This week’s episode of Star Trek: Discovery gave us a deep dive into the Vulcans and the Sarek/Burnham relationship, with many cool call-backs to the previous Star Trek canon.

These articles are a lot of fun to write each week, because they help us peel back the expertise that the writers room and production staff are demonstrating in their knowledge of Star Trek. Let’s dig into “Lethe” now!

1. Vulcan Has No Moon, But…

In Vulcan’s sky we see the same celestial bodies above the planet first showcased in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Though Spock tells Uhura that “Vulcan has no moon” in “The Man Trap” — and the TMP Director’s Edition removed these orbiting bodies — other visits to Vulcan, such as the animated episode “Yesteryear,” have shown the spheres.

Licensed works such as the famed 1988 novel “Spock’s World” and 1999’s galactic planetary guide “New Worlds, New Civilizations” have categorized it as a ‘sister planet’ to Vulcan, an airless world called “T’Khut.”

2. ‘Wee Bairns’ Whisky

One of Miles O’Brien’s drinks of choice, ‘Wee Bairns’ brand Scotch whisky was a mainstay liquor aboard station Deep Space 9 in the 24th Century, and we now know the alcoholic beverage has been served in the Federation since at least the days of ‘Discovery’ — and is a favorite of Captain Lorca.

3. Vulcan Long-Range Shuttle

The Vulcan shuttle that Sarek boards for his trip to the Cancri system is a great design link between the Vulcan ships seen in ‘Star Trek: Enterprise’ and those seen in 24th century, such as the Vulcan ships that carried Romulan soldiers in “Unification, Part II.”

The shuttle has elements of the circular warp drive and the same color scheme as the 22nd century ships, with a move towards the blockier design seen in the 24th century.

4. T’Plana-Hath-type Starship

Also known as the Vulcan ship from the end of “Star Trek: First Contact,” this three-legged Vulcan spacecraft which made first contact with humanity apparently remained in service until at least the age of ‘Discovery,’ as one of the ships is parked on Vulcan near the Science Academy grounds.

There is also a small T’Plana-Hath-type vessel seen parked aboard the Narada in the 2009 film.

5. Starfleet Academy and the Enterprise

First USS Enterprise shout-out! Burnham is talking to Tilly about her path to command, and includes that she needs to serve on a Constitution-class starship, like the USS Enterprise, to advance her career on a command track. The implication here is that the Constitution-class starships are the pride of Starfleet, an idea that carried through into TOS.

We also get our first reference to Starfleet Academy in the series, the institution that launched the careers of many of Star Trek’s main characters. A notable exception, however, is Michael Burnham, who did not attend Starfleet Academy but graduated from the Vulcan Science Academy.

6. Logic Extremists

The group of Vulcan extremists who try to destroy Sarek’s shuttle, and who we find out later in the episode were responsible for the bombing at the Vulcan Learning Center when Burnham was a child, call themselves Logic Extremists.

Though that term makes its first appearance in the Star Trek canon, the motivations of the Logic Extremists are similar to Administrator V’Las from the Vulcan trilogy in Star Trek: Enterprise and the separatists revealed as trying to reassemble the Stone of Gol in the Star Trek:The Next Generation episode “Gambit Part II.”

7. The Vulcan Katra

The Vulcan katra, the living spirit of a Vulcan, has made several appearances in Star Trek canon. Spock transferred his katra into Doctor McCoy before his death in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which led to his eventual resurrection, and for a time Captain Jonathan Archer carried the katra of Surak.

In Discovery, Sarek performed a katra transfer to Burnham to revive her following the bombing at the Vulcan Learning Center when she was a child, and has given them a form of psychic connection ever since.

8. Holographic Target Practice

Captain Lorca and Lieutenant Tyler begin the episode engaged in a battle drill, in an environment that looks similar to what we’ve come to understand as a holodeck.

Given that technology was not fully refined and introduced into starship operation until the 24th century, we can surmise that this may be an advanced virtual reality simulation but not a true holodeck simulation.

Lorca and Tyler do not interact significantly with either the Klingon holograms or the environment they are in, and episode co-writer Ted Sullivan confirmed this was not intended to have a holodeck-level of complexity.

Though its place in canon is contested, a similar device also appears in The Animated Series as  the Recreation Room board the Enterprise.

9. Amanda Grayson

Amanda Grayson, wife of Sarek and mother to Spock, has previously been referenced in Discovery but this is her first appearance on the series.

