Why the new SHORT TREKS “Ask Not” shows why there needs to be a CAPTAIN PIKE series! (editorial review)

WARNING! The reading of this blog WITHOUT first watching “Ask Not” WILL ruin an amazing experience for you!

It only took seven minutes and forty-five seconds.

Actually, it took even less time than that. Without the traditional SHORT TREKS opening title sequence, this latest offering of CBS’s series of mini-episodes dropped me immediately into the action. What followed was a whirlwind of masterfully delivered, impactful lines between two very strong characters. One was Captain Christopher Pike, and ANSON MOUNT could be taking a nap in a hammock and I’d still be mesmerized. So imagine what this amazing actor can do when the dialog is flying fast and furious…and lives are at stake.

The other is a brand new character, Cadet Thira Sidhu (played perfectly by Amrit Kaur), a young engineering cadet facing an impossible decision: does she follow Starfleet protocol or trust Pike? The answer is surprising, to say the least! It’s also the culmination of a tense, non-stop five-minute sequence that doesn’t leave the viewer any time or opportunity to ask “Hey, what’s really going on here?” And that was a very, very good thing!

This is where I start spoiling the episode, folks. Seriously, if you haven’t watched it yet, stop reading now, subscribe to All Access for 10 minutes, and watch “Ask Not.” Or if you’re in a country that hasn’t gotten the second series of Short Treks yet, bookmark this blog and come back to it in January. It’s not time-sensitive.

Okay, I warned ya. If you read further, the irreparable damage is all on you…

The shortest of the Short Treks yet, “Ask Not” had a total run-time of only 9 minutes and 35 seconds…and that includes nearly 2 minutes of closing credits! So the duration of the actual story was less than 8 minutes.

The first 5 minutes of that went so fast that I had to actually pause and rewind a couple of times—eventually turning on subtitles—in order to understand everything that was being said. The Star Trek easter eggs were rocketing past like stars at warp, including a couple of Starfleet regulations from the Voyager episodes “In the Flesh” and “Equinox” plus the ol’ “reserve activation clause” from Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Oh, and did I mention the Tholians?

But had things happened any less quickly, I might have had time to wonder more thoroughly: “Hey, is this some kind of test or simulation?” I mean, it obviously couldn’t have been a holodeck program…could it? And it seemed unlikely that Captain Pike would spend his valuable time participating in some kind of Kobayshi Maru test for a random Starfleet cadet. But it turns out that was exactly what he was doing!

Granted, the episode did address that very issue when Cadet Sidhu asks Pike why he bothered testing her in person when he’s probably really busy. And it turns out that Pike wants her on his crew, and war tests the mettle of everyone. He needed to be certain he could rely on this young engineer to keep her cool in a crisis…which she certainly did.

Now, the complainer in me wants to say, “If Pike needs to run this test every time someone transfers to the Enterprise, then 1) he’s gonna spend a lot of time traveling to various Starbases facing down loaded phasers, and 2) eventually word is gonna leak out about Pike’s sneak. Cadets will be lining up, eagerly anticipating the “emergency” that will get them assigned to the Enterprise. And eventually, some idiot cadet won’t take a real emergency seriously because he’ll be waiting for Captain Pike to pop out from behind a curtain.

But as I do with many fan films (and some—but not most!—episodes of Discovery), I decided to park my complaint and just enjoy this very well-crafted episode. The story worked, it was fun, and it was definitely 100% Star Trek!

“Wait,” you say, “Starfleet puts its cadets through emotional torture? I mean, it’s one thing to take the Kobayashi Maru test. But this is purposefully cruel, dangerous, and traumatic.” And then I say back to you: remember in Next Gen when Wesley was applying to Starfleet Academy and they put him the same kind of traumatic simulation for the “psych test”? In fact, Starfleet actually designed the emergency specifically to hit Wes where it would be most challenging for him emotionally: drawing on the death of his father under the command of Captain Picard.

And it’s not just cadets who get the cruel treatment. Remember in TNG‘s seventh season when Troi takes the bridge officer’s test for a promotion to the rank of full commander? She can’t figure out how to beat the final holodeck simulation until she finally, traumatically, has to give an order that will cost Geordi his life. So, yeah…precedent for this kind of thing was solidly set in Star Trek lore. Nobody ever said being in Starfleet was easy!

