Editorial: Spock Having A Sister In ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Is Not That Big Of A Deal

Michael Burnham and Spock

A lot of news came out of Comic-Con last week, but probably none bigger than the reveal that Michael Burnham, the main character on Star Trek: Discovery, was raised on Vulcan by Sarek and Amanda.

Wait–what? Spock has a sister?

All of us who know our Star Trek canon were surprised by the news that Spock has a sibling we’ve never heard about before. Michael Burnham, it turns out, was adopted by Sarek and Amanda after her parents were killed, and that makes her Spock’s sister. (And she’s not his not half sister or stepsister as various websites claimed; an adopted sister is a sister.)

Some unhappy voices rose in the Trek community. What? That’s not possible! We would have known! But I disagree. I think it’s entirely plausible that Spock could’ve had a human sister he never mentioned, and it doesn’t violate canon or challenge anything we’ve ever known about him before. I’m going to explain why.

Sonequa Martin-Green gives the Vulcan salute at SDCC 2017

Spock never mentioned his brother Sybok, either

Okay, let’s get Sybok out of the way first. (He’s not my whole argument by any means, so stick around.) In Star Trek V: The Final Frontier—hardly a fan favorite, but it does have some fun moments—we meet Spock’s half brother, son of Sarek, whom we’ve never heard of before. Kirk is shocked, especially when Spock explains that they were raised together, as brothers. “Sybok couldn’t possibly be your brother because I happen to know for a fact that you don’t have a brother,” Kirk says. He’s sure of it. When Spock explains the situation, Kirk—who let’s not forget, sees Spock as a brother to him—is shocked that he never knew about it, and McCoy says, tellingly, “Spock, you never cease to amaze me.”

Spock: “I was not disposed to discuss matters of a personal nature.”

Sybok and Spock in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Sybok, Spock’s half brother, was never mentioned before Star Trek V.

Spock also didn’t reveal who his parents were

Let’s go further back, to The Original Series, season two, and “Journey to Babel.” The Vulcan ambassador and his wife come aboard, and Kirk asks Spock if he wants to beam down to Vulcan while they’re there to see his parents. “Captain,” Spock tells him, “Ambassador Sarek and his wife are my parents.” Kirk, who risked his career to bring Spock to Vulcan for pon farr and then his life to save him from a battle to the death with Stonn (“Amok Time”), had no idea, because Spock never mentioned it. He also never told anyone he was engaged to T’Pring until she was staring them all in the face on the Enterprise viewscreen.

Kirk and McCoy had witnessed one of Vulcan’s most sacred, private rituals, and still didn’t know that Spock’s parents were the representatives from Vulcan coming aboard the Enterprise until they were standing right in front of them.

Spock and Amanda meet Kirk in Journey to Babel

Kirk meets Ambassador Sarek and Amanda, having no idea that they’re Spock’s parents

More secret siblings in Star Trek

Spock’s not the only character in Star Trek history to be reticent when it comes to family. I dug into my own memory banks to see who else was guilty of the same omission, and just how much we knew about our crew members’ families in the first place.

Chekov, once manipulated into inventing a fictional murdered brother in “Day of the Dove,” was an only child, and there were others: Will Riker, Deanna Troi (whose sister Kestra died shortly after Deanna’s birth), Julian Bashir, B’Elanna Torres, and Harry Kim.

But Kirk had a brother; he first mentioned him in “What Are Little Girls Made Of?,” significantly NOT to share information with his crew mates but to test the knowledge of his android duplicate. His brother died on Deneva later that season (“Operation: Annihilate”), and Kirk’s nephew survived, but was never mentioned again.

Scotty never talked about his family, but in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, we found out that he had a sister. Actually, we found out in the novel, as the scenes were cut from the movie (and then later restored), but Peter Preston, who died in the line of duty, was Scotty’s nephew. “My sister’s youngest,” he told Kirk. I don’t recall the canon police shouting that we’d never heard Scotty had a sister before.

Scotty carries Peter Preston in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Scotty carrying his nephew, Peter Preston, in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

The Next Generation – Ishara, Robert, and Nikolai

Moving on to The Next Generation, “Legacy” introduced us to Tasha Yar’s sister Ishara. Ishara is hardly shocked that her existence never came up, but Data is. “It is surprising to me,” he tells her. “Tasha and I spent much time together. We had a considerable number of conversations.”

After Picard’s ordeal with the Borg, he took advantage of the Enterprise’s stop on Earth to go back to the village where he grew up, and he visited his previously unheard-of brother Robert (“Family”). Even when he’s telling Troi that he wants to walk the streets of his home village, he doesn’t say a word about visiting his brother.

Early in season one (“Heart of Glory”), Worf talked about a foster brother to some fugitive Klingons, and six seasons later, Nikolai finally turned up (“Homeward”), with never a mention between. (And he was Paul Sorvino!)

Ishara Yar, Robert Picard, and Nikolai Rozhenko

Tasha’s sister, Jean-Luc’s brother, and Worf’s brother

Quick takes: Spock wasn’t the only one who didn’t talk about siblings

A little digging unearthed some more examples.

  • O’Brien had brothers, and only ever said so to Quark, because he was directly asked (“Invasive Procedures”)
  • Kira spoke of her brothers only to Bareil, as they were becoming more intimate (“Shadowplay”)
  • While Trip Tucker’s crewmates all knew that his sister was killed by a Xindi attack (“The Expanse”), the only person he ever talked to about his brother was a Vulcan engineer (“Fusion’)
  • Chakotay and Janeway each mentioned having a sister when Voyager finally got back in contact with Earth, in Voyager‘s final season (“Author, Author”), but neither one had ever brought them up before

It seems quite natural that the crew wouldn’t discuss their families much once they’re serving aboard starships and space stations. Even in today’s workplace, a lot of people aren’t big blabbers about their personal lives. Like Neelix (who frequently talked about his sister Alixia), I talk about my siblings all the time, but not everybody else does, and it doesn’t seem strange. To each their own.

Alixia, Neelix's sister on Star Trek: Voyager

Alixia, Neelix’s sister who died on Rinax, as seen in “Once Upon A Time”

The timeline: Spock and Michael’s upbringing

Spock was born in 2230. In 2250, he joined Starfleet, and thus began the 18 years of silence between him and Sarek. In 2254, he began serving under Captain Pike on the Enterprise.

Kirk took command around 2265, so that sets Discovery, known to be set 10 years before Kirk takes command of the Enterprise, in 2255. Spock would have been 25 years old, and Michael Burnham? We don’t have an age for her yet, but Sonequa Martin-Green, who plays her, is 32. If Spock and Amanda raised her after her parents died, which is part of her back story, then she and Spock were raised together, likely with Sybok as well.

The fly in the ointment: “Yesteryear”

Now here’s where I get stuck. In The Animated Series‘  “Yesteryear,” Spock visits himself as a child, and Michael and Sybok are nowhere to be seen. That leaves two options: either it was both before Sybok and Michael moved in, or they were both away, perhaps at friend’s house, and Spock wasn’t invited. He was a loner, remember?

Yesteryear - Star Trek: The Animated Series

Spock meets his seven-year-old self in “Yesteryear.”

Sarek wasn’t the easiest dad

What’s especially fascinating, The Animated Series‘ wrench in the works aside, is that these three kids raised together turned out to be so different. Sybok rebelled against traditional Vulcan logic, embraced emotion, and was eventually banished. Spock incurred his father’s disapproval when he gave up the opportunity to go to the Vulcan Science Academy and headed for Starfleet instead. Michael is a human raised with Vulcan traditions and Vulcan control, but seems to have Sarek’s support for her Starfleet career, since we know that he encouraged Captain Georgiou to be her mentor. Sarek clearly had different expectations for his half-Vulcan son than for his fully human daughter, especially after the disappointment of Sybok; can you blame Spock for not wanting to talk about it? His choice to enter Starfleet led to an 18-year silence, while his sister was actively encouraged to join. She was the only human to attend the Vulcan Science Academy, while Spock rejected it, giving his father even more of a reason to guide Michael as he shunned Spock.

Yes, Michael Burnham is Spock’s sister

The idea of  a human raised by Sarek and Amanda–who seems to have a stronger connection to her Vulcan father than to her human mother, from what we know so far–is a fascinating one, and will clearly have a big impact on Burnham’s decisions and relationships, and might lead to some great stories. Remember, Spock didn’t tell his crewmates about his parents or his “brother” Kirk about his half brother Sybok, and is known for being an incredibly private person, so is it really a shock that he wouldn’t have mentioned Burnham before?

Not to this fan.


Special thanks to the smart people at Memory Alpha, who make it possible to verify and back up all the info in my Star Trek memory banks!

Star Trek: Discovery premieres on September 24th on CBS with all subsequent episodes on CBS All Access in the US.  In Canada Star Trek: Discovery will premiere  on Bell Media’s CTV and the Space Channel on the same night. Netflix will launch Star Trek: Discovery on Monday, September 25 to countries outside of the U.S. and Canada.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It’s still stupid.



Well….theres not a damn thing you can do about it. Cue evil laugh WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

By the way, it isn’t confirmed that Michael Burnham
was born a Man, or is it?.
I have heard a lot of fans make that assumption.
Has it been officially confirmed by the show?

Michael can be a women’s name also (e.g. the actress Michael Learned, best known as the mother in the TV series “The Waltons”).

Star Trek has often prided itself on making ‘progressive’ casting choices, so I wouldn’t be too surprised if they decided to make the Martin-Green character transgender.

You havent seen one second of an episode yet but you can judge it?

Many comments on here might be described the same way.

Well, actually, anyone who has seen the trailers has seen more than a second of the show, but sure; we don’t know if the show will be good or not yet.

But I think one can criticize the idea of making Michael Burnham Spock’s adopted sibling without being guilty of pre-judging the show as a whole.

Really? You haven’t even seen the show yet. But “oh this is stupid, I hate it!”

I think when Brian and Ahmed say it’s “stupid” they are referring to the concept of Spock having an adoptive sister. Probably not the show itself.



Yea but there are certain posters on here who complain about everything and hate everything. The Kelvin movies, Discovery. So bitter and sour, rather than looking for one iota of something good, its straight to, I hate it. Its so small and petty.

what’s petty is the knowledge that JJ-verse and the Discovery-verse are all separate & (?)equal (and yet can never interact, never dove tail cannon…)

~Pensive’s Wetness

Chadwick, I personally know some people like that. Likewise there are people who love everything and think everything is awesome. There are some here like that as well. I personally know someone who sees a movie and when I ask him how it was it was always good. EVERY time! He apparently has never seen a bad movie. He’s just super positive in that way. Anyway, people will do what people do.