Amanda and Burnham clearly have a close relationship, which is also given more depth in David Mack’s tie-in novel, Desperate Hours.

10. Yridia

Sarek’s ship is lost in a nebula near Yiridia, home to the Yiridian people who appeared on several occasions in Star Trek: The Next Generation, such as “Birthright, Part I” and “Gambit, Part I” as traders and information merchants.

11. Vulcan Architecture and Culture

The Vulcan cityscape seen in the episode’s opening moments continues the architectural trends previously seen in “Star Trek: Enterprise” and the 2009 “Star Trek” film, from the tall towers of the city to the arched opening of the building from which Sarek’s shuttle departs.

Vulcan Starfleet admiral Terrell also namechecks the Vulcan High Council, the ruling body of the Vulcan people that has been referenced most notably in Star Trek: Enterprise, and Burnham wears a traditional Vulcan IDIC pin when graduating from the Science Academy.

12. Spock and the Vulcan Expeditionary Group

“Lethe” gives us our first named reference to Sarek and Amanda’s biological child, Spock. The Vulcan Expeditionary Group gives Sarek the choice of admitting either Burnham or Spock due to their mixed heritage, and Sarek chooses Spock over Burnham.

As a result, Burham joins Starfleet. Ironically, Spock then declines to join the Vulcan Expeditionary Group and follows Burnham into Starfleet instead, creating a rift between father and son that lasts for 18 years (as detailed in “Journey to Babel”).

We can’t wait to see what else Star Trek: Discovery’s writers bring to the table in this weekend’s new episode, “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad.” Keep your eyes peeled for more canon connections in the future!

Novel #1:
"Desperate Hours"

Novel #2:
"Drastic Measures"

Novel #3:
"Fear Itself"

  • A_Warrior_of_Marley

    Can’t wait for the latest “La-lal-la! Not there! Canon violations! Not Star Trek!”

    • candelarius

      Mocking us Continuity Purists before we even post, eh? Gotta love Star Trek politics these days…. 🙂

      • Sterling Archer

        Well, after all the Millennials keep telling us that we’re “just old”.

        • Its not age, its not understanding trek cant look or be old.

          • Snap

            That’s fair, but if they’re going to set the show within an established time period and use the content established in that period, people cannot cry foul about it being “old” or that people want it to remain consistent. There is ZERO reason the D-7 had to be reimagined. The ship could be detailed to appear modern.

            Hell, I could say the Discovery with it’s shapes looks old and cheesy but that would be splitting hairs as it has been applied with modern detailing as opposed to the nearly featureless appearance of most ships in TOS. There was nothing preventing an established Klingon ship from being modernized the same way, other than the designers couldn’t have cared less about those “canon connections” and decided to redesign for the sake of redesigning.

            The only reason there is even an issue with anything “canon” related is they want people to believe it is the original prime timeline. While they have done an outstanding job updating some elements of TOS to modern standards, some haven’t been executed quite as well.

            Just my take.

          • Yeah, they can cry foul about making a show set in 2256 looking like a 1960s tv show with resistors and tubes.

            Looks ate not canon and makeing it look like TOS is a path to failure.

            They wanted to remake the 60s human looking D7 to fit the klingon look, so they did. End of story

          • Snap

            That’s not the point I was making at all. I even said elements such as the tech were outstandingly updated, whereas elements like real-time full bodied holographic communication from anywhere in space is too early for the time period and the stupid “this hologram of me is a mirror” nonsense.

            What is canon? What appears on screen within the confines of a Star Trek episode. You can preach that “looks are not canon” but nobody is bound by your own personal belief just as you are not bound by anybody else’s.

            Just put out of your head that the argument of “continuity” means that it hast o look like the 1960s with “resistors and tubes” because nobody is making that argument. The issue here is there is an attitude which I am surprised TrekCore is even allowing where people here are insulting people for no reason while trying to justify it by saying they WILL give them reason. There is no excuse for that type of bullying.

          • Tuskin38

            There were prefect holograms already in TOS, they just were not very wide spread. The technology existed.

          • AmiRami

            IIRC TAS had holodecks.

          • Tuskin38

            Yes. They called it a Rec room, but it was a holographic chamber similar to TNG. It was still more primitive though.

          • AmiRami

            yep that sounds right

          • Canon is a term created for writing. Its events, trek fa ns incorrectly think it is a old look, but that is not what the term means.

            You guys are getting upset because I am pointing out how silly what you want is.