As with most of the Short Treks, this was a “small” episode…requiring only three sets and a green screen. Most of the episode takes place in just a single room at the starbase. Then we get a few satisfying seconds in the previously-seen Enterprise transporter room (which looks refreshingly similar to the TOS version…just snazzier). And finally, there’s a corridor and wide doorway—which was undoubtedly the easiest and cheapest of the three sets to build. They also created a CGI version of engineering which I and many other fans did not like. While the transporter was at least somewhat similar to TOS, engineering felt more like the inside of the beer factory that we saw in JJ Trek…just without all of those crazy pipes. But again, I parked that particular gripe.

Set#1 – The starbase control room
Set #2 – The transporter room
Set #3- Corridor and door
Set #4 – A virtual CGI engineering deck

But why did I choose not to complain? Because this FELT like Star Trek. When Discovery feels like Star Trek, I’ll often overlook things that bother me. The problem is that, all too often, Discovery has NOT feel like Star Trek….and this was particularly true in the first season. In fact, this one super-brief episode of Short Treks felt more like Star Trek than Discovery has managed to do in two full seasons. And “Ask Not” made me realize why.

Over the decades, Star Trek has established certain “core bricks” in its foundation:

  • Space is a place of wonder and exploration.
  • Starfleet exists, first and foremost, as an organization of peace, of science, and of compassion. Fighting and destruction of life, while sometimes necessary, are always the final resort.
  • The people who serve on starships, while often flawed in some way(s), are at heart the best humanity (and alienity) have to offer. Crews are comrades, teammates, friends, and most of all, good people of duty and honor with strong moral compasses and a respect for each other and for the diversity of life.

Granted, there were always exceptions to these “core bricks,” but they were exceptions that helped to “prove the rule” or else make us question those rules in very intriguing ways…for example, Captain Sisko’s decision to trick the Romulans into joining the alliance in “In the Pale Moonlight.”

And we also were given glimpses of the “There but for the grace of transfers go I…” scenarios showing starships and/or captains who were not worthy of their own TV series like:

  • Captain Ron Tracy of the USS Exeter in TOS’s “The Omega Glory”
  • Captain Edward Jellico, who temporarily takes command of the Enterprise-D in “Chain of Command”
  • Arrogant and/or insecure officers like Captain Stiles of the USS Excelsior and Captain JT Esteban of the USS Grissom in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock who showed how lucky we all were to have Kirk
  • The crew of the USS Equinox.

In each of these cases, the fans were shown why our favorite TV show(s) told the stories of certain crews and not other crews. Whether you think Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, or Archer is the “best” captain, you’d likely be fine following any of their orders. You’d be proud to be a member of each of those crews, and you’d probably even want to be friends with most or even all of them.

“Ask Not” pretty much checked off every one of these boxes. Sidhu’s sense of honor, her ability to hold it together through a crisis, and her unbridled joy at being able to join the crew of the Enterprise carried on the best traditions of Star Trek. Would I watch a series focusing on Cadet Sidhu the same way the Discovery focuses on Michael Burnham. In…a…nanosecond! And of course, we all already love Pike, Number One, and Spock.

Where is that new Star Trek: Pike series again, CBS?

Star Trek: Discovery usually checked almost none of those boxes…at least through most of season one and a fair amount of season two (thanks to all of that Section 31/Skynet nonsense and the whole Mushroom May plot line). The crew members of Discovery started off dysfunctional and didn’t improve much until the very end of the first season. Although Star Trek sometimes shows emotionally flawed people, it usually avoids emotionally damaged people who have no place serving on a starship (you hear me, Edward?). Even Deep Space Nine didn’t go that far.

Look, I know what CBS was TRYING to do with Discovery when they first launched it. “This is not your parents’ Star Trek. This one is darker, grittier, and harder to watch. The people are like real people you might know, with real problems and real demons that aren’t so easily conquered and overcome. This is a NEW kind of Star Trek.”

But is that what fans (and even non-fans) really wanted? Television these days is filled with characters who have real demons whom they struggle with episode after deeply emotional episode. But Star Trek was always a break from all of that. Our heroes were, well, heroes.

