the point remains, this was all completely ignored by the writers and I can show you where, and how...
beginning with Tilly geeking out and fangirling over Burnham almost immediately. this would not happen.
In fact, it did not happen. Tilly was afraid and intimidated once she learned who her roommate was. She tried to be nice to her on-shift, because that's who Tilly is - she doesn't have a bad side, and doesn't really, deep down where it counts, believe anyone else does either. (My binging was interrupted by life, so I haven't finished the episodes set in the Terran Empire - wouldn't be surprised if some of that naivete gets burned off there, but...) There wasn't really any "fangirling" - after the captain placed Burnham in the crew, Tilly did start to take her as a mentor (while trying to help Burnham with her obvious social issues), but that's not exactly the same thing, now is it?
the point remains, this was all completely ignored by the writers and I can show you where, and how...
beginning with Tilly geeking out and fangirling over Burnham almost immediately. this would not happen.
In fact, it did not happen. Tilly was afraid and intimidated once she learned who her roommate was. She tried to be nice to her on-shift, because that's who Tilly is - she doesn't have a bad side, and doesn't really, deep down where it counts, believe anyone else does either. (My binging was interrupted by life, so I haven't finished the episodes set in the Terran Empire - wouldn't be surprised if some of that naivete gets burned off there, but...) There wasn't really any "fangirling" - after the captain placed Burnham in the crew, Tilly did start to take her as a mentor (while trying to help Burnham with her obvious social issues), but that's not exactly the same thing, now is it?
Actually, at first she wasn't even nice to Burnham on her shift. She said "We have assigned stations, you can't take that one" when Burnham was trying to take the station next to her.
But she was revealed to be a liar by Stamets, who, when sending Burnham to do her new task, said they don't have assigned stations and she should just take one.
That was obviously something that Tilly felt bad about. Because that isn't her, or at least she didn't think it was her. So she changed her attitude towards Burnham. But this change in behavior was internal to her, it didn't matter who Burnham actually was.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
If TAS is considered canon then the Enterprise had a holodeck.
Which it is, thus it did.
But the question is if the Enterprise had a holodeck during TOS, but never shown or was it installed during one of the Enterprise's refits. It would have been easy to create a holodeck in TOS. Just show the deactivated holodeck and then introduce whatever scene they want to show. Holocommunicators could have been done in TMP since Star Wars had them 2 years earlier.
Although, realistically, there wouldn't be any holodecks in the 23rd Century. Holodecks require quite a lot of energy to create force fields when a 23rd Century VR system would achieve the same purpose, but at a lower cost. Add neural interfaces and it would be much easier to do in TOS. Just have a futuristic looking bed and helmet.
The 'deck shown on DSC didn't use those silly "solid-light" things, just honest-to-interferometry holograms, insubstantial lightshows suspended in midair.
I suspect there wasn’t any holodecks in TOS due to the SPFX budget being equal to a pack of Newports and one Bazooka Joe.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I suspect there wasn’t any holodecks in TOS due to the SPFX budget being equal to a pack of Newports and one Bazooka Joe.
Voyager constantly reused the same holodeck scenes so the same could have happened with TOS. Just create at least 2 different sets, one showing the inactive holodeck and the other using an actual place from the 1960s.
But TOS was crazy expensive for it's time. Every phaser beam would eat away at the budget, hence the usage of stages and costumes from other shows like westerns or mafia flicks to save money.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Patrick, your assessment of their situation is faulty. Either that, or you assume the bridge crew of a Federation starship is so easily distractable that they shouldn't be trusted to administer a city bus system, much less a front-line interstellar craft.
No one opened fire on anyone until well after the "distraction" had passed - Burnham was already securely ensconced in the Brig when the Klingons fired on Shenzhou. Number of people killed by Burnham's actions? Zero.
Yet somehow everyone else's mutinies, including Spock's multiple mutinies and Kirk's conspiracy to commit mutiny, can be swept aside without consequence, while Burnham's court martial and sentencing to life imprisonment (until she was pulled out by Lorca and proceeded to help save the Federation) just isn't enough. You're not just moving the goalposts here - you've mounted them on casters and are wiggling them around.
Interesting choice... I find that scene with Data pushing Crusher in the water to be both the worst scene in the movie and the worst attempt at character development for Data. Why? For a start I see it as ignoring years of character development. I find it utterly unbelievable that Data would think his behavior was humorous at all. The scene also felt shoe-horned into the plot for no reason other than a heavy handed way of giving him a reason to install the emotion chip.