Agreed. These negative nancies will crap on everything because they have decided the show sucks and everything about it sucks. And they waste their time coming here to whine and complain when the rest of us laugh because these people havent even seen the show yet.


The show may well be awesome. We won’t know until it airs. But this “Spock had a sister” stuff seems moronic and I also think the aliens in the trailer look like one dimensional cartoon baddies.

They gotta get past this idea that the way to make an alien look alien-ish is to put an ugly latex mask on its head, and for phucksake, can they make an alien baddie that isn’t as obvious and one dimensional as Gargamel?

But hey, TNG and DS9 had all of those faults and were still very good shows.

We shall see.

Nothing better to gripe about, eh?

You haven’t even seen the show but “It’s still stupid.”

This does show some people are just negative & want to complain for the sake of it- this just makes it harder for people with real problems with Discovery be heard fairly.

Captain, you have to understand that there are some people who will complain about ANYTHING someone says that may be negative about the show. Be it a legitimate complaint or not.

Um actually, the far greater issue is the few clowns who complain about every little piece of information no matter what it is. Over and over and over again. Like the fact All Access has a fee.

Thats true Captain. There is great discussion about concerns. Reasonable and rational. But the vocal minority nutjobs wildly screaming about every little thing does drown out the good discussion too often.

Agreed. All the examples mentioned above take place when the original characters were still active and the reveal of their family members is for story reasons. This is being done many years afterwards in a retcon sort of way to shoehorn a connection between this show and TOS for some reason. Also it’s odd having a sister IN starfleet that none of the TOS crew ever found out about ever. It’s one thing if she just lived on Vulcan but Michael is in starfleet around the same time Spock is! Talk about contrived fan service no one asked for lol.

@Da Trufe,

Well said.

If someone submitted a fan-fiction story to “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds” about previously unknown Spock’s sister they would get a rejection letter for using the cheesy bad fan-fiction trope of “a long-lost sibling.”

It’s still better than Data’s evil twin. That soap opera cliche made it to multiple episodes!

@ML31 — or better yet whatever that Data was from NEMESIS

Curious, B-4 made a TON more sense than Lore did. The evil twin thing just had bad cliche written all over it.

B4 was idiotic. Anyone ripping on Lore and praising B4 is creatively bankrupt.


How? You’ve the very definition of a soap opera plotline right here with this Spock’s adopted sister that came out of nowhere.

Everything new came out of nowhere. Sarek is Spock’s father. CAME OUT OF NOWHERE! Oh No!

David is Kirk’s son. The HUMANITY, it came out of NOWHERE!




Must be very hard for you but try to grow up.

@Ahmed, you first, kid. Show me the way.

The interesting thing about Spock and his parents in TOS:
1) In “Where No Man Has Gone Before” Spock mentions that one of his Ancestors was Human.
2) In “Amok Time” (Spock’s ‘Wedding’ of sorts and an episode which aired before “Journey To Babel”) – his parents AREN’T at the ceremony (or mentioned) in any way. The Vulcan T’Pau is officiating – and we learn from a comment by Kirk that she is a large political figure on Vulcan; but whatever T’Pau’s actual relationship is to Spock and his family is never stated.
3) Finally in “Journet To Babel” we learn that Spock’s mother is a Human and Sarek, his father is a Federation Ambassador <—- BUT, Spock only reveals that fact when Kirk asks if Spock would like a couple hours to beam down and visit his family.

My point? All the above was pretty haphazard in itself; so given that, I don't see why so many are up in arms because they decided to say Sarek (due to certain circumstanes) mentored/adopted a Human child who's parents had been killed on Vulcan. Her main relationship is to Sarek, NOT Spock. We don't know if she even had any real relationship with or to Spock at this time; but in all the examples we have from TOS – Spock doesn't talk about personal or family matters until there's a LOGICAL reason to do so. ;)

It’s reminds me of the Star Wars prequels feeling the need to reveal never before known and extremely improbable deep connections between major characters (i.e. not only is Darth Vader Luke’sw father – but he also created #CPO and used to own R2D2! And all the stormtroopers are clones of Boba Fett! And Yoda is an old friend of Chewbacca! Yay! Everybody knows/created/fathered/is a clone of a majmor character!).

But whatever. In the end all that matters is whether the show is well written and acted. If it is, it will be – like the other good Star Trek shows – a good show with some lamentable elements.

There’s a big difference between Sarek being introduced in 1967 and the idea that Spock had an adopted sister being introduced in 2017 (i.e. no mention of here for 50 years).

As for Kirk’s son David, the utterly unnecessary cheesy looking surfer dude with the blonde perm, that was one of the dumbest moves in any of the movies, as was the Sybok character.

Ahmed, the concept of the “evil twin” is just cheesy cliche. The idea of this character being Spock’s adoptive sister (at this point based on what we know thus far) is pandering to fans at worst. But it’s not cliche.


Not a cliche? It has its own category in TV tropes, “Long-Lost Relative” and “Everyone Is Related”.

It’s not just a cliche, it’s a bad one as well

OK Ahmed.

I’m still holding the opinion that the Data’s evil twin cliche is the lamest thing I’ve ever seen in Trek. That was when all doubt of whether or not TNG had jumped the shark was removed. And that includes Spock having an adoptive sister. I still file that one under contrived or pandering rather than cliche.

I think we have to recognize the fact that in all TV series, not every facet of a character’s backstory can be fleshed out at the beginning. If “Amok Time” had aired after “Journey to Babel,” Sarek probably would have made a repeat appearance.

Let’s say that Sarek adopted Burnham a good 15 years before Spock was born. That means Spock barely knew her and would likely not be close (particularly since “close” implies emotion!). It would, however, explain why Spock thought of joining Starfleet, and not the Vulcan Science Academy.


I love these Kool-Aid drinking fans who bash fellow fans for not giving DSC a chance and saying our dislike for the show is unreasonable since we haven’t seen it yet. However I guess its alright to proclaim something from DSC better than established Trek canon even though these fans haven’t seen the show yet either and have no idea how they’ll handle Spock’s sister in terms of story and character development. I can follow that logic: when you haven’t seen something you’re only allowed to proclaim it better and not worse than something you’ve already seen. I gotcha.

To rework a quote from “The Trouble With Tribbles”, too much of anything, even positivity, isn’t necessarily a good thing.

Being in Starfleet does make it harder to Miss.

Why because everyone in Star Fleet knows each other?


Because everyone in Starfleet would know the name of the First Officer who started a war with the Klingon.

Oh, so you’ve seen the episode? Because you MO around here is to always act as though you have. *rolls eyes* same old same old.


In the second trailer Captain Lorca says to Burnham:

“You helped start a war. Don’t you want to help me end it?”

You have no clue but to restore to your juvenile antics, a typical troll!

@Ahmed – that statement has no context yet you immediately jump to conclusions to support your personal negative bias.

Very transparent and sad. And, unfortunately, typical of your immature and ignorant attitude.


How it’s to say that everyone in Starfleet would know the name of the First Officer who started a war with the Klingon?

The same officer who made a choice that “affected her, affected Starfleet, affected the Federation; it affected the entire universe.”

Not only you’re a shill, you’re an idiot shill.

* How it’s negative to say…

“Because everyone in Starfleet would know the name of the First Officer who started a war with the Klingon.”

Not if the details were classified.

@Jai — thanks, always a rational voice around here. That is of course absolutely true — all most people know about Talos IV is that going there invokes the only use of the death penalty. Moreover, even if it weren’t classified, there’s no reason why anyone would need to constantly discuss it such that it would have ever been mentioned in any other episode. I can only remember one episode where the death penalty issue ever came up again. Regardless, there’s really no reason to discuss it. Just like nobody’s accusing Spock of being a Romulan spy since “Balance of Terror”, or otherwise commenting on the similarity of the appearance.


“Not if the details were classified.”

Not likely. The showrunners said many times that her actions will affect everyone from Starfleet, the Federation to the universe itself!

And they’ve made it clear that people are aware of her actions.


“And also we get to explore the importance of acceptance too. Because as Michael Burnham has this fall from grace and there are characters around her that are meeting her after the fact. They are making assumptions; an assumption about her based on what they heard as opposed to being able to take her at face value.

I think Mary Wiseman’s character [Ensign Tilly who revealed to TrekMovie that she is Burnham’s roommate on the U.S.S. Discovery] plays a huge role in that, in just the eagerness to be a friend and accepting. That is the message that we all need.”


You’re simply assuming that Burnham is still in Starfleet at the time of TOS, which we know is some ten years after the events that will take place in Discovery. Unless you have some insight into the scripts and direction this story is going to take than no one else has, that’s a pretty bold assumption.

Given that we surmise that Burnham somehow is responsible for starting a war with the Klingons, there are many possible outcomes that may have her well out of Star Fleet by the time TOS rolls around.

Perhaps the guilt of starting the war and all the deaths that will ensue weighs down on her until she leaves Starfleet to retire out on some remote world no one has heard of, a la Zefram Cochran. Maybe the stigma of what she did haunts her and her family until she disappears into the void. That would explain, easily, why we never see her or hear anyone talk of her.

Of course, we can’t even assume Burnham survives the ordeal. It would certainly not beyond the realm to think that Burnham may pay the greatest price of all to redeem her “sins” and bring the war to an end. By the time TOS rolls around, she may be off in a forgotten grave somewhere.

So, to assume that Burnham is still a member of Starfleet when TOS is taking place is only that, an assumption.

Exactly. We also dont know if Burnham’s link to Sarek is widely known. Her communications with him could be secret. Even if its not, Kirk didnt even know Sarek was Spock’s father but everyone in Star Fleet will know Burnham and Spock are related? Come on…

And again, we don’t know what “being adopted” *really* means on Vulcan (although we’ll probably get a better idea when the show airs).

As an analogy, in shi’i Islam, “being married” can mean something quite different than in other cultures: you can have a temporary marriage by contract.

“Given that we surmise that Burnham somehow is responsible for starting a war with the Klingons, there are many possible outcomes that may have her well out of Star Fleet by the time TOS rolls around. ”

Playing the devil’s advocate here… If she is responsible for a Klingon war seems likely she would be well known a decade later in TOS time. Of course, it could very well become a conspiracy or cover up to keep her protected…

Remember, everything we say here is pure speculation.

It’s also a real stretch to say that “Burnham was singlehandledly responsible for a war,” even if she catalyzed it in some way.

For those here who aren’t political scientists: there’s a huge debate, and probably one that will never be settled, over what’s called “levels of analysis.” Put differently, do wars get started by individual leaders (the “Great Man” theory of history)? By decisions within states? By the system generally, as Thucidides would have it?

Surely there would be underlying causes for tensions between the Federation and Klingons in the years after ENT. It’s a bit like saying “Otto von Bismarck caused WWI,” whereas there were underlying factors like the rise of Germany as a great power.

