wear. Something that happened a decade ago, and which has since been overshadowed by so much else happening, is not going to be a daily topic for conversation aboard ship.
Or are we also going to place ENT in your hypothesized "alternate timeline", since Archer was never mentioned either? Since they never mentioned a President of the Federation, much less his name, does that indicate that Kirk served a military dictatorship? (The only leaders we ever heard from onscreen were admirals, as you may recall.)
It's a poor writer who needs his characters to exposit on every single incident from their history, even when it's not germane to the current plot, after all.
Comments
A nobody who was STILL the son of a prominent Vulcan Ambassador.
After several of us have pointed things out, you're dismissing it all in favor of "she should have been mentioned in previous series". Its making you come across as you just don't like the character PERIOD and won't listen to outside opinions on the subject to explain why Spock never talked about her.
> luminaire#0745 wrote: »
>
> Not comparable. Sybok was a nobody....
>
>
>
>
> A nobody who was STILL the son of a prominent Vulcan Ambassador.
>
> After several of us have pointed things out, you're dismissing it all in favor of "she should have been mentioned in previous series". Its making you come across as you just don't like the character PERIOD and won't listen to outside opinions on the subject to explain why Spock never talked about her.
Spock is a very private person. I get it. However, it's not even Burnham or Spock that really irks me. It's Sarek. Take Star Trek 5 for example. We see Spock's pain and what is it. Spock's birth and what is Sarek's reaction?
Damn near disgust. But in this show he is literally jovial and doting on an adopted human? That makes ZERO sense. Gotta give me that Rattler.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
We know from other canon sources that Spock and Sarek didn't always get along, and that [i]Spock[/i] was disgusted by his human half for much of TOS. Perhaps Spock projected his own fears/hate of his human half onto his father, which is very *cough* human *cough*.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
My character Tsin'xing
That means there would be NO record of it.
No, that means she's been pardoned and there's no legally consequential record of it. But what she did is so well-known that common criminals have heard of it (Harry Mudd and the convicts on the shuttle in episode three), so unless you think the Men in Black came and neuralized everyone in known space, people are still going to know the mutiny happened.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Because everything you've "pointed" out has hinged on pretending like Spock is the only one who would know anything about Burnham, which is manifestly not the case.
Harry Mudd knew who Burnham was, the random prisoners on the transport knew who Burnham was and blamed her for the war. Spock is not the gatekeeper of Burnham knowledge.
Which is why ranting about Sybok is a red herring. Absolutely nobody outside of his family, and maybe i guess some members of the Vulcan government if they didn't like his cult, had any reason at all to know who Sybok was or anything about his background.
A whole lot of people, especially ANYONE in Starfleet, has very good reason to know exactly who Michael Burnham is, and pretty sure her rather unique background would come up even in just a cursory look. But sure, I mean, it makes sense that a bunch of random civilians instantly recognize Burnham, but why would anyone in Starfleet possibly know about the first mutineer in Starfleet history which precipitated the Battle of Binary Stars and the brutal and genocidal war with the Klingons that they nearly lost until the same mutineer ended it? Who has time for such obscure trivia?
And how can you ever finish any conversation without bringing up Gavrilo Princip, the man with the single greatest responsibility for triggering the powder keg that was Europe and starting off World War One? Every schoolchild must be reminded daily of that name...
What I'm getting at here is that there are some people whose notoriety is such that they don't need to be mentioned over and over. Hell, Col. Green didn't get a mention in TOS until the episode where he appeared to show up - does that mean it's some huge violation of continuity? Or does it just mean that people don't talk about it endlessly?
No one gave Spock serious flack when it emerged the Romulans were very similar to Vulcans, so why would anyone bring up who his 'foster sister'* was?
Also, let's be clear here, because some people have chosen to ignore this: Kirk and McCoy didn't even know Sarek was Spock's father until Journey to Babel. They may have known Burnham was Sarek's ward, but they didn't know Spock was Sarek's son, so they wouldn't have been able to make the connection.
*Inverted commas because Burnham was Sarek's ward, not his daughter. Subtle difference.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Burnham wasn't the President of the UFP, nor the leader of a Great House of the Klingon Empire, and unless you were discussing the events that led to the Klingon War, it seems unlikely her name would come up.
My character Tsin'xing
lorca did mention that he did look over her record and never mentioned it at all to her in fact she had to tell him and the doctor he reaised her after her birth parents died .....