            As much as you cliam looks are canon, only trek fans use that “definition”. Not even trek used it.

          • Snap

            I think you fail to grasp what the “problem” is because, personally, I couldn’t care less whether you preach “looks aren’t canon” (particularly when there is more than 40 years of Trek to prove you wrong, outside of changing the Klingons and updating the Romulans to make them more distinct from Vulcans) it doesn’t affect me whatsoever.

            You don’t have to like the opposing opinions but just because they don’t agree with your own doesn’t make them “silly” or whatnot. In fact, from my observation, it is usually you trying to force your opinion on any dissenting voice. Have your opinion, but it is no more or less valid than my own or those of anybody else. Just don’t cry foul and play the victim when people push back.

            What I have observed from others as well as yourself from time to time, is a rather disrespectful treatment of those who don’t subscribe to the “universally love Discovery” point of view. Sure, there are those who will legitimately get off on inciting trouble, but people here are all too eager to start insulting people who disagree BEFORE they even disagree and label them “canon fascists.” If you think that’s acceptable behaviour then that’s your problem.

            When it comes to the trolls, however, I would strongly suggest just ignoring them. They get exactly what they want just having you or anybody else respond to them and it will just continue to happen with each new episode or article.

          • I’m so sick of your repeated strawman attacks on “them”. You can’t even restrain from using it in a thread where so far no one argued in this direction.

          • You have argued that yourself, ypu you have no room to talk.

          • Thomas Elkins

            “Yeah, they can cry foul about making a show set in 2256 looking like a 1960s tv show with resistors and tubes.”

            I can’t speak for everyone, but to me this is wrong on multiple levels. Being faithful to an old design aesthetic does not mean bringing back obviously outdated tech like “resistors and tubes”. If you think the flashy lights on the monitors are “old” then that’s fine, go ahead and update them to modern displays. However, you don’t have to completely redesign the whole ship just to fit in newer looking computer displays.

            TOS has been remastered before and they took the time to replace some obviously outdated tech with something that looks more appropriate, but they didn’t completely destroy everything. It’s because you don’t have to destroy everything.


            Updates are ok, complete redesigns are not.

          • Brian_Brodrick

            But the problem is that even these minor updates don’t hold up and in many cases the instances of where like Spock in Balance of Terror opens up a panel to show transistors and old circuit boards is now embarrassing and is not something that you can CGI away as was the case in the two examples above.


          • Thomas Elkins

            Those were only minor examples of it being ok to change certain tech. Of course the interior of that console looks outdated and when/if they rebuild a TOS bridge from scratch for Discovery, they would obviously change it. BUT, they don’t need to change the ENTIRE bridge just to make some circuitry look new.

          • Tuskin38

            They can keep the same layout but update the look, like they did with TMP and the later TOS movies.

            No one is arguing they change the entire bridge design, just the aesthetics and detail to match modern standards.

            Hell if you look at Discovery’s bridge the layout is essentially the same, the bridge rim is bordered out with consoles (the Comms officer is even in the same spot as Uhura was in TOS), the captain’s chair is in the middle. Two guys in the front.

          • Tuskin38

            Still wouldn’t hold up with new audiences.

          • Thomas Elkins

            I’m getting so freakin’ sick of this “Doesn’t hold up with new audiences” nonsense. It is an incredibly insulting generalization of what you think modern audiences like or don’t like.

            I have a friend who is a lot younger than me and would fit the definition of a low attention span millennial. He was introduced to Star Trek with the JJ Abrams films, which are obviously more Star Wars-y action movies than previous series. And yet after watching those films he got on Netflix and started watching the older Star Trek shows and has since proclaimed TNG to be his favorite. TNG is very different from the modern films, but despite it’s slower pace, lack of major space battles and 80s aesthetic, he loves it.

            I know he doesn’t represent all young people, but it’s wrong to assume young people are incapable of enjoying classic Trek. That friend who started with the JJ films was excited for Discovery, but after watching the first episode he wasn’t impressed. He’s currently rewatching TNG for the third time instead.

          • Tuskin38

            TNG’s designs and aesthetics would still mostly work for this century. TOS 1960s wouldn’t.

          • Thomas Elkins

            Says who?

          • Tuskin38

            anyone making a TV show in the 21st century?

            If you were to take TOS to any network executive and tell them you want to make a show looking like this, they’d laugh you out of the room.

            Unless it is a period piece about someone making a Sci-Fi show in the 1960s, it wouldn’t fly.