Good points. That’s one of the things about the pilot I am looking forward to discussing after it airs.

You know the article had some convincing arguments but you make a good point as well. At least when we heard about other relatives it was when the characters were actually current. This is literally decades after the fact and when Spocks story has been told. In that sense it does feel more like a retcon just to tie this show into TOS. I’m not completely against it but I do feel its kind of unneeded.

Did you read the article? Your post is essentially “yeah but”. It was wholly in Spock’s character to not discuss his family with anyone, including his closest friends.

We have no idea what happened to Burnham. Maybe she dies three years later before Spock and Kirk even meet.

You act as though Starfleet is some small social club or something. If everyone should know the human with the different name is the sister of junior officer Spock, then why didnt Kirk know the Ambassador was Spock’s father?

You negative types really twist yourselves in knots trying to find things to complain about.

Yep; forced connection.

Are you pouting, Brian. :( I picture you pouting with your arms crossed and stamping your foot as you say, “it’s still stupid.”

I am looking forward to the return of a long-haired Sybok.

I always thought Sybok looked a bit like Saddam Hussein.

Ok. Now get over it.

Simplistic statements sound stupid.
Perhaps some reasoning…


Someone call the Wahhhhhhhmbance

@Brian. I bet you didn’t even bother to read the article.

I agree. I was a big fan of 24 but hated the season (5th or 6th, I don’t remember) when Jack’s father and Jack’s brother were introduced as evil terrorist masterminds

Binyamin, I’m just pleased they weren’t able to do the stunt casting they were trying to do and get Donald Sutherland to play Jack’s father. Never was a big fan of that sort of practice.

Spock always claimed to be an “only child”. Can’t wait to meet the other 12 kids.

That sounds reasonable to me. I have no problem with Burnham being Spock’s sister.

Neither do I. It’s plausible and I’m ok with that.

I whole heartily agree that Spock would not talk about Burnham unless pressed. In general, Vulcans are known to not talk much about their personal lives. Look at both Tuvok and Vorik. Both went through pon farr during the seven-year voyage and wanted it to be as discreet as possible. Yes, things did get out of hand in Vorik’s case, but that was mainly due to his adamant need to keep it a secret. Beyond the fact that no one knew Spock had a half-brother until ST:V, it is quite clear to me that this is not out of the realm of Vulcan behavior.


Dont forget about T’Pol. She was rather quiet about her personal life as well.

Yeah also true about T’Pol. It does seem Vulcans are fiercely private people as they do seem to never mention wives, fiances, siblings and parents only until the moment calls for it. I guess that can be an argument its kind of a Vulcan thing.

Bringing up Sybok to defend this isnt the best move. Spock having a surprise brother was contrived and horrible to watch.

You mean like Kirk having a surprise son and baby mama in the most beloved film in the franchise?

Sybok was hardly the most horrible part of STV to watch.

That was actully a bit of retconning from Where No Man Has Gone Before:

Michell: Remember that cute blond lab technician…
Kirk: Remember? I almost married her!

Nice trivia, there.

I always thought that was great how they did that.

That was inevitable.

Kirk having a son was arguably the dumbest move in the all of the films featuring the cast of the original series, made all the worse by casting a terrible actor with a cheesy blonde perm that looked like an early 80s frat boy/surfer dude. Whenever that guy is on screen any illusion that it’s supp9see to be the 23rd century and not 1982 is immediately shattered.

*supp9see”= supposed

No, Sybok wasn’t a bad move. The movie plot for V was a bad move. Sybok w/ a different story would have been much better than what we got out of V.

>> No, Sybok wasn’t a bad move. The movie plot for V was a bad move. Sybok w/ a different story would have been much better than what we got out of V. <<<

I think you have it precisely backwards. The CONCEPT for Star Trek V (a Vulcan that had embraced emotion and been ostracized by his people, and had now become some sort of cult leader searching for the ultimate knowledge of the universe and the existence of a higher power) was a solid idea and made for a really intriguing premise. Star Trek V COULD have been a great movie and some of the most memorable moments in Star Trek history are a result of that idea (Kirk’s line at the end “Maybe God isn’t out there, but in here… the human heart”) and Kirk’s famous rhetorical “What does God need with a starship?” quip.

The EXECUTION of that idea was the problem, and the film was widely ridiculed at the time (and still is decades later) for asking audiences to buy that Spock had a long-lost “half brother” that no one had ever mentioned before and that the Enterprise was able to reach the “center of the galaxy” in mere hours, and somehow “God” would be in the middle of our own Milky Way galaxy instead of the billions of other places in the universe.

The ONLY reason Sybok ended up being Spock’s “half brother” in the movie is the writers painted themselves into a corner with the scene where Spock had the opportunity to shoot Sybok dead and save the Enterprise, but refused to do so. The ONLY possible scenario for Spock behaving that way would be that he was unwilling to kill a blood brother of his (as opposed to a close childhood friend, etc., given that Spock’s actions are not dictated by emotion), so they forced the “Half brother” reveal into the movie no matter how far fetched it sounded and out of place we knew about Spock’s childhood. Like the “warp drive speed limit” idea in TNG’s 7th season, it was quickly ignored by future writers and “Sybok” hasn’t been mentioned or seen since then (for example he wasn’t hanging around Sarek’s home during Spock’s childhood scenes in the 2009 movie). To this day, many Star Trek fans ignore the line about Sybok being Spock’s brother and there are even fan edits still being made to delete all references to that.

Given that “long lost half brother” retcon from Star Trek V is widely ridiculed as one of the biggest mistakes in Star Trek history, it seems odd to use it now to defend the creative decisions of Discovery.

If Michael Burnham being Spock’s stepsister works because of Sybok in Star Trek V, we might as well justify a future Discovery episode that consists entirely of stock footage flashbacks of previous episodes because “Shades of Gray" did that on TNG so having a clip show is an established Star Trek tradition” or justify Discovery reaching “Warp infinity” and having the crew mutate into Andorians because “Voyage did a similar premise, so its already been established that starfleet officers can mutate into other creatures when they go infinite speed”, or maybe justify Captain Lorca and Michael Burnham brains being stolen by aliens and put into jars as the brains talk to each other in the actor's voices because “Spock’s Brain is proof this idea works in the Star Trek universe”

In short, making Star Trek V a more reflective and metaphysical story was a good idea. Retconning Spock to have siblings he never once mentioned before was not. It was a bad idea then, it’s a bad idea now.

Trek V is vastly under rated.

There is nothing that says Spock couldn’t have a sister.

If Im the writers, I would have made her a foster sister rather then adopted sister. But perhaps they have a specific reason for making the relationship more formal.

“Trek V is vastly under rated.”

Yup. And its real problems have a lot more to do with the forced humor (for which I really blame Trek IV), and not Sybok. It’s easy to see how Sybok became He Who Must Not Be Named among mainstream Syrranite Vulcans.

It didnt help that Gene sort of said Sybok might not be cannon. No one should have paid any mind to gene at that point but the people looking to complain hung their hat on it.

If Gene had defended it and said no Sybok is absolutely canon, those same people would have dismissed him as a crazy old man.

“The ONLY reason Sybok ended up being Spock’s “half brother” in the movie is the writers painted themselves into a corner with the scene where Spock had the opportunity to shoot Sybok dead and save the Enterprise, but refused to do so.”

No. One of the major points was the Sybok was able to turn people to his cause by healing their pain, and he thought he would be able to do that with Spock. But as Spock said, “I am not the boy you left behind on Vulcan. I have found myself.” Sybok *didn’t* know that Spock had found himself as a direct result of his service in Starfleet. So Sybok fundamentally miscalculated, and Spock stayed with Kirk, rather than joining Sybok’s Army of Light.

It was crucial to the plot, and not merely a justification for Spock’s refusal to shoot.


Using the Sybok angle, whether you think it wise or not, is still a part of established canon. That makes it a perfectly legitimate argument.

Again… Lore was STILL the lamest idea in all of Trek. And that include Spock having an unmentioned adopted sister.

Nothing lame or contrived about a roboticist building multiple androids…

B-4 worked better as a plot device. Lore wasn’t so much another android made by Data’s creator but functioned more like Data’s evil twin like TNG was a bad ’70’s daytime soap.

@the wolf — the most unique bit of technology ever created in the Federation … that was never mentioned to anyone ever? That’s really no different that twins separated at birth, or an adopted sister after the primary child had already left the nest for Starfleet …

Nothing contrived at all, and seriously, lamer than Spock’s Brain? Lamer than Janeway the iguana?

I will say yes. Lamer than Spock’s Brain in that Spock’s Brain was merely a bad episode. Not a pathetic overused cliche. I honestly do not recall Janeway the iguana. I only saw Voyager episodes the one time they aired. Am currently re-watching the series. Just part way into season 2 at the moment.

Yes, it is a bad plot device then and still is today. It would have been much better to make her a student of Sarek’s…. or hell even a coworker’s or a neighbor’s kid. To make her the previously unknown sibling of Spock was not a great move. But.. time to get over it and move on. However Spock (and Sybok) would be adults and not “living at home” at this point, even if they do that on Vulcan. I doubt many kids live with their Mommies and Daddies in ShiKahr.

“It would have been much better to make her a student of Sarek’s….”

We don’t know that she *wasn’t* primarily a student of Sarek’s. We don’t know what “adoption” means on Vulcan. It could be more akin to a godfather-godchild relationship than what we think of as adoption. Let’s see what they come up with before dismissing it, shall we?

The show is going to nosedive regardless, looks cheap, ugly and boring…

Anything else in the future you can tell us? How about lotto numbers for the Mega Millions? Let me know if you get anything on that level. Much more useful.

The Guardian of Forever just confirmed that the show will nosedive, hope that is useful enough? It also asked which countries lottery?

Well… Do you know of any country that has a Mega Millions named lottery besides the United States?

I am on Vulcan, gambling is not logical…

Yes! Mos Eisley on Tatooine has Mega Millions, can’t be used as Republic Credits tho…

Enterprise was less of a diversion from Star Treks Core concept & format & it struggled to get Fan support or its own general Non-Fan following- who do you think this half realised clunky War Trek Concept will not suffer the same fate?

This show has already bombed b4 release…

Ugly…maybe. Cheap? No. Watch a 1st Season TNG episode, and you’ll see cheap.

^This! Yes!

The fx look cheap…


Look again!

TNG S1 was fine for its year, Discovery’s look like PS2 graphics lol 😂

How does this look cheap?


Babylon 5 type spfx?


Cheap, boring and ugly…. much like your opinions.