Now, before folks think I’m just trying to bash Discovery for the 47th time, that’s not the case…at least, not today. What the producers of Discovery tried to do was a valid experiment: a darker, grittier Star Trek hadn’t been tried before (Deep Space Nine was a Saturday morning cartoon in comparison). But the result of CBS’s “great experiment” was, ultimately, not the success they’d hoped for. And don’t just take my word for it. They course-corrected in a major way going into season two and have course corrected again heading into season three.

In my opinion, CBS should have tried to make sure the ship held together at impulse before jumping to Warp 9.9. What I mean by this is that Discovery was the first TV-based Star Trek ever to be produced by a studio other than Paramount (other than Filmation). Was that really the best moment to try to do Star Trek in a way it’s never been done before?

Imagine if, instead of the arrogant, angst-ridden Michael Burnham, our main character was newly-minted cadet engineer Sidhu (still a strong female character…and still ethnic, too!). If instead of the intense, creepy Captain Lorca, we had the amiable and heroic Captain Christopher Pike. If instead of the ever-fearful Kelpien first officer Saru, we’d had the confident and alluring Number One. And instead of the manic zaniness of Tilly or the inconsistent moodiness of Stamets, we’d had the intriguing young Vulcan Lt. Mr. Spock. And instead of the mushroom-powered, hull-spinning Discovery, we had the noble and well-established USS Enterprise. And if instead of the monochromatic Starfleet uniforms with the metallic highlights, we started with the more familiar gold-blue-red tunics with the black collars.

In other words, what if the first new Star Trek television series from CBS had featured Captain Pike and his crew? Would as many fans have kvetched about the technology not matching the first Star Trek pilot from 1965? Would there have been as much griping about the redesigned Klingons? (Well, yes, probably. Even CBS ultimately realized that was a huge mistake.) Or would fans have been more willing to accept a “kinder, gentler” (or at least less dark and dysfunctional) Star Trek more in line with the kind of series that had won over hearts and minds for the past five decades?

Did you notice? TWO Constitution-class starships!

This is not to say that a show like Discovery couldn’t have been considered as a second or third series. After all, Lower Decks will be rewriting the formula quite a bit (animated comedy), and who knows where Section 31 will go? But it just seems to me that starting off with a show like Pike might have been a better initial strategy than going for broke with Discovery…only to discover later on how much fans REALLY wanted the kind of Star Trek that CBS was trying so hard to distance itself from.

Of course, we’ll never know for certain whether starting with a Pike series would have worked better in the end. What I do know is that I’ve yet to read a single bad review of “Ask Not” (although some people are complaining about the cruelty and impracticality of the test just to bring on a new cadet). Likewise, I have yet to hear any fan who has watched Anson Mount’s portrayal of Captain Pike say that they do NOT want to see more of him and his crew. In other words…

ARE YOU LISTENING, CBS??? GIVE US A CAPTAIN PIKE SERIES ALREADY!

Actually, I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t already been announced. In fact, one reviewer was expecting to see the words “Captain Pike Will Return!” at the end of the credits for “Ask Not.” It almost seems impossible to imagine that CBS isn’t at least seriously considering the possibility, if not outright planning it (and just not telling us until next year’s San Diego Comic Con or something).

After all, they already have a bridge set, a transporter room set, turbolift, corridors, and now a massive engineering set (albeit virtual). They have three main characters—Pike, Number One, and Spock—plus a chief engineer (seen briefly in “Q&A”) and a brand new starry-eyed engineering cadet. Their adventures could take place at any time, either just after Spock arrives as an ensign, around the time of Talos IV mission, during the war when Cadet Sidhu arrives, or after the time-shift departure of the “starship-that-must-not-be-named.”

Oh, well. Seven minutes and forty-five seconds of “Ask Not” was enough to convince me that a new Pike series is already long overdue. Now we just have to wait to see how long it takes for CBS to get the same subspace transmission that we all received months ago!

40 thoughts on “Why the new SHORT TREKS “Ask Not” shows why there needs to be a CAPTAIN PIKE series! (editorial review)”

  1. I kind of felt the “Ah-ha! It was all a test!” ending was a bit obvious. But then again, I’ve got a suspicious nature.

    The *huge* engine room bothered me as well. But I’m kind of hand-waving it away by placing this Short Trek at the point in the timeline where the Enterprise gets a massive refit, and the crew compliment goes up to 400 odd.

    Stuff is getting retrofitted, old equipment is being swapped out for new, deckplates are up and bulkheads are removed.