Data, Seven of Nine and the Doctor have "character building moments" in several episodes. Then, they lose that character progression in the very next episode. The "reset button", it is often referred to. This was because of writing for syndication. As a result, Data's character growth has been contradictory over the course of Star Trek:The Next Generation. You can feel the scene was "heavy handed", but it was consistent with the "become more human" writing in most of TNG.
In general, however, Generations was terrible. The 2nd worst trek movie of all time. Regardless, it was a scene and we clearly understood why Data did what he did.
That's kinda the point. The other characters don't fully understand her motives either. In-universe her behavior is sometimes erratic and hard to understand.
At best, it's lampshading. At worst, the rest of the crew are openly admitting that Burnham reads the script.
Let's go back to the tartigrade example.
The show's creators wanted Burnham to have a connection to the tartigrade. They wanted her to see a parallel; that both her and the tartigrade had been misjudged. Writing is an art and a science; working backwards from an endpoint is perfectly fine. However, when you finish, you need to be able to follow the logic forward to the end point.
Burnham just knew the tartigrade was not a monster. Even though it murdered the unarmed "shushing Klingon" right in front of her and tried to murder her, she somehow thought it was not dangerous. She used Saru to test her theory (and of course, she was right, because the show's creators said so. repeatedly.).
A better way to approach the situation would have been if Burnham and Lorca were in Lorca's Man Murder Cave of Murder and then called Saru in for some routine meeting. Then, Burnham could have noticed that Saru's disfunctional "incoming murder ganglia" was not being triggered. She could then point it out, get everyone's opinion, and work forward from that. Instead, the writers make her devious, unlikable, and omniscient, all because they rushed to create an outcome.
As I have said many times, my issue with Star Trek: Discovery's writing is lack of leadership or editorial oversight. If someone was in charge and directed this creativity, the show would be much improved (as far as story goes).
The problem being, she was absolutely and unambiguously guilty of a crime that WOULD get that Life Sentence even if it didn't start the war.
There are two issues here. One, the story addresses. The other BIGGER issue is sort of side-stepped by the story.
Burnham attempted a mutiny. Given the circumstances, there seems to be some room for leeway for her actions there. Her captain, when given information from Sarek, continued to act in a manner that could be considered "irrational". She would definitely have a mark on her record, but I don't know about the whole "penal colony thing".
The other issue, the one the story tries to conflate with her mutiny, is not that she started the war.
She deliberately failed to STOP the war.
She murdered T'Kuvma, and left Phillipa's corpse on the Sarcophagus ship. She let her emotions run wild and determine her actions. The story tries to make it seem like her crime was "mutiny" and "starting the war", yet, as many have pointed out, T'Kuvma was going to get SOMEONE to start his war. So the audience could forgive Burnham for that crime.
Buut...
Her crime was not stopping the war when she had the chance. As a result, her actions cost the lives of millions. I was horrified when I rewatched the post-Terran Empire episodes and saw Admiral Deathflag talk about the worlds where the Klingons "destroyed the atmosphere, causing the deaths of millions". Holy TRIBBLE, Burnham. And you did it again with Empress Saru-breath. WTF is wrong with you?! Did you learn NOTHING over the course of the show?!
Interesting choice... I find that scene with Data pushing Crusher in the water to be both the worst scene in the movie and the worst attempt at character development for Data. Why? For a start I see it as ignoring years of character development. I find it utterly unbelievable that Data would think his behavior was humorous at all. The scene also felt shoe-horned into the plot for no reason other than a heavy handed way of giving him a reason to install the emotion chip.
Data, Seven of Nine and the Doctor have "character building moments" in several episodes. Then, they lose that character progression in the very next episode. The "reset button", it is often referred to. This was because of writing for syndication. As a result, Data's character growth has been contradictory over the course of Star Trek:The Next Generation. You can feel the scene was "heavy handed", but it was consistent with the "become more human" writing in most of TNG.
In general, however, Generations was terrible. The 2nd worst trek movie of all time. Regardless, it was a scene and we clearly understood why Data did what he did.
That's kinda the point. The other characters don't fully understand her motives either. In-universe her behavior is sometimes erratic and hard to understand.
At best, it's lampshading. At worst, the rest of the crew are openly admitting that Burnham reads the script.
Let's go back to the tartigrade example.
The show's creators wanted Burnham to have a connection to the tartigrade. They wanted her to see a parallel; that both her and the tartigrade had been misjudged. Writing is an art and a science; working backwards from an endpoint is perfectly fine. However, when you finish, you need to be able to follow the logic forward to the end point.