You are not logical…

For someone who is so critical, you aren’t exactly entertaining yourself. #awfuljokes


Good article! I agree with you that it’s plausible that an adopted sister was there all along and just never mentioned (fits with Spock’s MO and with how writers add things in after the fact and try to tie them together). Not the first time and not the last time, so no real biggie.

I’m just curious to see how it plays out story-wise. Was is THAT important that she be adopted rather than just being under Sarek’s tutelage? Could the story work just as well if she was only being mentored by Sarek? Was the adopted sister angle just for hype/buzz? It doesn’t really matter if it serves the story well, and I look forward to seeing how that plays out very soon!

I am also wondering WHY did she have to be an adopted sister? The protege idea seems like it would have worked just fine. It also has the added bonus of not having the executive producer mention that they “know it’s not canon but…” It would also have avoided a lot of arguments in the fandom and the need for articles like this one trying to convince Star Trek fans that the idea is ok. I hope that when the show comes on this will make more sense but for the time being it just feels shorn-horned in just like all of the other last minute sibling revelations for “storytelling” reasons.

I guess we’ll find out in September.

They better have a hell of a reason but I suspect no matter what some will be left dissatisfied by the rationale.

Retcon retcon retcon retcon Retcon Retcon Retcon Retcon Retcon Retcon Retcon Retcon mushroom mushroom

Ah! Timelime ah! timeline Timmmeeelllliiiiiiine timeline


I’ve tried to point out the Sybok angle; the haters still hate, always will.

I actually had the same idea awhile back. It was a logical conclusion considering Sarek’s apparent investment in Michael’s future. I had thought Michael would be another of Sarek’s love children, but this is even cooler.

It might help explain why Sarek and Spock had such a falling out.

Sybok rejects Vulcan logic.

Burnham actually does go to the Science Academy and then Star Fleet. And I can buy Sarek encouraging her to do so, probably feeling it was the plan all along for her to follow in her parents’ example…especially as a human to join the human-centric Star Fleet.

If Sarek had a plan for his children, then it makes sense that encouraging Burnham to go to Star Fleet would lead to assuming the younger Spock to follow the Vulcan tradition. When he doesn’t, Sarek feels like all his children are gone and none are following in his foot steps.

When you factor in that Burnham seems to end up in prison, it probably makes Sarek even more upset to have Spock go that way.

Maybe Spock wanted to go to Star Fleet BECAUSE of Burnham.

The possiblity that Michael being Spock’s adopted sister might lead to hearing anything more about Sybok is yet another reason it’s a bad idea.

Exactly. How about we let the show air and lets evaluate it on it’s merits, not prematurely judge a show that hasn’t even established its first episode.

Someone not liking an idea and saying so does not make them a “hater.” That most overused term is long past old. Nothing wrong with having reservations about this show or not being all gaga over it.

I agree! Just because people are questioning ideas or even disagreeing with them does not necessarily make them haters. I am still going to watch the show but there are things I am hearing about the storyline that make me….uncertain. I am still trying to keep an open-mind.

It does when its the same people blowing every little thing up into irrational criticism of the show.

What you say, Stanky, is reasonable and makes perfect sense. But remember who you are talking to. People on the internet. Many of them don’t WANT reason. They want to make a huge deal out of anything people say. And God forbid someone writes an opinion that goes against theirs… Then watch all the “hater” drops they use. And their weak attempts to justify it.

The problem is opinions that are irrational and presented as fact. Those same people who demand respect for their false opinion are the least likely to respect the opinion of others.

There is agreat discussion here among people who dont love Discovery. its just the few that spam the forum with nonsense and dont want to actually discuss that are the problem.

Like people ripping on All Access as a concept or claiming streaming doesnt work. That’s just so ridiculous that what other response does it merit but ridicule?

Opinions that are obviously opinions don’t need to be designated as being so. It’s quite obvious when someone says “That sucks” it is merely an opinion and is not be presented as an absolute fact. There is only a problem when people are too nitpicky to understand such givens in the use of the language.

There is also no such thing as a “false opinion”. Opinions are subjective by nature and not true or false.

I will agree that there are some fair discussions here but there are also some who continue to beat the same thing over and over again for no apparent reason whatsoever. Those are the types who insist their opinion or viewpoint is correct and anyone who doesn’t agree merits derision and ridicule. And for some oddball reason they feel justified in doing so. Those are the types who ruin message boards for the rest.

Of course there are false opinions. If its your opinion that vaccines cause autism, that is false. You can think it really really hard but it doesnt make it true.

Too many people hide behind “opinion” when what they are doping is pushing a false fact.

” If its your opinion that vaccines cause autism, that is false. ”

That isn’t an opinion, however. That is just being wrong. If someone says they wouldn’t like getting autism, THAT is an opinion. One that is shared by many but an opinion none the less. An opinion is, “The Walking Dead sucks.” Saying, “The Walking Dead airs on HBO” would just be incorrect. Not an opinion. You see… Opinions are subjective. Facts are not. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “false opinion”.

A preferred argument would be that Sarek took guardianship of her; the idea of her being a sibiling is a human concept, something not embraced by Vulcan society. That would create an interesting layer of drama between Brunham and Sarek. She would seek his approval as a father but he would not recipicate such an emotional connection.


It’s a big deal when ST:D is going out of it’s way to damage or destroy established cannon. If they want to do something different, free of constraints, then do that. But don’t shit all over the licence and tell me it’s Star Trek.

@JonnyJon — How is building on existing canon to tell a new story going out of its way to damage or destroy it? How does this impact anything you know about Spock and his family at all?

He is Obviously talking about all the other willful things wrong with Discovery.

I agree that I prefer they do not connect any characters to the TOS ones, BUT this does not in any way damage or destroy established cannon- There is no where in any of Star Trek a line that specifically says Spock does not have a sister. Therefore, he can have a sister.

You are right. And not only that. It appears that everybody has forgotten that Spock even didn’t mention his parents to his two best friends! Spock even treated his parents as strangers when they came aboard the Enterprise as “Ambassador Sarek and his wife”! He told it Kirk and Bones AFTERWARDS when Kirk mentioned he could visit his parents on Vulcan.
So we should he mention his adoptive sister who maybe spend a little time with his parents but maybe not with him?

They don’t care about us, the fans.
Yet we are the only ones supporting the franchise

Awwww poor you, they didnt call you and ask for your opinion?

I agree that as a character Spock may very well had never mentioned her to anyone – there was clearly disharmony in his family. But Honestly, I don’t see the reason for it. Hopefully the story will provide something noteworthy and meaningful to explain it. I think in my mind I’m beginning to think of this show as occurring in an alternate universe anyway.

Call it what it is: a plot device to try to pique fan interest. It’s the same thing with Sarek and Harry Mudd. They keep talking it up as something the fans will love, but putting it behind a paywall just to shore up their streaming service is still insulting.

I still and never will understand why “fans” think this should be given to them for free. They’re all utterly fine paying for merchandise, but shelling out a few bucks for a new series (or film) is utterly out of the question. The days of putting a show like this in first-run syndication are long over. It’s a completely practical business decision for CBS to try and use this as a means to get people to subscribe to their platform. It was a similar case with Voyager launching UPN – using a cornerstone franchise to launch a new network.

Except Voyager was on an over the air network. If you wanted to see Voyager all you had to do was tune into a UPN station. This is yet ANOTHER pay service. Not only that but CBS is demanding potential customers jump through hoops if they want it. Not a good business model at all.

@ML31 — The UPN was not available in every market, so not everyone could see it. For others it meant investing in an antenna that could receive it if their local cable provider didn’t carry it. It meant pulling the audience away from other networks, necessary in order to finance it by the advertisers. Unfortunately, it’s a fine business model based on where subscription entertainment is going. Terrestrial based networks will soon be a thing of the past, even cable and satellite providers are scrambling to protect themselves in the future. So I respectfully disagree with you on this.

@Cadet – ML will never understand the concept that the cable he pays for isnt free. And he doesnt use streaming, like Netflix because he thinks the streaming technology is not good enough to provide consistent quality (his Internet is poor and he wont upgrade).

No use trying to convince him.

I will give you the concept that UPN was not in EVERY market. But it was in the vast majority of the markets. However, if you had cable already, and many did in 1995, it was extremely likely that UPN was being piped in.

I would disagree that it is NOT a fine business model based on where the industry is going. Based on where the industry is going the market is getting saturated. They are asking people to shell out for yet ANOTHER pay service. Or, if they haven’t done so yet, to invest in devices just for the right to subscribe. I’d say that the concept of streaming content is the way things are moving to. But scores of individual providers paid for one at a time is just not sustainable. If there are to be a bunch of streaming services the way they will ultimately survive is to bundle themselves together with others. Like cable does currently with all the cable networks out there.

If you dont think this is where the business is going, you’re wrong. I work for a telecom. Trust me.

I don’t trust you Tup. Sorry but you’ve presented no reason to. I follow the business and know a few people in it. So I think I’ll go with the judgment of people I know over the irrational rantings of someone who is incapable of letting things go on the internet.

You always pull the “i know people”. if the people you know (or the voices in your head) are telling you that streaming delivery is not the way of the future, then you are, quite frankly, very very *ill advised*. Sorry. its true.

Everything is going to be delivered via the internet. Maybe yu should open a Blockbuster if you love discs so much. Im sure you think its a great business model. Afterall, you’d be the only one so you’d have a monopoly.


Kinda like you pull that “I’m in the business” card. Maybe you are maybe you aren’t. But given your information and how you behave I find it difficult to take what you say about things at face value. Sorry but that is how you present yourself. This point is hammered home again because…

Once again you got what I said WRONG. I have always said streaming seems to be the direction things are going. I’ve never denied that. Yet you say otherwise because as you told someone else, the actual fact would not support your take on things. On that same line of thinking, since you say you are in the biz, why not start TUP’s streaming service? Obviously you know exactly what you are doing and everything there is to know about it. You infer that all the time.


Stop WHINNING about it over and over again. You sound like an old man who can’t accept change. Yes its ANOTHER pay service, welcome to capitalism. Did we also need yet ANOTHER company to make smart phones? Thats how it works. A company sees a new revenue stream and they take advantage, especially huge media corporations like CBS. The funny thing is if AA was made and there was no Star Trek show of any kind most people wouldn’t be whining about it or calling CBS evil. They would just shrug and go, ‘oh’ and not worry about it.

But because it happens to have something on it you want to see but don’t want to pay for it its a big deal.

And yes when cable first started people were skeptical. Why would ANYONE pay for TV when you already get it for free???? That was the argument back then. Look where we are today? In 10-20 years no one will bat an eye when the 20th streaming site shows up just like no one bats an eye when yet another new cable starts up.