  2. I cheated! I watched a few YouTube reviews first to get the feel for this short trek, before reading here. Lots of still shots, and a few clips. It’s very exciting I must say, and agree with the vast majority of viewers, give us Pike already! The test could be because of the ensigns being married? It’s not a very common situation, especially in early Star Fleet. And look how Worf failed when his wife’s life was at risk. When split seconds matter, engineering is high stress. I approve of testing methods.

    Finally, I might actually subscribe when Picard series is under way. I’ll wait on first impressions though. So, it had better be good! As always, thanks for the reviews!

      1. married couples at the academy isn’t a common occurrence, sure, but onboard ships and space stations it was pretty common in each series and most of the movies. unlike our current military, starfleet recognizes the value of the individual support unit that a family represents in the average everyday duty station – where the current militaries of the world largely only allow families in certain locations when they deem appropriate. considering the timeline of this particular short trek, however, spock was betrothed to t’pring but had not accepted challenge in the kalifee yet – they didn’t get married.

  3. I’m sure Sonequa Martin-Green is a terrific actress, but I think she’s been horribly miscast as ‘Michael Burnham’. After 2 seasons worth of episodes, I have very little sympathy for the character. She effectively started a needless war with the Klingons, using her BS excuse that they must “strike first before they do”. She is a convicted traitor. While she may have redeemed herself enough to be reinstated at the end of the 1st Season, that “mark” will always remain. Hell, even Tom Paris on Voyager still occasionally had issues with his past (and Voyager is by many regarded as one of the weakest Trek shows)

    I would much rather see Star Trek: Pike, with this new Cadet as one of the main characters alongside Pike, Number One and Spock, and I would be surprised if they didn’t make some kind of Pike-related announcement by next years SDCC. With Picard Season 1 airing in late January, it’s 10-episode run will have ended by end of March. Announcing the premiere date for DSC Season 3 as well as the “unanticipated” Captain Pike series at SDCC would seem to very appropriate.

    I would also like to see them cancel any further plans for a “Section 31” series. I much prefer my Trek to be portrayed as “an optimistic view of the future”, rather than a series focused on a shadow organisation whose only goal is to do whatever is necessary to protect the Federation, even when it means violating any code of conduct that would be acceptable to civilized people everywhere.

  4. I agree with you totally Ask Not was everything STD was not and everything that the previous 5 Short Treks was not. This is why I would hate to see a Captain Pike series.

    I have no faith that CBS would say hey this is what we have been getting wrong all the time we don’t need to insert social messages into Star Trek just great stories with great characters well acted.

    I would prefer them NOT to sully the legend that is Captain Pike with their Social Justice/Diversity preaching in favour of nothing at all.

    There is of course the upcoming series STP will they have learnt their lessons well I doubt it yes of course it will be far superior to STD it has Sir Patrick Stewart in it however will it be Star Trek? will CBS drop the brainwashing? Somehow I doubt it they are frantically trying to get every cast member of TNG into a cameo role except Worf Hmm wonder why? could it be his forehead? and judging from Q and A Michael Chabon doesn’t have a grasp of what Star Trek is. Now it could be a desperate attempt for credibility but these Memberberries point to a lack of confidence in what they have.

    If and my god I hope I am wrong but if STP concentrates on being Star Trek respects canon and doesnt half half a dozen plot holes every episode then yes I would love a Captain Pike series until then I would prefer his “Memory” to remain unsullied.

    1. Why do some people think Discovery’s penchant for diversity is a bad thing? If it makes you that uncomfortable to see strong black, female, and gay characters on television, Glenn, then you might need to contact your closest Guardian of Forever and take a trip back in time 20 or 30 or 50 years. Just sayin’…

      1. My problem is not with strong black females or gay people though it is interesting you go there I guess we can only have a problem with STD because of that?? I guess that is what they do oh you cannot critises something because it has gay people in it no matter if it total garbage. Also though judging from my name I am not female how do you know I am not gay or black?

        It does not automatically make something good if you put in a diverse cast in fact it can make things bad and now frequently does. Why? well it is easy, if you are hiring someone based on their physical characteristics political/Social beliefs or sexual habits you are not always hiring the best person for the job. It is also known as discrimination something that Star Trek amongst other things taught me was wrong.

