Star Trek Discovery. [SPOILERS WITHIN]

These Klingons look more like the Remans from Nemesis or the vampires from Buffy.

Too bad they discarded an iconic and unique look for something more generic and for no good reason at all.

Wouldn’t the transporters of this era be able to filter out the gay genes? Why would there be gay or trannies in Star Trek? FAKE!

In fairness they did the same for the look of the starship..

in every case, AFTER his hand was forced by circumstances beyond his control.

AFTER he was standing right in front of Kirk and keeping it private was no longer an option.

Since we never saw the conversations they had on this subject when Spock left for the Academy we do not know these things were not said.

I do not AT ALL disagree with "it's not really necessary" - my objection is to "oh this completely fucks up canon because we never heard of her before!"
Whether or not their is an in-story reason which makes this choice worthwhile for Michael remains to be seen. But of all the things people might object to in what we've seen so far, the sister things falls WAY down the list.

^THAT^ is what I'm disagreeing with.

Necessary? Maybe, maybe not - until they tell the story we can't really say.
Can't plausibly fit? Nonsense.

Spock and his companions lived many decades from the time he first appeared until his eventual death and we actually saw them on screen, in conversation, let alone conversation that was relevant to family relations, a very few hours out of those many decades. It is not REMOTELY implausible that this never came up in the few hours we saw on screen. Hell, we got 50 odd episodes or so with Sulu an Uhura when we never learned their first fucking name. And if later rights had not decided to throw a bone to the novels we might never have. Some things come up readily, some things don't.

Exactly, did Kirk wander around the Recd Room in Charlie X saying "I sure do miss my brother who may or may not be a plot point in a few months, not to mention his wife and their son my nephew none of whom I've seen in ages but whom I may happen to run across in the vastness of space at some point so I wanted all y'all to know I have a brother just in case"?

When the existence of a brother was important to the episode, THEN his brother comes up in conversation.

Point of order: if this series is set ten years before TOS, Spock has already been in Starfleet for five years. Memory Alpha states that he'd been a Starfleet officer for fifteen years before the beginning of the five year mission with Kirk.

I believe the "canon" is 11 years before "The Menagerie"

and given the relative ages, she may well have been in longer than he. Frankly, there's a LOT of supposition and a lot we don't yet know and may not ever know. We do not know at what age Michael's parents died and she was taken in, we do not know at what age she joined Starfleet. We can only approximate her age based on the actress (who's 32) while Nimoy was 35 in 1966 so if this is roughly 10 years before 2266, then Spock is ~25 BUT there's no on-screen date certain to his age and we're only ass7uming his date of birth - if Vulcans age more slowly, it is VERY easy to believe that Spock, in TOS, was actually around 50 which would result in him being older than Burnham at the time of Discovery.

So if you go back to, say, Yesteryear - maybe her parents are not dead yet, or maybe she's already been adopted but is older and is away at boarding school - but maybe she's younger and her parents are still alive and the adoption won't happen for a couple more years.

All so much supposition which is why I dispute the "implausible" rhetoric.

You can try and defend it all you want but it's stupid for the show to shoehorn her character into being Spock's sister.

That is just lazy writers doing that and they are cheating you and everyone else out of interesting stories of other Vulcans.

It's a just Rogue One marketing.

Star destroyers, xwings, atsts! I know what those are and I clapped !

Fuck you, Red Letter Media, I DID cum when the AT-ATs showed up, and I experienced no shame whatsoever.

How dare anyone enjoy a production on different terms than I do!

Tidbits on Burnham's backstory.

http://trekmovie.com/2017/08/11/det...d-in-sfx-mag-star-trek-discovery-cover-story/

So she's a bit like Daniel Jackson? Cool.

I have a hunch that Discovery is touching on the Four Years War. Which is why Axanar got the boot. Plus it looked like it fit into canon a little easier.

Could be, but why not center the show around Garth?

There's plenty of time for that.

This show has so many red flags, I'm not sure it's going to make it.

Given your recent posts, I figured you'd love red flags.

Though I can see why you think a show with modern, progressive characters might fail. Because it would validate your worldview. Newsflash, that's wrong regardless of what ratings a Trek show gets.

I heard people say that during the first 2-3 seasons of DS9.

Defending someone's first amendment right ≠ Support for Nazi ideology no matter how many times you repeat it.

I'm referring to the Confederate flag, you numpty. Though I'll own it and the Swastika are similar in motif and oppression of other cultures.

Deep Space Nine was more profitable thanks to the success of TNG though.

New spot with characters and narration.
Looks like the tagline has evolved again to "to boldly go where we have never gone before".

It's sweet they've written out the individual insignias for individual commands.

The uniforms looks like the costumes from Galaxy Quest.

Rank pips, department symbols, department colors, it's all there.

It looks like something Swedes would wear spelunking.

Spelunking your ass?

Don't get personal. I'm sensitive.

Okay, okay...