            DSC should have just been set post-Voyager.

          • Thomas Elkins

            That’s not a good enough answer. They didn’t even try, so unless they can see the future, there is no way for them to know people wouldn’t like a faithful Star Trek series.

          • Tuskin38

            its goddamn common sense.

            No one is going to buy a fucking TV show that was built out of cardboard!

            My god man.

          • Thomas Elkins

            “No one is going to buy a fucking TV show that looks like it was built out of coloured cardboard!”

            Good thing that’s not what I’m suggesting.

          • Tuskin38

            Then maybe you should have been more descriptive.

          • Thomas Elkins

            I’ve said this 20,000 times across multiple discussions. I don’t know how much more descriptive I can make it. I’ve said time and time again, that being faithful to a classic aesthetic does not involve bringing back all the primitive tech that came with it. You can build a replica of the Enterprise’s original bridge design and then change up the materials used to build it. Better materials, better paints, better lighting, updated consoles, but the overall shape of the bridge remains intact.

          • Tuskin38

            You didn’t say anything like that in your previous comments.

            And I agree with you 100%.

          • AmiRami

            I don’t think anyone is suggesting making a TOS bridge out of cardboard and jelly beans like TOS did. But the fundamental design of the bridge and consoles doesn’t need to change. Just replace the jelly bean buttons with iPads and such and you are good to go.

          • Tuskin38

            I agree.

            If you watch DSC closely, they still have physical buttons next to their screens on the consoles.

          • Dwight Williams

            Yep. Every episode or movie will be someone’s first.

          • They are not willing to accept this fact.

          • Still looks old, dated and cheesy as all hell.

          • Thomas Elkins
          • No man, its a fact.

          • Thomas Elkins
          • Even if you make specific suggestions how the style of the 1960s can be reasonably updated, certain people will still indiscriminately attack you, saying you want everything to look exactly as in TOS. I speak from experience.

          • Tuskin38

            TMP and the other TOS movies are a good example on how to update the TOS look.

            I would be fine with that, but not a 1:1 copy of TOS.

      • We have seen it all, most of the so called “purist ” dont even catch the connections.

        • Which connections? Amanda? Starfleet Academy? Enterprise? Do these appearances or mentions make Discovery more canon?

          • Brian_Brodrick

            Amanda Grayson and her overall appearance is a wonderful bit of casting and costuming as she looks so eerily like the original actress Jane Wyatt.

          • It is canon. Those are just fun easter eggs for fans.

      • It’s the sad truth about the sycophant fandom of 2017. Everything new rules, old Star Trek sucks. And those who find any fault with the new Trek or, God forbid, still prefer the old Star Trek are canon fascists. I have always been fair in this debate so far, but can’t say the same about many of my opponents.

        • Brian_Brodrick

          No one ever said the old series really sucked, just that it is time for a much needed updating to keep Star Trek relevant with all the advances in technology since even Enterprise. And people are tired of anything new in Trek being bashed since TNG.

          • Tuskin38

            I agree without completely.

          • A growing number of people feel encouraged by Discovery to bash the old Star Trek, as the style and also the stories are concerned. I read about “stupid space Vikings” or “bland Berman Trek” every day.

        • Tuskin38

          I love all the other series, but we’re in the 21st century now, tech as it appeared in TOS just isn’t a realistic prediction anymore.

          That doesn’t stop me from re-watching TOS. But if DSC were fit in perfectly with TOS, it wouldn’t make enough money. People would want to watch it.


      I guess they are all busy watching the latest episode of “true Star Trek” from Mr. MacFarlane and Mr. Braga.

      • Quintillion Tesla

        They’re welcome to it. I personally don’t yearn AT ALL for the blandness of the B&B Trek years. It’s amazing ow these fans know what “true Star Trek” is, and yet don’t seem to recognise the B&B years as being a world away from TOS even, which had a entirely different feel and pace than the TNG years, etc.

        • Sterling Archer

          Oh, you mean “blandness” like having characters that don’t all hate each other, and can actually tolerate to be in the same room for more than five minutes, and not have have contrived situations where one character who we are constantly reminded is “the best in Star Fleet” at every possible turn have to explain to the rest of her crew “I’m the smartest mother f**cker here, and now I’m going to have to explain to the rest of you pee-ons how to solve this problem that only I can solve WITH THE POWER OF DEUS EX MACHINA!!” while screaming “LOOK!!! LOOK!! WE’RE OPEN MINDED!! LOVE US!!! LOVE US!!! IF YOU DON’T THEN YOU’RE JUST OLD!! FORGET HISTORY BECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT TO LIKE BECAUSE DIVERSITY!!”. .