Thats life man. I know you are not the only one bothered by this but you guys are moaning about something that end of the day means pretty little since A. NO ONE is forcing you to watch it B. If you don’t like it, just cancel or C. Just wait for it to come out in another platform, which it will, because not everyone has constant internet access or like yourself want to subscribe to another site. They know this and will give it to you one way or the other. The problem with THAT is you just have to wait longer and most likely will probably pay just as much if not more for it if you buy it on Itunes or Blu Ray.

Good lord, Tiger. You want to join in on the dead horse beating? You don’t like seeing TUP doing the basing alone so you wanted to make him feel better?

No, there was no NEED for another smart phone brand but notice please the market as indeed pretty much reached its saturation. Further, I haven’t heard anyone call CBS “evil” for limiting their product. AA has indeed been around for quite some time, btw. There are also revenue streams that would work much better than streaming only yet CBS opted to not go that route. That is what is setting most folks off, in case you missed it.

It’s not comparable to cable. Cable provided a couple of things that traditional “free” over the air did not provide. Guaranteed good picture and a couple of services not available over the air. Streaming has been available for quite some time and only now has started providing stuff not available elsewhere. But the picture quality is still not up to snuff. Yet. No one bated an eye when new cable channels showed up because they were available on the service you ALREADY HAD! That is another thing people are annoyed with. And again, legitimately so.

Personally I would very much like for it to be available on disc after it “airs” but there has been no mention of that being the case. The Amazon shows aren’t available. I’ve checked. What makes you think DSC will be? Further still, if I haven’t seen the show why in the name of hell would I BUY it?

Why is it so very hard to accept that a number of people have various LEGITIMATE grievances over CBS’s chosen means to deliver this product?

See, ML, other people are just as annoyed at your nonsense and trying to do you the favour of explaining things. just as I have done.

You’re welcome



TUP… I don’t bring up others who have ripped you because I see no need for it. Not only am I confident enough in my own responses but your responses pretty much speak for themselves even without my pointing out their flaws. Your detractors are there, however. Yet you are so insecure over your little tirades that you feel obliged to bring in the one other person in the thread who supported your lost cause. Talk about sad…

ML31 , do we need to go down this road again?

You’re the only person who considers watching on any internet enabled device to be “jumping through hoops”.

If you have cable or netflix, then watching CBSAA is not jumping through hoops.

If you pay for cable or netflix (I know, you dont pay for netflix), then you dont get any TV for free.

Knock it off. You’re embarrassing.

No Tup. We need not go down this road again. Just understand that requiring people to purchase extra devices for ONE show or ONE service is jumping through hoops.
Understand that if someone already has cable or Netflix and asking them to buy stuff just to pay you to get the one property they are interested in is indeed jumping though hoops.
Understand that I do indeed pay for Netflix. That I do have my own account.
Understand that most people know the difference between cable, streaming and over the air TV and understand the terminology used to describe it.

To sum up, the road need not be traveled if you would just STOP beating that dead horse.

Yes, please stop beating the dead horse. You’re nonsense has been addressed by repeatedly by me and others.

Why do you not understand that CBS is a business? If someone came along and said hey Im a viewer in the UK and I dont have Netflix so this is terrible that I have to pay to watch Discovery, what would you say? Because you just used the example that it should be on cable or Netflix because you already have it (or more accurately you can steal your friends Netflix).

You have ZERO understanding of streaming or else you wouldn’t continually slander the quality just because you have Internet issues.

I remember people subscribing to HBO for the ONE series called The Sopranos. And HBO quickly added more premium content so that people were less likely to churn.

Netflix, the same.

That’s the business.

All Access has been around awhile but this is relatively new as far as support from CBS. They are creating new content for the service. So your ONE show might be more soon.

Regardless, its not CBS’ responsibility to make sure some Joe Blow with bad internet gets to see Discovery for free. They make it available and you either get it or dont get it. Your choice.

You are the one who responded to me, Chief. You are the one who is beating that dead horse.

No one is saying CBS is not a business. I do not have internet issues. That is something you do quite often. You jump to inedible ludicrous conclusions. Then the other person has to spend time telling you that is NOT what was said. And thus, you send the entire discussion down a spiraling abyss.

I have a perfectly good understanding of streaming and the media business. Just because you think you know everything there is doesn’t mean other people don’t know what they are talking about.

HBO and Netflix are different than AA. They were leading edge. Further, people didn’t subscribe to HBO for just one show. Some might have but most did not. Netflix started as a rental agency and already had a large number of subscribers when they started their original content. It’s not the same. CBS is a very late arrival to the party and as such, is in a much more precarious position. For reasons I’ve already been over.

Once again, no one is saying CBS ought to provide them stuff for free. That is just your go to whine whenever someone says something you don’t like.

Stop beating that horse. It’s been dead for months.

Hey kid, if you try to stream Netflix and it always fails due to buffering, then YES you have an INTERNET issue. That is simply common sense.

You said many times you do not have a Netflix streaming account and, in fact, use your friends when you want to try streaming which doesnt work for you because you’re Internet isnt very good.

You said it. But you evade reality by saying “I pay for Netflix” when what you really mean is you pay for the disc renting side which is a very very small percentage of Netflix customers.

“You said many times you do not have a Netflix streaming account and, in fact, use your friends when you want to try streaming which doesnt work for you because you’re Internet isnt very good.”

You are twisting what I said. I didn’t say that. I’d correct you (again) but no point. You will just say what you want no matter what.

Further, I don’t have any internet issues. Again, told you this time and time again.

Further still… It is no lie when I say I pay for my own Netflix account. What I mean by that is I have a netflix account in my name and with my credit account and I personally get charged for it. You like to warp that around because it doesn’t support your irrational conclusions about people who pay for their own stuff.

I love this kind of mentality… “Give it to me for free!!!”

Hate to break it to you, you’d still be paying in one way or another if you were watching this on CBS or CBS All Access… The difference is the currency you are using to pay for it… Time or money.

The reports I’ve seen say that not only are they putting behind the paywall, but it will still have commercials. So, we have to pay with both time and money. So, yes, I think it’s ridiculous. And, Max, spare me your condescending comments about “fans”, as if I’m not one because I object to CBS’s business decisions. The amount of time or money I spend (or not) doesn’t have a bearing on whether I’m a fan. Nor does objecting to a casting decision or a storyline (or not). I had enough of that type of condescension when people tried to make a distinction between Trekkie and Trekker – as if it matters what name you call yourself. And, yes, while CBS has every right to make a business decision to put it behind a paywall, I have every right to object to it.

How is that any different from basic cable? Or Hulu?

And FYI, there is a commercial free option. Been there for months now.

To be clear, basic cable (in the U.S.) is part of whatever fee you pay to access television, whether from a streaming source or through a cable box. Basic cable includes CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS and some other smaller stations.

Hulu is an add-on, which you can pay 14.99 for a commercial-free option, which gives you access to literally hundreds of tv options (and movies), which I have and pay for every month. CBS All Access is ANOTHER add-on, not accessible by any other means, which costs an additional $10 a month for a commercial-free option. So you ARE paying more, any way you shake it.

I’m a huge fan, but I think being forced to sign up for an entire other service to see Discovery, for an additional fee (in the U.S. ONLY), is bullsh*t too. The least they could do is make it available on ITunes, so we could purchase the season and OWN it. Not rent it.

Sorry for my tone on this one, but this paywall thing has me pretty pi**ed off too.

Im sure you can buy the Blu Rays and own them if you want to.

Fans wanting this show on cable are missing the fact that this business model is the BEST chance for a Trek series to have plenty of time to succeed.

If its on cable, it doesnt matter how much you like it, it comes down to the commercial aspects.

Not this time.

I say the least they can do is make the show available on disc for RENT. Why would I want to buy it if I don’t know how good or bad it is first? They ought to at least make it available for rental on BD AFTER it “airs” on CBSAA. Then those who cannot wait can pay the streaming fee. Those who are patient can rent the show through disc rental services like Netflix and CBS gets a piece of that action, too. It then gets their product out to more people and if the show is really good they may even squeeze a few more subscribers that way, too.

The fact is, this streaming only thing is for sure NOT the best way for Trek to succeed. Remember the last time someone tried to hang an entire concept using Trek as an anchor? Where is UPN today?

The best way for a new Trek show to succeed is to be on a cable station. There it can absorb the lower viewer numbers and still have a shot. There is a lot of high quality on cable these days. Not only will it be seen by cable subscribers it will ALSO be streamed for those who love streaming. It is the best way to get it out to as many viewers as possible. Streaming only just limits the viewers. How can that be good for the Trek property?

They wont compete with themselves. If you’re so determined to get it on disc, wait til they release it. Stop complaining about something that isnt even something to complain about yet.

Yes, they show will very likely be released on Blu Ray. And that means probably Netflix will have them available for the very small number of people that bother to rent through the mail.

Streaming is the best way for Trek to succeed actually.

You keep doing this. You dont want to get All Access so you complain about it using fake facts.

Would you prefer Discovery was on network? Cause it would probably be cancelled by the second commercial break. The realities of commercial television require high rating demos.

This business model, with Netflix as a partner is the VERY best opportunity for Trek to succeed in a long time.

If CBS made the show available to rent on disc, how would that be competing with themselves? What that does is create a path for more subscribers. It’s sound business. You have no idea if CBS is going to make the discs available or not. Like people who claim the show is going to suck before seeing it, you are saying CBS is going to do something before they never announced they would one way or the other. Hypocrite. But we’ve seen this in you before.

There is nothing fake about questioning the best way for Trek is streaming. It’s obviously not. For reasons I’ve already addressed. Normally if someone has a problem with those reasons they would specifically say what they are and we could actually discuss it. Not you. You just say “fake facts”. “You are wrong, I am right” and offer nothing to back it up whatsoever.

I’ve already said in another post what I believe would be the best situation for a successful Trek TV series. If you have issues with it, then address what I said. Don’t just ask a question that was already answered in another post.

Good day to you, sir.

If they made it available to rent on disc at the same time it was airing on All Access, it would. Obviously.

OK… This is a first. You added something that was not said before. I was referring to the more common practice of releasing the discs AFTER the season aired. Not concurrently as I don’t think any distributor has done that before. And would seem unlikely to in the future. Since that is what I was talking about to begin with, my original comment about releasing to disc is NOT CBS competing with themselves stands solid.

You forget that Voyager was on UPN… you had to pay for that cable option to get it. People paid. I pay for AMC to watch The Walking Dead. Other people pay for HBO to watch Game of Thrones. You have to pay for ANYTHING above basic cable to watch anything that is not on abc, nbc, cbs or fox. In the end, you are paying for whatever you are watching on tv.

Who here refused to pay for any vhs, dvd or bluray of any of the series? If you did and are complaining about paying for all access, then you are a bunch of hypocrites.

