Donatu V? Edit
Where is this Donatu V reference coming from in "The Vulcan Hello"? If it was in the flashback scene at the Vulcan academy, then I'm not sure how it was confused with Doctari Alpha, because even if the first word is disputed (sounded like and cc'd as "Doctari"), the computer voice most certainly said "Alpha". --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:25, September 25, 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just about to go back through the episode and check that - I was also certain it wasn't Donatu. -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:29, September 25, 2017 (UTC)
- T'Kuvma mentions it in the next episode, but I don't recall it being said in relation to Burnham. -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:48, September 25, 2017 (UTC)
I don't either, and I tried to take pretty good notes during the broadcast, and Donatu V would have struck me as one of those "wink wink, nod nod" things I would have quickly caught. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 16:05, September 25, 2017 (UTC)
Klingon Attacks, Learning Centers Edit
Is anyone else confused about how many attacks she survived and where? In an Ep 1 flashback scene set in a (the?) Vulcan Learning Center with young Burnham and Sarek we learn that she survived a Klingon "terror raid" which killed her parents. In Ep 2, in another flashback we actually see her survive an attack in a learning center from which she is rescued by Sarek. I see two possibilities here, both of which I feel are confusing choices by the writers.
The most obvious is that she was the victim of two attacks. One on Doctari Alpha in which her parents were killed. One later on Vulcan at the learning center. This is the version recounted on this page. But isn't it an add choice to refer to two very similar defining moments in a character's backstory and all in crammed into the first two episodes? Any time her traumatic childhood is referred to in these and future episodes you have to scratch you head and remember which incident they are talking about. And why show us Sarek rescuing her in a second attack when surely the more meaningful event would have been Sarek rescuing her from the attack which killed her parents and thus becoming her surrogate father. There is nothing unrealistic about this. I merely wonder if we are getting it wrong because it feels like such a strange and confusing writing choice.
The second possibility is that there she survived only one bombing, at a Vulcan learning center on Doctari Alpha, where Sarek was already a friend of the family. Later, she continues attending a Vulcan learning center (either on Vulcan or the same one on Doctari Alpha). To me this makes a lot of sense, except in the way it's exposited on the show. Why in the world would they choose to set the scene where we learn about the attack in the same place (or very similar place filmed on an identical set) as we latter learn the attack itself took place? Utterly confusing. --Ranger001 (talk) 21:42, September 28, 2017 (UTC)
- Seems fairly obvious to me that the ep2 flashback was an impressionistic dreamlike superposition that blured the Doctari Alpha attack on the learning center where she was confronted with it again, and Sarek's attempt to contact her in the present time. Though it's worth noting that regarding all this background of her parents being killed and Sarek then adopting her that was explained before the show, not all that much was confirmed in a hard sense in the show yet - so editors should thread very carefully with this article because canon, not publicity should inform it. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:33, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
- Sarek expressely refers to the "bombing at the Learning Center". It seemed clear to me that this was meaning specifically the Vulcan Learning Center, and that this was distinct from the "Klingon terror raid" at "the Human-Vulcan science outpost at Doctari Alpha". -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:37, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
Possibly. I still think there is room for a lot of confusion there. And I'm not totally convinced that there is only one "Vulcan Learning Center", though I understand that is what is implied by the dialogue in Star Trek '09. Just a thought.--Ranger001 (talk) 20:21, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
Shuttle accident/Lorca note Edit
The note about Burnham's prison shuttle accident and Lorca possibly engineering it seems logical, but without more direct evidence, it's too speculative, like something that belongs on a discussion page and not in a reference article. Maybe it should be it deleted? -- BlueResistance (talk) 17:15, January 13, 2019 (UTC)
- You are quite correct and I have moved it, despite the addition of a few words that did not change the authenticity any. --Alan (talk) 17:48, January 13, 2019 (UTC)
Alternate reality? Edit
How do we know that Burnham is alive in the alternate reality in 2233? She was never mentioned in either of the three Kelvin films, which were actually all produced before Star Trek: Discovery started and Burnham's character was concieved. Am I missing something here? --Ltarex (talk) 0:34, July 22, 2019 (CET)
- I may be wrong, but I believe the reasoning is that before 2333, the prime and Kelvin timelines are identical (which was the original explanation, although Simon Pegg muddied the waters a bit in the discussion around Star Trek Beyond). 2333 is when Nero's ship either does or does not appear and destroy the USS Kelvin. Since Burnham was alive in the prime timeline in 2333, logically she must also be alive in the alternate reality in 2333. We have no way of knowing anything one way or another about how her life might be different after that, though.
- That said, I'm not sure that such a note really adds any value to the article. I'm also not sure whether this reasoning is being consistently applied across MA. If it were, there would have to be a similar line for every TOS character older than 33. I don't know why Burnham should have a note about her supposed Kelvin-timeline status and, say, Samuel T. Cogley shouldn't. Has there been previous discussion about this anywhere? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 00:38, July 22, 2019 (UTC)