          Sorry, but a lot of us aren’t sold on Glee in Space.

          • Quintillion Tesla
          • Sterling Archer

            Don’t tell me, you also think Batman v. Superman is a “landmark achievement”?

          • GhostLoveScore

            I am still not 100% decided on if I like Discovery as Star Trek. I like
            it as SciFi show, but for now it doesn’t feel as any trek so far. Is it
            me getting old(er) or does it really suck as Star Trek, I don’t know. But I am already tired of all the drama and relationships between characters. Where are good old “we encountered an unknown space fenomenon” episodes?

          • Tuskin38


        • Its even funny, those calling it “real star trek” are also the very ones that are upset real star trek used the f word.

        • Snap

          But hasn’t the argument which has been made that pretty much every Star Trek series has differed from the other incarnations? You would never mistake Deep Space Nine for The Next Generation, though Voyager is pretty much TNG meets Lost in Space.

          They all have a different feel from each other.

          What irks me with these type of threads are the people who either decided after one or two episode of The Orville that they don’t like it, “hate watch” to crap on it, or see the there are some Trek alum like Brannon Braga attached to it and slag on it without watching it sneer at it while being so incredibly condescending towards those who DO happen to enjoy it and have a different opinion than they do.

          But heaven forbid people do that to Discovery, they would be endlessly attacked and labeled trolls. Does anybody else see the hypocrisy there?

          It’s obvious that Discovery IS Star Trek, but The Orville does Star Trek-like stories quite well. If all people have to judge it are the first few episodes, which had a higher quotient of humour (which is definitely of the hit or miss variety) then it’s understandable for people to be turned off by it. But for people to say it isn’t a decent, at least, Star Trek-like show simply isn’t true.

          Let me put it this way; I can look past the fugly uniforms, tech inconsisistencies and horrible reimagining of the Klingons (all in my opinion) and enjoy Discovery for what it is. With The Orville, if people look past the hit-or-miss humour and recognize it as a TNG-like homage to Star Trek, the Trek-like themes become evident.

          Of course, nobody HAS to enjoy it, but as someone who does it is incredibly grating to see the arrogance of people PREEMPTIVELY insulting those who haven’t even made any sort of BS comments to justify the flaming.

          Now… onto the actual topic of the article, I hadn’t even noticed some of those references, like the “Wee Bairns” or the “T’Plana-Hath” ship. It’s pretty sweet to see stuff like that.

          While we haven’t seen it enough to really be sure, during red alert scenes on the bridge and the instances of the red alert graphic, I may be mistaken but it looks like there are actually separate screens for those alert graphics and it’s not just a portion of a single large screen at each station. It certainly looked to me that there were inactive screens in those sports during normal duty operations. I know I’m not really explaining it very well and I am not able to make screenshot to illustrate what I think I see, but if it is then it’s a nice, modernized callback to the TOS-style alert indicators.

        • iMike

          I don’t understand this need to quantify one iteration of Star Trek as being more or less “Trek” than another. The B&B hate on these threads is just as annoying as the DSC hate. It’s all Trek, and all of it has added something meaningful to the tapestry. Yes, the TNG years were a “world away” from TOS, and rightfully so, just as DSC is a world away from the TNG years.

          As for The Orville, it’s SUPPOSED to look like TNG because that’s Seth MacFarlane’s favorite Trek series. That’s the point. Also, it’s parody and isn’t supposed to be taken seriously. The show constantly pokes fun at TNG and is actually quite funny.

          • Brian_Brodrick

            That’s been a big point by people all along. It is all Trek. But some people aren’t willing to accept any of it as Trek simply because it doesn’t fit in with their idealized view point based on a previous iteration, one of which was separated from the other by 20 years! Then there are the differences stylistically between the Motion Picture and TOS that are almost impossible to explain, even accepting that the Enterprise was to be a major refit.

            We got some continuity between TNG, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager simply because they of all the series had a huge overlap in airing and production staff and are products of their time. But now post-Enterprise, we have another nearly two decade gap and the need to update the look. This has been acknowledged many times by the staff of Discovery and CBS. The continuing need to complain by some people is just bordering on mania and is in some cases clear cut trolling to harass fans wanting to see where the newest series goes.