Trek Fan, UPN was an over the air network. All you needed to get it was a UPN affiliate in your area and an antenna. If you’ve been watching Star Trek at all in those days you probably already had a TV.

@ML31 — yup you had a to BUY and antenna is your local cable company didn’t carry it … nobody I knew was still getting OTA broadcasts via an antenna when VOY came out …

Cadet, why would your local cable company NOT have local affiliates? The only time that has ever happened that I have ever heard of was temporary cuts when negotiating rights to carry networks. They were rare and normally didn’t last very long.

Most people just took a lawn chair down to the local TV repair shop and sat outside watching Star Trek through the window. Free as can be. Oh wait, you had to pay for the lawn chair. I suppose you could borrow it from a friend…

??? What the hell are you talking about, Tup? As is your M.O you are not making any sense.

I was making fun of your ridiculous replies to Cadet. Sorry it went over your head.

I would suggest it went over everyone’s head. Except yours, of course. It made some sort of weird sense to you.

@ML31 — you assume that there was a local affiliate in a market carrying UPN. That wasn’t the case. The UPN was far from 100% market saturation. Also, Anyone with satellite didn’t have all local affiliates, even in a market where UPN had a station.

You are correct. When UPN started they did not have 100% coverage. But it was far from intermittent. There were only a few markets that they did not get an affiliate in. They had enough to reasonably launch their national network. So it was unfortunate for those precious few who did not live within reach of a UPN over the air signal or did not have a cable company that piped in the closest UPN affiliate.

And by analogy, I would suggest that it will be unfortunate for those few who do not already have a means and method to stream All Access. Many people have cut the cord, using OTA reception of local channels and streaming Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, et al — that is, for better or worse, the future. In my case, I’m all set to subscribe for the launch of this show. I have a smart TV, receiving OTA broadcasts for my local stations, and numerous digital devices on which to otherwise watch All Access. I’ll start by watching the FREE OTA broadcast premiere of DISC. Then if I’m convinced I’ll watch it, I’ll get the free trial of All Access, which I may only keep for the 3 months I’ll need to watch the entire series. Depending on how much I enjoy the service, I might keep it. Otherwise, I’ll cancel until the next season should it be renewed. And I won’t have gone out of my way at all to do it. It will be too bad for those folks who have to buy something they don’t already have to receive All Access, just as it was for those who didn’t have access to UPN when VOY premiered. And it’s too bad for those who already pay a fortune for a bad cable plan with hundreds of channels they don’t even watch, and have to pay more for All Access, just like they have to pay for HBO on top of their cable package to get Game of Thrones. It’s too bad for them, but for me, even if I had to join two more streaming channels, it’s going to cost me far less than I’ve ever paid for TV programming than during my entire life — but this time I will get exactly what I want. THIS IS THE FUTURE. Like it or not.

It is heading that way, yes. Does that mean CBS must limit themselves now? No. Seems to me that if they make the show available on disc, even after it “airs” they would open up the possibility of more subscribers in the future. Just as adding more affiliates after the initial UPN launch would increase UPN’s advertising dollars. Although using UPN as an example may not be the best analogy. UPN launched with Trek as their tentpole series. Yet it didn’t stop UPN from failing. Seems with the CW starting that created one too many national networks for the market and they were forced to merge. CBS is doing something similar with AA. Making Trek their tentpole. Just sayin’.

I’m glad you have this all figured out for how you are going to do this. I have a few possibilities for what will be done depending on what CBS may or may not say about DSC or provide to get their service in the future. BTW.. I don’t know anyone who pays a fortune for bad cable plans. If someone does that they pretty much have money to burn so adding streaming service on top of streaming service on top of streaming service is probably not something they are concerned with. Personally, I have a perfectly adequate cable plan. It’s not perfect… There is one service that is completely possible yet for reasons I am not privy to they do not provide. Yet. But overall I am not feel I am getting ripped off and get all the stations I am willing to pay for. And quite honestly, if I did cut the cord, as a couple of my compatriots have, there is a lot of content I enjoy that I would not have access to any longer. Far more than I would have if I replaced it with 4 or 5 streaming services. BTW… If you are paying THAT much for cable then you are not shopping around. I’ve heard of people paying multiple hundreds of dollars for cable and for the life of me I have a hard time figuring out HOW that even happens.

Streaming is the way things are heading but that does not mean CBS has to not just limit but SEVERELY limit potential customers the way they have today.

@ML31 — no offense, but you live in some kind of mythical fantasy land where you have multiple, reasonable cable provider competing for your business. Most people only have one cable provider — there’s no shopping around. In Los Angeles, there’s one cable provider in my area — Spectrum. Other than that consumers have the choice of Fios, ATT/DirecTV (where available) and Dish (if allowed). All have different “competive” packages with various strengths and weaknesses depending on a customers needs. But it’s far from competive. They’re all hamstrung by package deals. And thanks to the virtual monopoly a few providers represent, there’s no real competition, and prices are all about the same. My mom lives in a rural state with one cable provider (not a national franchise), and no digital fiber options. She doesn’t want to bolt a satellite to her house, so highway robbery for cable it is. I spend under $30 for all the streaming options I need. There’s not a single cable or satellite plan I could get that offers all of the channels I watch in my area. So again, no offense, but you must live in a bubble with options most of America doesn’t have.

And seriously, I don’t know what this disc stuff is … It’s not the future, it’s the past, and studios are rapidly laying off people who work in physical disc divisions, as the sales continue to plummet. So yes, now is the time for studios to start pushing consumers to the new model, especially as they try to get out from under the thumb of evil cable providers, at least for studios that aren’t beholden to them like Universal/NBC/Comcast. And even then, Comcast isn’t everywhere, so the only way for them to expand is digitally.

So again, I really can’t agree with you. CBS is likely making the correct decision, which may be at the expense of some of the older fans, but then again, they’ve already done that with the content itself haven’t they? It’s pretty clear CBS is hoping to be at the forefront of a new era, one which I’m ready for, as is everyone I know, including my mother. And the sooner studios accommodate a la cart programming, the faster we’ll get there. And soon, just like music, I’ll be able to pay for and watch only what I want without getting a bunch of other crap I don’t want, and for which I’m overpaying.

There is shopping around available. There is more than one cable provider. There is the local ground oriented one and then there are the satellite providers. Each have multiple tiers and multiple plans to choose from. It’s not like you have one choice and one choice only to spent multiple hundreds of dollars. You just admitted in your post that there are options. I have found there is extreme competition. Every 6 months or so I check out the competitors rates and services. I’ve already swapped once. If I find a better deal I will swap again. If you think that what you get for your dollar in these services is not good enough, fine. People have that right. But I think referring to it as “highway robbery” is disingenuous at best. I honestly do not know how someone’s cable bill could possibly be as high as some claimed it was unless you were buying scores of pay per view every month.
BTW.. There is no streaming service in existence that will get me what I get from cable. That is an absolute fact. If I’m patient and want to wait 6 months to a year after stuff airs I can perhaps get 75-80% of what I get on cable streamed. But that is the best streaming can do.

Disc stuff? I’m guessing you are referring to these things called Blu-Ray discs. You see, you buy or rent the disc, put it in a player and you can watch the content of it on your TV. It really is pretty good. And it’s better quality than streaming. Not only that, but when you have it on disc, it’s yours forever. Not for just as long as your service has secured the rights for.

Why are cable providers “evil” but streaming services not? Are they letting you stream stuff for free? Sorry. They are out to make a buck as much as any other business. Yes, streaming is becoming more common. But the discs aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. In fact, better and better product is coming out. 8K has been showcased already. The physical media will always be a step ahead of the cloud.

If CBS is hoping to be at the forefront of a new era they missed that boat by a number of years. They are VERY late to the party. They needed to do this at least 5 years ago. As I said… There is already a bit of a public back lash to YET another pay streaming service. Potential customers are already starting to say, “no more for me, thanks.”

Best case scenario for you is if there are more and more streaming services that show up and try to eke out existence, they only way they will probably survive is if some provider like Comcast bundles them together like they do with cable stations and give those streaming services to you as a group. Then you will be right back in the same boat. Thinking you are overpaying for said streaming services you are happy are coming now.

Is that what you did ML? No so stop using that lame argument. Most people do not watch TV that way.

Thats like saying you could watch All Access on your TV but you wont buy the device to allow it.

TV antennas didnt sprout out of the ground. Cable isnt free.

DOnt watch the friggen show if you’re so upset about the $0.42 you’re going to pay as part of the 23 man group you’re going in on with All Access. lol

“Is that what you did ML?”

No. I had cable.

“No so stop using that lame argument. Most people do not watch TV that way.”

It is a legitimate response to someone saying they had to buy cable to get UPN. Because in nearly all cases you did not have to. Further, today a lot of people have cut the cable cord and ARE watching over their digital antennas.

“TV antennas didnt sprout out of the ground. Cable isnt free. ”

I never said they did or it wasn’t.

This horse is dead. No reason to continue to beat it.

Exactly ML, just as Cadet said. You had to BUY cable. So why d you complain about BUYING All Access? You either complain that you have to pay for it (just like you wont pay for Netflix) or you complain that streaming sucks (which it doesnt, even though you keep saying it does while ignoring everyone who watches streaming with zero issues) or you complain that you cant watch All Access on your TV even though people have told you how and then you complain about needing a device to do so…sort of like needing a cable box or antenna, both of which arent free.

Yes, a dead horse indeed. Stop beating it.

Why do you ask questions that have already been answered?

(For the 150th time, I DO pay for Netflix)
(And streaming is inferior to discs no matter how much you claim it isn’t)

You keep claiming I said thing I didn’t. You keep claiming others have said things they didn’t. You keep asking the same questions that get answered time and time again. If you don’t like the answers then address the answers! Why do you constantly pretend no one is responding directly to your questions?

Why do you want to ruin yet another thread? Is it some kind of challenge to ruins the most threads on a Star Trek site or something?

You have repeatedly said you do NOT pay for Netflix streaming.

And you have repeatably said you only watch broadcast (720) or HD Blu Ray (1080) whereas many people watch 4k streaming so stop clouding the issue with nonsense.

I’ve quoted you extensively. You stated repeatedly you felt streaming was no good, Netflix streaming did not work well for you etc. You said those things. Just admit it.

You have complained for nearly a year now about there being a cost associated with AA. And even though you have incorrectly labelled the streaming industry as not of consistent or sufficient quality, you have lamented the fact Discovery isnt on Netflix in the US because it would be “free” for you since you use your friend’s Netflix account.

If someone does not have Netflix and isnt stealing it by way of someone else’s account who lives in a different household, then it would NOT be free for them.

Just like cable isnt free. Yu blu rays arent free. Your blu ray player isnt free. The actual cable used to connect your devices isnt free. Your electricity isnt free. The roof over your head isnt free. Your TV isnt free.