        My dislike of STD and a lot of products produced my Hollywood is indeed a long list but does not include a dislike of strong Black or any other colour females or gay people, however at the top of the list is I do not want to be told how I must think believe or say. I want to be entertained not insulted either for who I am or that the writers also think I am so stupid I will not notice the logically inconsistencies within their story aka plot holes.

        1. If you don’t have a problem with the characters themselves, Glenn, then I’m not sure what the issue is. I have a lot of complaints about Discovery (as everybody well knows!), but “preachiness” is not one of them. Michael Burnham’s race and gender haven’t been singled out. No one has ever said, “It’s good to see a strong, black woman on our ship.” There’s no gay agenda that I can see. The show features three main romantic relationships (four if you count Lorca’s and Cornwell’s brief tryst): Michael and Ash, Voq and L’Rell, and Stamets and Culber. I suppose we should also include Sarek and Amanda. Each relationship is treated respectfully, and none is either “elevated” or “diminished” compared to the others. Like all relationships, each has its ups and downs.

          So I’d be happy if you could explain more specifically what it is about the show that is telling you how to think, Glenn. TOS and TNG, to me, always seemed to be the main Trek series with a strong social message. If there’s a social message to Discovery (other than “don’t mistreat your giant tardigrade”), then I definitely missed a memo.

          1. Oh God at first I thought you were asking me to detail everything wrong with STD! George R R Martin would probably finish Game of Thrones before I could finish such a list. However on re reading it I see you are only wanting me to state what I find preachy about it.

            I can see now as I start this that it is not going to be the short response I thought I could jot off.

            Firstly to correct one of your misapprehensions I most definitely do have problems with the characters almost all of them in fact apart from the excellent Doug Jones how he has not won serius awards I do not know he is the only believable one and by far the best actor on STD even including Anson Mount who is a close second. If you want me specifically to focus on Gay issues yes I do have problems with that. The characters are so two dimensional and being gay seems to drive almost everything they do great you gay so what that does not automatically make you interesting and certainly should not be the core focus of your character. I mean Maybe Doctor Mccoy was gay just didn’t make a big deal about it hell maybe Sulu was gay!! well ok a bit unrealistic there!!!. Actually didn’t the Gay Doctor stammets or something have a tantrum at a convention trying to claim credit for it as if its something special!!I wont go into why I find other characters unrealistic, though some are obvious like Tilley.

            If you don’t find it preachy I am surprised virtually every episode relies on Mickey Spock to save the day and show up mainly the men or get them to ask advice or permission to do something even if it is Anson Mount. In fact on the first episode where they are doing the millenium falcon rip off through the asteroid field a man has to die because he doesn’t listen to her and Captain Pike remains silent on the matter a bit of a command failure there.

            So we have Mickey Spock cleverer than Spock better than a starship captain always willing to tell people what to do and fix any situation. Except she is a Mary Sue character certainly not a 100% one since she has actually been trained except she hasn’t been fully trained as has never been a Captain.

            Now Starfleet is of course a exploration and military organisation and is at war so things like chain of command obeying orders not telling your Captain what to do is kind of important but not for Mickey Spock. Yes Captain Kirk frequanty saved the day but not always and he always had the help of his crew. Also he was the Captain in a military organisation but was not constantly overruled by Uhra or Sulu.

            Sorry but this is a woman power thing men are wrong and woman are always right hell you had Sarek coming to break down in tears because Mikey Spock was so great and he had been a rotten dad to her!! I think that was the penultimate episode I haven’t been able to get through the clown car one yet. I think Admiral cornwall dies because she is trapped behind a door and they forget about the transporter again!! Christ I dont know what it is with transporters they are like the silence in Doctor Who!!

            Your final point finally, yes all other Star Treks addressed social issues at various times. Not every episode and they presented them all different types of issues when they were integral to the story and in a balanced manner and left the audience to chew it over if indeed they even noticed. By comparison every episode of STD is Woman Good especially Strong Black woman good men bad. Not only is it boring and repetitive it is wrong in fact it is sexist and racist!!

            Now imagine how long this response would of been if I detailed everything wrong with STD!!!