          • iMike

            I grew up during the TNG-era. For me one of the best things was going to conventions. It was a great way to meet other fans, though I do recall many TOS fans hating TNG, and many TNG fans hating on what came before it. It kind of goes against the whole point of Trek’s vision. DSC is a fantastic continuation to Trek, and will likely influence new fans to check out the past iterations. It’s a win-win for Star Trek. It just really sucks that folks can’t debate something without crapping all over it.

          • Thomas Elkins

            “But now post-Enterprise, we have another nearly two decade gap and the need to update the look. This has been acknowledged many times by the staff of Discovery and CBS.”

            The problem with this is that while TNG was clearly different from TOS, they purposely set it further into the future from TOS. Things were different because it was 100 years later, so we got our updated for the 80s Star Trek, but they still acknowledged the visuals of the previous Trek. Discovery is different because it’s supposed to take place in the TOS era, but looks absolutely nothing like it. That’s the mistake they made.

            If they wanted a modern Trek for a modern audience, then they should have set it after Voyager, just like TNG was set after TOS. They could have jumped into the 25th or 26th centuries and changed whatever they wanted and there wouldn’t have been as much complaining. Of course there would be complainers, because some people just want to complain, but there definitely wouldn’t have been this many.

          • Brian_Brodrick

            Yes, that fits in with the same excuse used to explain away the rather intensive new designs of The Motion Picture, even those it was only set a few years after TOS.

            When the look was acknowledged, it was done so for nostalgia purposes and even then updating was done where it could be gotten away with, like in Enterprise’s In a Mirror, Darkly.

            And many people complained even back then about the Enterprise-D’s look, both inside and outside, even those it was in-verse built over 80 years after the TOS movie time period.

            As for when to set it, they wanted to set it in a previously unexplored time period, just like Enterprise did, for better or worse, like it or not and so updating has to be done at some point or it will rapidly die off due to extreme zeerust. And I personally don’t mind seeing the same general layout for the Constitution-class Enterprise, but I also would love to see the bridge with real flat-screen monitors, controls, and other little things that will bring it to a more modern standard.

          • Thomas Elkins

            “As for when to set it, they wanted to set it in a previously unexplored time period, just like Enterprise did,”

            Ah, but like TNG jumping 100 years forward, Enterprise jumped 100 years back. That’s why it looked different from TOS. That was an era we have truly not explored. Discovery is only 10 years before Kirk and Spock is even serving aboard the Enterprise with Pike already. This is a known and established era that didn’t need exploring. We already know what happens between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. I’m honestly sick and tired of fighting the Klingons and the Federation has been in conflict with many different species and will continue to be in conflict with species in the future. We didn’t need another Klingon War in order to tell the stories they wanted to tell. A new species challenging the Federation post-Voyager would have worked better than the Klingons because we already know what happens between them. A new species would have been new territory to explore.

            Instead we get a TOS era that doesn’t look like the TOS era. Ugh. This will never sit well with me.

      • Yeah, the not funny, not well written, cheap looking knock off. Its not trek, its a bad parody.

    • Quintillion Tesla

      The thing is, a lot of these canon-fascists don’t even know their Trek facts, they just like to act like they do.

      Trek continuity has always been a work in progress, with many, many changes and contradictions. Anyone who picked up the wonderful and painstakingly researched ( and yet light-hearted and FUN ) STAR TREK NITPICKER’S GUIDES in the ’90s knows how often Trek “facts” have altered ( due to the nature of such a long lived and widespread franchise ).

      The fun part has always been how fans have been able to successfully reconcile seemingly contradictory facts – it speaks to the imagination and creativity of Trek fans – the canon-fascists like to tread on this.

      • A_Warrior_of_Marley

        “The thing is, a lot of these canon-fascists don’t even know their Trek facts, they just like to act like they do.”

        Precisely. I’m often baffled by people who when an article like this or someone in the various commentary threads point how this is all based on what previous shows established, they act like someone skinned puppies and kittens alive or something.

  • Fiery Little One

    I think I missed only one this time, but it was an understandable miss, the T’Plana-Hath type ship. I might have missed the scotch, too, but that was because I never knew the name in the first place.

  • Sterling Archer

    STD has “canon connections and callbacks” the same way Glee “introduced people to rock n’roll and brought music to people”. They present it in a sanitized, vapid, banal package with slicker production values, so it wasn’t about the actual substance or the music, but the reference. It was to make the less knowledgeable point and say “I recognize that!! That’s familiar to me!!”. This is not introducing Star Trek to a new generation of viewers. It’s making many think that Star Trek was always this terrible.