Or are you “borrowing” all those things too? lol

TUP/ML31 your constant flameware has grown tiresome so it is now over. Ignore each other and stop it. You are flooding post after post. This is your final warning before ban.
– TrekMovie Aministration

Questions to: https://trekmovie.com/about/feedback-2/

Correct. I do not pay for the streaming side of Netflix. Which does not change the fact that I have a Netflix account.
I do watch broadcast (720 or 1080 depending one the broadcaster) and BD. Many do have 4K capability but the vast majority do not. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

You have MISquoted me extensively. I did not just say Netflix streaming did not work for me. I said streaming in general did not work for me.

I have not labeled the streaming industry as insufficient or of low quality. I said that of the technology. I never lamented DSC not being on Netflix. Not once.

It is NOT stealing when someone offers something to you out of the goodness of their heart. It’s called kindness.

Why are you telling me cable isn’t free? I know it isn’t and never complained about it’s costs like others here have. Nor have I complained about any other the other things being free. Why do you have to ruin everything?

Watching TNG as a teen, I always thought Ishara was mighty cute. *ahem*

And I have no issues with Spock having a sister either. Roll on DSC!

Ishara was ultrahot, especially in her sleeveless outfit. That was the moment I decided that I wanted sleeveless uniforms on Star Trek. Unfortunately, that never happened…

Another Ishara fan.
We are Legion!

Pointing to one of the worst & dumbest ideas from the worst Trek movie to rationalize repeating the very same dumb idea is rather ridiculous.

Sybok was not the problem. You’ve got a bad taste in your mouth over it because the movie he was revealed in was absolutely atrocious. That, by no means, is an indication of it it’s viability or quality.

Lets see how the story plays out before we make unfounded judgements about the series.


Sybok was a poorly written character in a lousy movie, it’s absolutely laughable that some are pointing to him to justify this Spock’s sister nonsense.

Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer, great characters to various degrees that were judged based on their own merits & not their familial connections.

Like it wasn’t enough to have Sarek, of all Vulcans, as her mentor, they went further and made her his adopted daughter to create a link with a beloved character. It sounds like fan-fiction.

No, people are pointing to it as an example of maintaining canon in how private the character of Spock was.

You conveniently ignore every other example given.

We get it, you hate the show you’ve never seen. You should go outside for awhile, enjoy the day, feed some ducks. Maybe you’d smile once in awhile. All this negativity cant be good for you, my friend.

Are you going to address the many other points the article made?


The other points are just reiteration of the main excuse that Spock & others don’t talk about their family. The difference here that Burnham is a member of Starfleet and she was involved in a recent conflict with the Klingon, that’s bound to make her known among Starfleet officers especially those encountering the Klingons like Kirk.

Bottom line this reeks of fan-fiction level writing.

except that TOS cannon has firmly established that characters do not talk about their families unless the plot dictates that it is neccissary – out of all the klingon episodes, there is no reason for Spock or any other characters to randomly say, “hey, Burnham met some klingons!” Let along, TOS rarely referenced its own past events.

No, because they dont serve his personal negative bias.

Great editorial. For me, an even simpler explanation is that maybe Spock did talk about Michael at some point in his long life. While we’ve seen hundreds of hours of a Star Trek, spanning hundreds of years in Trek time, we haven’t seen every moment of these characters lives. We have seen an infinitesimally small percent of their lives. I don’t consider new information like this a retccon. It’s simply something we haven’t heard about before.

Another thing on that line… A huge faux pas in The Wrath of Khan was Chekov recognizing Khan when he wasn’t around that first season. Yet everyone accepts it because the movie was so darn good. In fact, people went out of their way to come up with ways it could still be possible. However far fetched they might be…

A great example. There are a lot of so called canon violations that can be explained by assuming it was just something we haven’t seen on screen, or that a character simply made a mistake.

Chekov served on the Enterprise but not on the bridge and was not seen in the episode. The ship had hundreds of crew that were never seen.

Thats far-fetched? lol

I think most can accept the possibility that Chekov was doing his thing somewhere unseen by TV viewers that first season. But Khan did not go around introducing himself to all 400+ members of the crew. At best some would have seen him and most would have heard of him. But it is a stretch that even Khan’s genetically engineered mind would have him remember the name and face of a crew member he never saw to begin with. That episode followed Khan around pretty good. Unlikely in his maneuvers around the ship they would have stopped and said, “Khan… Ensign Chekov. Chekov… Khan.”

So yeah. It kinda is far fetched. And the point is, people blow it off because the movie overall was very good. If the movie was bad, people would rip on it as par of why the movie was bad.

Did you follow Khan around the entire time? You know who he interacted with? You know what reading material he had?

People go out of their way to come up with things to complain about.


I addressed that in my post. Again, the episode pretty much followed Khan just about everywhere he went on the ship. Common sense dictates that even if Khan recognized Chekov from being moved about the ship it is unlikely the two introduced themselves to each other. There is no reasonable reason why Khan would know Chekov’s name.

But you are getting off topic. The point is, this was a flaw no one really cared about because the movie was good. If the movie was bad, people would rip it as part of the problems with the movie. The fact that you go out of your way to whine makes this comment from you, “People go out of their way to come up with things to complain about” hypocritical.

@ML31 — “There is no reasonable reason why Khan would know Chekov’s name.”

I completely disagree. Do we know what Chekov did that first season on the Enterprise when he was never seen? All it would take is one thing, one small interaction — Khan: (responding to door buzzer) “Yes?” Chekov: “Hello sir, my name is Ensign Pavel Checkov, I’ve been assigned to show you our navigation charts, and answer the technical questions Capt. Kirk promised you.”

Cadet, I said it was unlikely. 1 in 400 chance. Less so when you consider all they really did was set up a viewing console in sick bay for him. In fact, I think it so unlikely that it’s not unreasonable to just call Khan remembering Chekov a writing flaw in WoK.

But again, the point is people blow it off because the movie was good. If the movie was bad people would bring that up as part of what made the movie bad. THAT is the point here.

Actually, its not a flaw. Because we KNOW Khan met Chekov. He says as much in Wrath of Khan. So your argument is, yes they said Khan and Chekov met but I dont believe it so I wont accept it?

Stop being so anal. It literally doesnt matter.

First, we DON’T know it.

Next it doesn’t really matter yes because you are missing the point of what was being said here. Which is amazingly common for you.

@ML31 — again, you have no idea what the actual odds are, since you have no idea how the Enterprise was organized, what Chekov was doing at the time, or what Khan was doing when he was not on screen. But fine, if you’re point is that they don’t blow off Sybok because TFF was bad, then I suppose I might agree. However, there’s no reason to discount Sybok as a character just because people don’t generally like TFF, whether they do or not. It doesn’t make it anymore a writing flaw than reasonably retconing Chekov to “Space Seed”. Yes people could complain about it, and likely would if TWOK was received as a bad film, but that in of itself doesn’t make it wrong, or a contributing factor to the success or failure of the film.

@Cadet – yes, exactly.

ML will now argue to death because he cant admit he’s wrong. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that Khan didnt know Chekov. In fact, we KNOW he did because he recognizes him in Wrath of Khan so its a moot point.

“ML will now argue to death because he cant admit he’s wrong.”

Speak for yourself, chief. It’s funny you even say such things….

This artivl

This article has a title that contains spoilers. What the hell. I did not want to know that before seeing the show. Why the fark was this not considered spoiler material. Jesus

It is about as much spoiler as her name and rank. It’s a big part of the character, it’s gonna be all over the official materials.

Because its not a spoiler. This was mentioned as part of Discovery’s very own marketing/promotion and has been highlighted from the comic con panel to an article in EW. I mean, seriously.

I have to admit, what we know about Michael Burnham so far reads like bad fan fiction. She’s “the first human to attend the Vulcan Science Academy,” she “is the adopted sibling of an existing character”, and gets along better with the family of said existing character then the character himself does.

Yes, the character does not contradict existing Prime canon, but this connection to Spock for the star character of a new series feels… unnecessary.

I think the words you’re looking for are “Mary Sue.”

It’s not bad fan fiction at all. It’s good fan fiction :-)

The idea of a “reverse-Spock” character is intriguing. We had three Vulcan characters on Trek. We had a Klingon raised by Humans. But we never had a Human raised by Vulcans or any other species. It’s the logical next step. Making her Spock’s stepsister is arguably delicate, but it adds some extra spice to the saga…

Adopted sister, not step sister.

Not necessarily. Are we 100% sure Sarek was married to Amanda when he “adopted” Burnham? We know from Trek V that Sarek had a child by a Vulcan princess (probably because of pon farr) before he married Amanda.

Burnham may well be more of a contemporary of Sybok than Spock.

They said adopted sister.

As I reflect on my childhood, I can honestly say, I have no memory of this person.

I think it’s a great twist to the plot of Discovery. Love seeing Sarek and Harry Mudd in the next installment of Star Trek. As for All Access, I’ll gladly pay $9.99 to not have to sit through commercials. Wish I could pay $10 to not have to sit through the Walking Dead commercials. Sorry that many Star Trek “fans” posting here can’t share in the excitement of the first television Star Trek in 10 years. I, for one, can’t wait…

Alan, if you have a Roku or Apple TV or Kindle Fire Stick, you can buy The Walking Dead per episode or season, commercial-free, in HD, to keep and watch as many times as you want. If you’re a cable-only guy, best case scenario is using your DVR to record it and skip over the commercials. I agree, the amount of commercials on AMC are excessive, time-wasting and take the viewer out of the story.


I DVR everything except live sporting events. And even then my viewing of live sports has diminished some. BECAUSE of the incessant commercials. I get that they pay the freight and are necessary. But there have been more and more and more of them in sports over the last couple of decades. It’s one reasons why I have recently embraced Association football. No commercials during the games!

I don’t have a problem it. They dropped Sybok on us out of nowhere so why should this be any different? It’s inexplicable that Kirk didn’t even know who Spock’s were in the first place! In all of established Prime canon it can be said that the TOS crew didn’t talk much about family.

It’s quite possible Sarek adopted Michael (I believe is her names?), since Amanda could never fully relate to Spock on a human level and needed that maternal interation.

Still doesn’t mean Discovery will be any good.

If the acting and story writing is good, then the canon violations will be forgiven. ‘Nuff said.

Yep. 100% this.

Say’s you.
Some fans want a consistent Universe they can invest in.

If you want a consistent universe, why are you a Star Trek fan?

I wish I could edit. I hate grammatical errors.

Me too! Maybe they will add that feature in the future.?

I keep trying to forget Star Trek V but you people keep bringing it back up! AAAAIIIIiiiiieeee!