          2. Remember I asked you to explain how the show was “preachy.” I think you failed in that task, Glenn. Here’s why…

            1) You argue that Stamets and Culber’s relationship is held out to be one of perfect gayness or something I can’t quite understand. (Read the paragraph you wrote out loud and see if it makes sense to you.) The fact is, those two character have had their ups and downs…just like any committed couple. In fact, they even had a death and resurrection. But if you look at the series as a whole, I don’t think either is defined by their gayness, just as Kirk and Riker and Paris aren’t defined by their straightness. (I find it interesting that, as I tried to find an example of an aggressively sexual female character in Star Trek, the only one that came close was Jadzia Dax…and even that was a bit of a reach.) Anyway, speaking of Dax, I wouldn’t say that Stamets and Culber are any more or less “in your face” than Jadzia and Worf…and no one ever complained that DS9 was too focused on showing a committed monogamous heterosexual relationship. In short, I don’t see Stamets and Culber’s relationship as “preachy.” It’s just another aspect of the show. And Stamets is defined by many things–including his intelligence, his bitchiness, his arrogance, and his impulsiveness. Culber is more two-dimensional as a dedicated doctor with a gentle bedside manner, but his character was explored after his rebirth. I can’t say I liked that storyline, but there was certainly no preaching going on. He was simply troubled because his “new” self wasn’t falling into the old familiar patterns of his old life.

            2) You obviously have a problem with “Mikey Spock.” Do you find it interesting that you’ve chosen to use two male character names to refer to a female character? I find it intriguing! Then again, Burnham’s first name is a more common male than female name. But Spock is a well-known male character. And calling her “Mikey” instead of “Michael” shows an attempt to diminish the strength of this woman character…something that most men never even realize that they do when they do it, and many women have traditionally just accepted this male dominance and disdain as “the way the world is.” (Personally, I find the tendency disgusting.) You never once call her Burnham or Michael. So you likely come from an origin point of having a pre-wired lack of respect for the character…possibly because she is a woman, I don’t know. But because you inherently don’t like her (for whatever reason), anything that shows Burnham being strong and confident would unsurprisingly be seen by you as preachy…and you go to great lengths to support that opinion. However, I suspect that, had you been born a woman, you might have a different perspective. Perhaps not.

            Anyway, there’s nothing “preachy” about showing Burnham constantly saving the day or giving orders (to men AND women…just watch her with Tilly, Georgiou, L’Rell, and even Cornwell!). Sure, it’s annoying as all get-out (to me and others), but it’s not preachy. Instead, it’s just the writers having to deal with having created a trap for themselves that they have to escape from every episode. Before Discovery, every Trek series had a lead character who was the captain or commander. But Discovery’s main character was at least two or three steps down the chain of command (farther…early in season one). So in order to keep Burnham prominent in the storylines, she needs to get bossy and dominate the others…even her superior officers. Otherwise, Lorca or Pike or Saru (all males, by the way!) would more logically gravitate to being the focus of the show and the plot lines.

            Anyway, Glenn, you haven’t convinced me that the show is preachy. Feel free to try again, but remember that “it bothers me personally” does not equal preachy. Preachy is “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” or “The Outcast.”

  5. Now hold the phone there just a minute!
    Spock was in Star Fleet for many years before we ever learn about his wife. And Sulu??? Only in JJ Abrams universe! Oranges & Apples! Sisko too, had many years of service before loosing his wife. And another thing, that’s decades later than TOS! None were fresh out of the academy either! So? Problems, problems.
    Riker & Troi? You’ve got to be kidding me! They were practically retired by time they got to it.

    1. Sulu had a daughter in the prime universe, David: Dimora, helm officer on the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-B. I can only assume he has a wife…or a husband. I always saw prime Sulu as straight, as does George Takei.

      1. Demora Sulu gets a backstory in “The Captain’s Daughter” by Peter David.

        One of my favourite ToS novels.

        1. Peter writes faster than I can read! We had a great dinner once, about 30 years ago (sheesh!), at Goldberg’s pizza on 2nd Avenue and 53rd Street in New York City. Man, I miss that place…and I miss chatting with Peter, too. Man, that man is FUNNY!

          1. I had the pleasure of meeting him at the Glasgow Comic Art Convention waaay back in 1991.

            As you say, he’s a helluva funny guy. A real gentleman as well.

  6. The question remains, that this test might be for junior officers recently married, and being posted to a new Star Ship? Or, something Pike decided was needed, due to something in her particular file? We could speculate endlessly. With the other examples, I can’t imagine it was an issue for them,due to number of years in Service, perhaps before they ever got married? But, with so few existing married examples, I’d say it was exceedingly rare, that officers married, and could survive such long mission postings. Did they even have 5 year missions in the Pike era?