Burnham just knew the tartigrade was not a monster. Even though it murdered the unarmed "shushing Klingon" right in front of her and tried to murder her, she somehow thought it was not dangerous. She used Saru to test her theory (and of course, she was right, because the show's creators said so. repeatedly.).
A better way to approach the situation would have been if Burnham and Lorca were in Lorca's Man Murder Cave of Murder and then called Saru in for some routine meeting. Then, Burnham could have noticed that Saru's disfunctional "incoming murder ganglia" was not being triggered. She could then point it out, get everyone's opinion, and work forward from that. Instead, the writers make her devious, unlikable, and omniscient, all because they rushed to create an outcome.
As I have said many times, my issue with Star Trek: Discovery's writing is lack of leadership or editorial oversight. If someone was in charge and directed this creativity, the show would be much improved (as far as story goes).
She didn't need to read the script. She just needed to see what the creature was doing and what it was not doing.
And what it was doing was killing people that had attacked or imprisoned it. But what it didn't do - eat any of them.
If it was a predator, it wouldn't just leave corpses lying around everywhere. If it was the kind of creature to kill and store food for later, it had omitted the storing part. If it was a creature that kills to immediately feed, it omitted the feeding part.
So it seems very likely that it was only defending itself.
And it's no surprise that it would attack anyone on the Glen - even an unarmed, shooshing, Klingon, because it was probably attacked by humanoids with energy weapons and Bat'Leth. How is it supposed to know that there are differences and only some of them are dangerous?
And beyond that - she had sensors and scanners to study the creature and figure out more about its physiology.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
She didn't need to read the script. She just needed to see what the creature was doing and what it was not doing.
And what it was doing was killing people that had attacked or imprisoned it. But what it didn't do - eat any of them.
If it was a predator, it wouldn't just leave corpses lying around everywhere. If it was the kind of creature to kill and store food for later, it had omitted the storing part. If it was a creature that kills to immediately feed, it omitted the feeding part.
So it seems very likely that it was only defending itself.
And it's no surprise that it would attack anyone on the Glen - even an unarmed, shooshing, Klingon, because it was probably attacked by humanoids with energy weapons and Bat'Leth. How is it supposed to know that there are differences and only some of them are dangerous?
And beyond that - she had sensors and scanners to study the creature and figure out more about its physiology.
She opened it's cage and it did not kill her based on no onscreen information what-so-ever.
Black bears are not predators. They don't eat humans. If you have a traumatized, frightened black bear (or any species of bear for that matter) that you locked in a cage, then handed it some tasty food, it would maul the ever-living TRIBBLE out of you. What Burnham did was incredibly stupid and reckless, given the lack of information we see on screen.
She didn't need to read the script. She just needed to see what the creature was doing and what it was not doing.
And what it was doing was killing people that had attacked or imprisoned it. But what it didn't do - eat any of them.
If it was a predator, it wouldn't just leave corpses lying around everywhere. If it was the kind of creature to kill and store food for later, it had omitted the storing part. If it was a creature that kills to immediately feed, it omitted the feeding part.
So it seems very likely that it was only defending itself.
And it's no surprise that it would attack anyone on the Glen - even an unarmed, shooshing, Klingon, because it was probably attacked by humanoids with energy weapons and Bat'Leth. How is it supposed to know that there are differences and only some of them are dangerous?
And beyond that - she had sensors and scanners to study the creature and figure out more about its physiology.
She opened it's cage and it did not kill her based on no onscreen information what-so-ever.
Black bears are not predators. They don't eat humans. If you have a traumatized, frightened black bear (or any species of bear for that matter) that you locked in a cage, then handed it some tasty food, it would maul the ever-living TRIBBLE out of you. What Burnham did was incredibly stupid and reckless, given the lack of information we see on screen.
Yeah. Isn't that a trait that Saru calls her on? Isn't that something she already proves when she commits to her mutiny, or when she decides to lure the Tardigrade away from the rest of the away team through the Glen when she's only assuming she knows the route to safety?
But isn't that also a fairly common occurrence in Star Trek, people taking reckless actions rather than safe actions because they are convinced they are right? Like when Picard decides that he'd rather fly the Enterprise on manual control through the asteroid, or to take on a bunch of Nausicaans? When Riker stands still as the T'Kon guardian seemingly attacks him, being entirely certain he has no intention of actually hurting him? When Spock is absolutely certain of his logic that the events the crew is experiencing is only an illusion and the bullets in Spectre of the Gun can't hurt them (instead of it being a holodeck like environment with no safeties, or some omnipotent being fabricated reality?) When Riker orders an away team to capture the assimilated Picard certain he can accomplish something else but endangering the lives of some highly valuable officers? Or how Kirk proceeds with plans even after Spock has given them terrible odds at success?