This is all the bridge to bringing in new actors to play the TOS main characters; we’ll meet Spock and Pike most definitely. 10 years out from TOS is way too few to not have ST:DSC (re-)introduce the crew of the Enterprise, especially as Pike’s/April’s is already flying around out there.

@ AJinMoscow – yes, it’s pretty obvious that this ‘family connection’ is an excuse to introduce a young ‘Spock’ appearance at some point (it may even be in a ‘flashback’ context, who knows?).

But as nothing I’ve seen so far matches anything resembling the TOS show’s ‘timeline’ to me, I’ll just look on this ‘young Spock’ as an ‘alternative universe’ version along with the rest of DISCOVERY’s trappings.

Nothing wrong with that.

Its been discussed here. Im of the belief they wont be able to resist bringing in the Enterprise. I’d hope they’d try to get Greenwood because he’s so good, even though the age is wrong (although since 2009 was Prime Universe before Nero showed up, I guess Pike’s age has been retconned).

And then they’d show us a younger Spock. There was a discussion here about using Quinto as well. But I think you can cast a better Spock than Quinto, especially for the age.

I have no problem with that.

Have you spent time on Vulcan? Do you have Vulcan children of your own? Do you debate with other Vulcan parents about the merits of upbringing your children in the way you choose, not the way of your neighbor or your minister or your quadrant leader? Because I tie all my children on a leash tied to a rock, and they have to be fed like pets while reading upside down with the Selat dancing and singing Van Halen songs. That’s what I’m doing right now…! But the really amazing thing about it is that I have kept these children out of sight of each other so that they know nothing about each other. Only when I release them into the wild will they have the opportunity to relate to each other the story of their strange father.

Michael? I always sort of thought that a Boys name?


I do think this show needn’t bother with linking characters to TOS characters, as it quite frankly is silly. This is a big universe, no need to do this really.

I have a theory about the majority of Trek Fans who have a rigid inflexibility towards the show creators taking certain canonical liberties. I admit it’s a hunch and not based on any data. I think a lot of Trek fans are on the autism spectrum and they have a harder time reconciling with these sort of alterations than most.

At RikersMailbox – …or perhaps a lot of Trek fans can discern a total ‘re-imagining’ of everything that was seen in the original TOS show when they see it, and aren’t easily fooled into believing there has been really attempt to match up some of the look of that era whatsoever. Merely claiming it’s set close to the ‘TOS-era’ while making it look like the Bad Robot ‘reboot’ doesn’t necessarily cut it for many of us.

Adding weight to your argument is the fact that DSC is being made under the separate license Bad Robot was granted that allowed them to make the last three movies. That, and the high level of involvement of key collaborators like Alex Kurtzman, the visual style that certainly lands closer to the BR Trek films than anything before, (down to the wild overuse of lens flares IMO), and Alex Kurtzman’s own quotes that DSC is, “mostly pretty much an object that takes it’s reference from the other shows”, and that it will follow, “a timeline”. I have no doubt that everyone involved with this is passionate and loves Trek. I realize that it means something special to each individual. But at this point, it seems to come down to whether or not you will be willing to accept another reboot. The writers and producers want to free themselves from the confines that could hamper dramatic storytelling. I get that. I just wouldn’t take this to heart. It may look cool sometimes, or have solid performances, or ideas or concepts that may be interesting. I simply wouldn’t include it with the rest of Trek. Each individual will make their own judgement, of course.

That is such a Slur. Insulting to all implicated.
There is nothing Autistic about wanting a consistent Universe to invest in to be suspending disbelief for.
Star Wars has it- We had it before the JJ films, we accepted an alternate Universe but Many of us preferred the Consistent Prime Universe & wanted to return to it if not in the JJ Universe- now we have a 3rd Universe.

Discovery is Prime and they have said they intent to be as consistent with canon as they can be. Sounds like you’re getting what you want.

Well, certainly something is going on to make so many (even though its not THAT many) trek fans act the way they do. Opinion is one thing but the mental gymnastics some go through to twist everything to fit their anti-Discovery narrative is both impressive and sad.

It’s perfectly logical when you lay it out this way, and it has the potential to give us even more back story on Spock himself and his entire family. I hope they use it well to tell some great stories.

English is very thorough when it comes to family relationships.
A sister would be someone with whom Spock shares both parents.
Half-sister would be someone with whom Spock shares one parent.
Step-sister would be someone with whom Spock shares a step-parent.
Michael is neither. She’s a not-really-sister.

Anyway… Sybok lived with his mother, didn’t he?

Sybok was raised with Spock after his mother died. They say that in Star Trek V. Also an adopted sister is a sister. Ask anyone who has an adopted brother or sister. You just call that person your sister.

But Vulcans aren’t “anyone” — they’re, well, Vulcans, and are notoriously private.

And Spock and Sarek *were* estranged; we *do* know that he never discussed his family with Kirk, and Spock and Kirk were close by “Journey to Babel.”

Pretty ignorant especially when you begin by finger wagging.

Adoptive siblings are siblings. If you are adopted, those are your parents and those are your brothers & sisters. “English” is very clear about that.

“Adoptive siblings are siblings.”

Sure, in today’s society. Who’s to say Vulcan makes the same assumptions?

He referred specifically to English, not Vulcan.

food for thought,lets hope they handle it well and its not just shoe horned in there

So what happened to Kirk’s brother?

Deneva pizza delivery

Hysterical, ATV. Good one.

It’s ok for me. Peter Parker has a Sister and Diana WW a brother…Why not Spock a Sister?

I dunno. Spock having another sib strikes me the same way as if they were to say that there was a time travel element to the story arc. Both seem a bit overused in the Trekverse. It doesn’t particularly thrill me but at the same time I stay open minded. The temporal time war of Enterprise was a complete joke so I just hope that the whole Michael Burnham is Spocks little sister is handled better. (BTW, its totally possible that she was brought into the household after Spock had left to go off to Starfleet so he has not real connection to her).
I’ve always loved the Vulcan race and always felt it was never really explored properly – with the exception of Enterprise season 4.

Love it! Thanks for that.

When referencing Sybock it is important to note whether it is pre-hair cut, or post-hair cut. And that is no laughing matter.

I think this is a well written article with lot’s of good points. I totally agree as Spock can have a sister that we never heard of. I’m more found of the idea of Discovery than ever, but it’s still about 6 weeks away… so will have to wait and see. I don’t think it’s gonna be a big issue, but certainly an interesting one. :) _\//

Why are people so bothered!!! It’s an F’ing TV show

I don’t care about Spocks pop up sister- It’s totally plausable & doesn’t affect anything negatively as far as I can see.
here are far worse things to be concerned about with Discovery.

Great argument. Logical. 🖖🏾

Your logic is sound.

I have absolutely no issues with this.
If Burnham is responsible for the Klingon war, it’s possible she’s been shunned by the family.
I don’t see it as fan fiction at all.
I’m surprised at the vitriol shown towards this show?
A lot of the same posters make the same comment, again and again.
Why hang out here, then?

This feels like George Lucas changing things that have already been done. Worst yet, this is riding on the coattails of things that have been done before. Couldn’t they hae created an original Vulcan other than Sarek?

While I find it personally acceptable that Spock very well could have had an unspoken of adoptive sister, I really think they may have been better served to have the exact same situation, human raised by Vulcans, but NOT with Sarek and Amanda as the parents.

This is said with the full knowledge that none of us “fans” have any real clue about what is needed in this particular story arc. It may very well be that for them to do what they want she HAS to be Spock’s adoptive sister. Who knows?

Loving the, most likely unintentional, jocularity of this character.

Wow, talk about long and tortuous. And the wave of the hand at the Yesteryear episode was a nice touch. So she’ll go along with anything they do no matter how convoluted it makes things as long it’s got Star Trek slapped on it. That’s what got us Voyager and Enterprise.

@Dr Zaius — Is Yesteryear official canon? Also, do we know how old she’s supposed to be? Maybe she hadn’t been adopted yet. Maybe she was away at school. Seriously this is not a reason to invalidate the entire series.

I was under the impression that TAS was not officially considered canon. Could be wrong as I really don’t keep up on that sort of thing….


Most of TAS is not canon with the exception of Yesteryear.

Memory Alpha:

Although Michael and Denise Okuda originally decided that the animated series would not be canonical, they also stipulated that this episode [Yesteryear] is the only exception, stating their reasoning as “partly because it is reinforced by material in ‘Unification, Part I’ [sic] and ‘Journey to Babel’, but also because of Fontana’s pivotal role in developing the background for the Spock character in the original Star Trek series.” (Star Trek Chronology, 1st ed., p. 30) It is not only the Okudas who accept the events of this episode to be canonical; many other production staffers also do. (Star Trek Monthly issue 6, p. 22, et al.) Even Gene Roddenberry reportedly regarded the episode as canon. (Cinefantastique, Vol. 37, No. 2, p. 37)


Well, it aint canon anymore!


OK I guess… IT just seems weird to me to pick and chose what episodes of a series are caoniocal and which aren’t. But, whatever. It’s really not that important.

The reason I didn’t think TAS was canon was because Tiberious was first used in TAS but didn’t wasn’t considered official until uttered in TUC.

Bring that kind of argumentation about the new Klingon look and I will feel much better about DSC. ;)

Well, it seems quite a stretch to me, frankly. Sybok was apocryphal as far as Gene Roddenberry was concerned, and while “Journey to Babel” overall was a fine study of Spock’s family dynamics the ‘surprise twist’ ending of the teaser is pure ’60s melodrama. And the only thing you can say about Burnham’s absence in “Yesteryear” is that, well, technically, TAS ain’t really canon.

That said, the producers are well aware of the canon issues, and seem to suggest than an in-universe explanation is forthcoming. Why not take them at their word, and see what they come up with? It might be pretty cool, and probably couldn’t be any worse of a retcon than the Enterprise being built in an Iowa cornfield.

I mean, I get why they chose Sarek, but even so I wish it could have been some other Vulcan somewhere. There are billions of Vulcans, why we gotta keep going back to the same ones over and over?

(I know why, so they can tie it to beloved characters and bring them back for the show, etc. I just wish the writers were a touch more imaginative)

Fair points, and I agree that a secret sister isn’t out of line with canon. But it is pretty transparently just to get greater buy in from viewers. My bigger problem with Discovery is its seeming disregard for other canonical material, like oh… The entire Klingon race.

How is it violating Klingon canon?

‘Course, she may not have been a secret, particularly after Spock mind-melded with both Kirk and McCoy. Kirk’s line in Trek V — “I happen to know you don’t have a brother” — may have implicitly meant “because I *do* know you have a sister.”

I think of Michael as less of a secret and more like a previously unmentioned family member, like Sybok.