    • mswood666

      Yeah because Trek hasn’t had literally hundreds of hours of crap over the decades. TOS started (for its time) quite strong, but that hasn’t been typical of Trek. TNG had a disastrous first season, and at this point only had one episode that I would rank as watchable. I would beg non Trek fan to skip almost the entire first and 2nd season of TNG (though in fairness it’s, again my opinion, the worst 2 season block Trek has ever produced). I think every single episode of Discovery is better then all but one of the 1st six episodes of TNG. Yet I stuck with that show through think and thin (as I was so happy to have Trek back on TV after 15 plus years). Almost as many years separate ENT and Discovery as TOS and TNG, almost).

      • Sterling Archer

        I will openly admit that TNG didn’t hit its stride until season three. But even at it’s worst, TNG is still better than STD. This series so sloppily written it’s mind boggling, and episode six “Lethe” is the worst one yet. Characters (what few there are) change from scene to scene, major plot points don’t make sense, and every who is not Michael Burnham is just a card board cut out that they position so she can look like the smartest mother f**ker in the room, and solve what ever problem that needs solving from week to week. She even looks like she’s saying through her resting b***h face “I’m the smartest one here, and now I have to explain to the rest of these peons how I’m going to save them”. Logic extremists? Seriously? Human bombs? Almost every single plot point is telegraphed from a mile away.

        There was one part of the last episode that I said “this feels like Star Trek”, and that was when Burnham was in sick bay and the doctor was there with Captain Lorca, and Lorca actually showed concern for one of his crew members, and that members of the crew actually looked like they could tolerate being in the same room with each other. I said “where did this come from?”, and then POOF!, it was gone. I guess the plot got in the way.

        The guy from Collider said about this show that it’s like a kid who had a book report due on Star Trek and he got the Cliff Notes, and he’s just reciting parts of the canon, but he doesn’t really understand what they all mean. When I think about it now, I have to ask who is this show really for? It’s obviously not for Star Trek fans, because it treats the series’ history like an after thought. And it’s not really for anyone who might not be a fan of the series,because they’re peppering in a lot of references that they won’t recognize. So who exactly is it for? It seems like it’s for the same Batman v. Superman crowd, who think that dark color palettes and dim lighting somehow pass for “mature”. It doesn’t. There are some who call the original series “bland”, however that style of story telling seems to be doing very well each week on The Orville.

        Many are saying that they’re glad this is succeeding because if it didn’t that means we won’t get any other new Star Trek. The obvious downside to this, is we’re going to get more of this type of series, we’re STILL not getting Star Trek.

        • FrostUK

          You’re suggesting that episodes like Code of Honour, The Naked Now, Angel One and Skin of Evil are better than Star Trek: Discovery?

          The Original Series isn’t bland, but the Orville is.

        • Brian_Brodrick

          “Logic extremists? Seriously?”

          Vulcans who view themselves as better than everyone else and had isolationist views is nothing new. TNG introduced them in Gambit part 2 and Enterprise later mentioned that the Syrannites were of a similar bent so what’s the problem with this?

          • Sterling Archer

            So they took an element from ONE particular two part episode, and are pretending it’s some sort of integral part of the larger Star Trek lore, while wiping their collective butts with the rest of it? That’s EXACTLY what I’m talking about. Kurtzman and company are just picking references here and there, and then flailing their arms screaming “LOOK!! LOOK!! WE’RE ONE OF YOU GUYS!! LOVE US!! LOVE US!!! OH YEAH, DIVERSITY!!”.

  • Tuskin38

    The Vulcan Expeditionary Group wasn’t mentioned in Journey to Babel, M-A mentions it in the article for the part about Spock and Starfleet.

    • Snap

      Memory Alpha also offers conjecture whenever events don;t match up and such should not be taken as “canon” when there is nothing in the referenced episode(s) to confirm them. One specific to Discovery is Michael Burnham’s status as a convicted mutineer, whereas in “The Tholian Web” when encountering the crew having apparently killed each other, Chekov inquires about there being a mutiny on a Starfleet ship and Spock replies that there has been no recorded incidents.

      Memory Alpha speculates that they were talking about “successful” mutinies but there is nothing in the conversation between Spock and Chekov to suggest that, nor does it really apply to Discovery as Burnham was still tried and convicted of mutiny.