    1. It’s generally assumed that 5-year missions, or at least 4-year missions, were pretty standard even before Kirk. Remember that Spock served under Pike’s command for more than 11 years.

      As for the test, it was Number One’s idea. So Starfleet didn’t have this particular test beforehand. Perhaps the test did have something to do with married couples, but that hardly seems fair. What if a couple was simply intimate or falling in love (like Scotty and Mira Romaine) or about to get married (like Robert Tomlinson and Angela Martin in “Balance of Terror”)? Would it be right to put them through the same test…or not put them through the same test? Seems like an H.R. nightmare in the making to me! πŸ™‚

  7. They didn’t build a full bridge set for nothing…they either have it in case they do decide to go with a Pike series, or moreso, they will have it on hand when they finally delve into the inevitable reboot of TOS.

  8. This review of “Short Treks: Ask Not” appears to be generally well-written, with the author displaying a general desire to disseminate useful information to the readers; however, it is not logical to warn readers to watch the episode in question without providing instructions as to how this is to be accomplished. Please provide a link.

    WHO’S THE P’TAK THAT WROTE THIS $@#@$ REVIEW?!?! DID IT NEVER OCCUR TO HIM THAT HE SHOULD **GIVE A LINK** TO THE #!@#$ SHOW HE WAS REVIEWING? PWI’CHA! Q’UVATHL!

    πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

    1. I wish I could provide a link, Jeff. Unfortunately, CBS kinda makes that difficult to impossible…and I refuse to support piracy. The only reason I was able to see it is because I went over to a friend’s house who subscribes to All Access and took screen caps on his computer that I uploaded to WordPress.

    2. My apologies. There are two paragraphs to my previous post. The first was enclosed in angle brackets with the word “Vulcan” in them; the second, the word “Klingon.”

      Kinda screws up the joke that the posting mechanism removed my bogus XML. πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

      OTOH, someone less ethical than I might be looking into hacking the website now…

  9. Well then, it must be specific to just this one person, for some unrevealed reason. Or number one is sadistic?

  10. Ok, it’s the writers who are at fault here! It just dawned on me, perhaps Disco rubbed off on them! Because, now, that makes the most sense. Darkness compared to light.
    Who else would conceive a sadistic first officer? Who likes to torcher new recruits?
    I’m worried now, if a Pike feature is in the making.

  11. Johnathan, I think Glen might be trying to say, all the new Star Trek is a bit too much PC. Look at every episode, recent short Treks too, and it’s a veritable feminist fest!
    And none of the recent leading “ladies” are likeable to say the least. But, treat men in a not so nice way, putting it mildly.

    Just look at all the recent multitudes of box office FLOPS, all using this “Feminist” model. And I mean ALL of them.
    Get Woke, Go Broke!

    As for the gay issue, why can’t the characters be gay, without making a big deal about it? I think that is what Glen is getting at on this issue.

    Lastly, if there is a Pike offering, I sure hope number one knows her place in the chain of command, or it too will FLOP!

    OH YA!?! Don’t forget Picard is also featuring ANOTHER woman lead too!?!
    When will it be enough? Hmmm?

  12. Spot on, as always! We. need. a. captain. Pike. series. now! πŸ˜‰

    But that put aside, there’s much to love here, but also things to hate or at least seriously question, like the engineering set. That, and the ridiculous turbolift shafts, along with all the other tech that doesn’t belong in this time period, along with the horrible redesign of the Klingons, would always put me off, be it with Discovery or a Pike series. It just doesn’t make sense and is just showing off for the sake of showing off, not because it’s needed or warranted by the story.

    Though all of that wouldn’t be a problem, if they took one fan theory to heart and just stated that Enterprise and Discovery Trek took place in a separate timeline created by the events of First Contact, instead of repeatedly stating that this was the Prime timeline. If they were, I’d have no gripe with the more advanced tech. In fact, Discovery looks like a valid continuation of the Enterprise “timeline” to me (ok, maybe some little things would still be over the top, but overall I could accept that).

    So, CBS, make that damn Pike show and rewrite your canon to something along the lines of the “three timelines” theory, and all is good. Oh, and cancel Discovery, please! πŸ˜‰

Comments are closed.