As for Sarek, taking into account the fact Vulcans can seem sociopathic at times due to the above, even Spock himself thought Sarek was a terrible father. Among other things he's stuck-up and emotionally repressed even by Vulcan standards. That's why Spock getting to mind-meld with Picard in "Unification" and feel what a bit of what his father felt for him (via Picard's previous mind-meld in "Sarek") was such a big deal, Sarek having died offscreen by that point without them reconciling or even significantly speaking in decades.
Also think about something that I heard from a con panelist earlier this year: the mention from TOS that Sarek was disappointed that Spock chose to go to Starfleet Academy instead of the Vulcan Science Academy. Now combine that with the events recalled in "Lethe", where we see how the VSA board told Sarek he could either have his human foster daughter or his half-human son attend but not both, and chose to give up Burnham's slot so Spock could go, but then Spock chose to join Starfleet instead. So Sarek betrayed something his loved one had been working towards all her life, for nothing. And he never explained that to Spock (onscreen at least), because as previously mentioned, he's stuck-up and emotionally repressed even by Vulcan standards.
Literally everything about James Frain's version of Sarek makes complete sense, it just requires you to think about some very subtle and very Vulcan behaviors. Sarek is a lousy dad but he does deeply love his children and both of his human wives (we have independent confirmation via Picard), and the fact he frakked up so badly with all three kids eats at him all the way to TNG.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
This is actually a very well reasoned and argued post. I wish I could be as clear and succinct in my own posts. I will have to think on it a while before I know if I agree or not, but it is a fabulous argument.
Only person who really was suspicious of Spock in "Balance of Terror" was Lt. Stiles a junior member of the crew, who logically wouldn't have any interest in Spocks family before the episode and wouldn't know about his connection to Burnham. As for the rest they never truly doubted Spock's loyality so brinning up Burnham even if they knew about her would be irrelevant.
Nobody knows the name of the man who fired "The Shot Heard 'Round The World" but everyone remembers Paul Revere. Why? Advertising. Burnham's name got put out there as the 'cause' and once a rumor gets going, it never comes home.
WHICH shot heard around the world? there are technically 3
i would assume the original given the paul revere mention
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Also, again, while it may have been known by Kirk's crew that she was Sarek's Ward, they didn't know Spock was Sarek's son until 'Journey to Babel'. That means they didn't know Spock had any connection to Burnham whatsoever, so WHY WOULD SPOCK MENTION IT?
Again, Spock never volunteered information about his family. Kirk and McCoy only learned Spock was Sarek and Amanda's son when they met them. They only learned Spock was related to T'Pau when they met her. They only learned Sybok was his half-brother when they met him.
If Kirk doesn't know Spock is the Son of Sarek, how is he supposed to know Spock is Burnham's foster-brother?
...
What?
Did you actually watch the show?
Okay...
Firstly, Lorca basically abducted Burnham from the Prison shuttle and 'pressed' her into service (as a specialist). Admiral What's-her-name specifically calls him out on this, making it clear that this is not typically acceptable behaviour and that Burnham had no business serving aboard a starship after her mutiny (also making it clear in the same discussion that Burnham was unfairly scapegoated for the war, so yes, it was general knowledge).
What you're ignoring here is the context that Burnham was pardoned and reinstated after saving the Federation from literally the brink of total defeat. She was awarded for redeeming herself from her disgrace, which she herself makes clear. Furthermore, by your own logic Kirk should never have commanded a ship again after TSFS. Why did he? Because he redeemed himself by literally saving the planet (and the Federation by extension). Notice the similarity here?
Finally, none of this indicates anything remotely approaching a Federation of 'hereditary elites' or of a 'military junta' anymore than Britain employing censorship and covering the country in checkpoints made Britain a dictatorship. The Federation was at war.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
By the time of TOS, the shooting war between Federation and Empire is over (you may recall that part of the reason for the tri to Organia was to deny the Empire a beachhead that might tempt them to restart the shooting, because negotiations were apparently fairing pooly at the time), and the Federation doesn't seem to be much the worse for wear. Something that happened a decade ago, and which has since been overshadowed by so much else happening, is not going to be a daily topic for conversation aboard ship.
Or are we also going to place ENT in your hypothesized "alternate timeline", since Archer was never mentioned either? Since they never mentioned a President of the Federation, much less his name, does that indicate that Kirk served a military dictatorship? (The only leaders we ever heard from onscreen were admirals, as you may recall.)
It's a poor writer who needs his characters to exposit on every single incident from their history, even when it's not germane to the current plot, after all.