      Trek is riddled with contradictions, though (like Scotty – in “Relics” – betting Jim Kirk brought the Enterprise out of mothballs to search for him, despite believing Kirk had died on the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B) so it’s fairly easy to shrug stuff like that off.

      • Brian_Brodrick

        “One specific to Discovery is Michael Burnham’s status as a convicted mutineer, whereas in “The Tholian Web” when encountering the crew having apparently killed each other, Chekov inquires about there being a mutiny on a Starfleet ship and Spock replies that there has been no recorded incidents.”

        Which has been pointed out was contradicted not much later when we learn that Captain Garth’s crew mutinied on him when he ordered them to destroy the people of Antos IV. Is it only a mutiny when it it contravenes the lawful orders of a captain? What about when Kirk and Spock kicked out Commodore Decker from command of the Enterprise in The Doomsday Machine? Is that not a mutiny?

        Then there’s things like the holodeck like recreation room shown in the animated series The Practical Joker that is far more advanced than any of the holograms shown in Discovery.

        • Snap

          But Garth was a madman. Is it “mutiny” for a captain to be removed for not being sound of mind?

          Dr. Crusher: “Captain Picard, you are now relieved of duty. I judge you to be disabled and mentally incapacitated.” (“Lonely Among Us”)

          Was Dr. Crusher committing mutiny? Garth would see it as mutiny and he is the one relaying the story.

          • Brian_Brodrick

            That’s the question, isn’t it? Some people would argue that a mutiny can have a valid reason, not simply be a criminal action against a lawful commander or their orders.

            In the case of Kirk and Spock against Deck, it is, by the regulations cited in the episode, a mutiny against a lawful commander.

          • Snap

            That also raises questions, though. Decker was clearly and understandably affected by what happened to his crew. He was in no way fit for command and would have destroyed the Enterprise had he not been forced to call off his attack and Kirk could see that while he was aboard the Constellation.

            As evident in the episode itself, Decker had not been examined by McCoy so Spock should not have even allowed him to assume command prior to such an examination.

            The difference with the TOS and TNG examples is Spock refused to accept McCoy’s judgement in absence of medical evidence, despite the consequences it could have on the ship and crew, whereas Crusher could relieve Picard based on her observation of the facts at hand.

          • Brian_Brodrick

            The regulation placed it the other way around and Spock argued against McCoy when McCoy claimed he could certify Deck as unfit for command right then and there, but when Spock asked if McCoy had done an exam, McCoy had to admit that he had not and so was overruled.

            In fact, Kirk simply demanded that Spock relive Deck ultimately on his personal authority as captain of the Enterprise, which was, as established, was not a valid in-verse reason to relive Decker.

            DECKER: I told you, I am in command here and I will give the orders, Captain. We’re going to turn and attack.
            KIRK [OC]: Not with my ship, you don’t.

            [Constellation Auxiliary Control]

            KIRK: Mister Spock, relieve Commodore Decker immediately. That’s a direct order.


            DECKER: You can’t relieve me and you know it. According to regulations

            [Constellation Auxiliary Control]

            KIRK: Blast regulations! Mister Spock, I order you to assume command on my personal authority as Captain of the Enterprise.

            So yeah, they kind of went against the lawful regulations at that time to relieve Decker. 😛

          • AmiRami

            I remember in that ep Geordi mentioning that Crusher does have the power to do so but its, “bocoo trouble if you’re wrong’

      • Tuskin38

        TOS contradicted itself on that mutiny claim.

  • Quonk

    Heh, funny, I had also noted the T’Plana-Hath-type ship in the background, but the headcanon portion of my brain immediately kicked in and said: Well, it’s the science academy. It’s obviously a museum piece.

    • AmiRami

      Thats how I took it as well.

  • Is it okay that I’ve enjoyed every single Star Trek show, including Discovery? Just want to make sure I’m not required to be upset or put down one of them or people who like or dislike them. Discovery is a fine addition to the Trek canon, at least so far. I have no problem accepting that a big budget, ‘prestige’ Star Trek show made in 2017 felt the need to update the visuals. Enterprise did this as well, and Discovery certainly seems like an evolution of much of what we saw in Enterprise.

  • Kuato

    Not trying to cause a stir here. But I’m curious why Trekcore is calling it “Discovery’s Canon Connections”, which implies to me that Discovery is somehow separate from canon, as opposed to something like “Discovery’s Continuity Connections”?