But on top of that -isn't she in the perfect situation for herself to make such crazy actions? Because her life most likely will be spend in prison, where she accomplishes nothing, but still has to face her guilt over her betrayal and loss of her mentor. If she's right, she gained valuable information, if not (and turning the lights up won't save her, unlike the last time the Tardigrade got loose), at least it's over, and she died trying to help the Federation.
But of course, Burnham being reckless and taking great risks because she is extremely confident in her judgement (based on a Vulcan Science Academy training and 7 years of experience in the field), that is completely unacceptable. Why? Does Discovery really rub you so wrong? Is it because she's a black woman with a man's name? Is it because she isn't a Captain? Or is it because you aren't [whatever age you were when you became Star Trek Fan] anymore that you can't accept such story conceits anymore?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Yeah. Isn't that a trait that Saru calls her on? Isn't that something she already proves when she commits to her mutiny, or when she decides to lure the Tardigrade away from the rest of the away team through the Glen when she's only assuming she knows the route to safety?
So, what is your point? That characters in the universe tell her she is wreckless and short-sighted (if not stupid) while the universe never punishes her, just the characters around her and she never, EVER learns from her mistakes or grows beyond being a harbinger of misery?
This is how you make a character no one is supposed to like. She is the Prince Geoffrey of Star Trek: Discovery.
But isn't that also a fairly common occurrence in Star Trek, people taking reckless actions rather than safe actions because they are convinced they are right? Like when Picard decides that he'd rather fly the Enterprise on manual control through the asteroid, or to take on a bunch of Nausicaans? When Riker stands still as the T'Kon guardian seemingly attacks him, being entirely certain he has no intention of actually hurting him? When Spock is absolutely certain of his logic that the events the crew is experiencing is only an illusion and the bullets in Spectre of the Gun can't hurt them (instead of it being a holodeck like environment with no safeties, or some omnipotent being fabricated reality?) When Riker orders an away team to capture the assimilated Picard certain he can accomplish something else but endangering the lives of some highly valuable officers? Or how Kirk proceeds with plans even after Spock has given them terrible odds at success?
All of those scenarios are "life and death" situations. It's slim odds vs slimmer odds (or just death).
After Security Chief McFacist got herself murdered, there was no pressing need to unleash a potentially dangerous lifeform. None. There was no "if we don't get the tartigrade to help us right now we are all doomed" scenario going on at the time. She just felt like testing a theory and putting herself and Stamets at risk, and d@mn the consequences. But, it all worked out because the showrunners said it would! Disney endings for everyone! Well, except McFacist, but we were not supposed to like her either. So, yay!
But on top of that -isn't she in the perfect situation for herself to make such crazy actions? Because her life most likely will be spend in prison, where she accomplishes nothing, but still has to face her guilt over her betrayal and loss of her mentor. If she's right, she gained valuable information, if not (and turning the lights up won't save her, unlike the last time the Tardigrade got loose), at least it's over, and she died trying to help the Federation.
What weird logic are you employing here?
It's better to get yourself murdered testing some unscientifically sound theory rather than atone for your misdeeds? You just make her sound like a coward. Is she a coward?
But of course, Burnham being reckless and taking great risks because she is extremely confident in her judgement (based on a Vulcan Science Academy training and 7 years of experience in the field), that is completely unacceptable.
Was she so confident in her judgement when she murdered T'Kuvma, guaranteeing the Federation would be embroiled in war? So, you are saying she never engaged in actions that would make the audience question her judgement? Not once? She ALWAYS displayed perfect judgement? If so, she would be the first major Star Trek character that did.
I don't care about the credentials of the character on screen. I want their actions to make sense within the context of what the story has told us. It is possible that some actions will be explained at a later date, but that clearly is not the case here.
Why? Does Discovery really rub you so wrong? Is it because she's a black woman with a man's name? Is it because she isn't a Captain? Or is it because you aren't [whatever age you were when you became Star Trek Fan] anymore that you can't accept such story conceits anymore?
What does any of this nonsense have to do with a single thing I said? Is this some kind of weird projection? Some scatter-shot attempt to stifle debate or shift the conversation somewhere else?
The issue, as I have said multiple times is: garbage writing. The answer is usually: better leadership in the writer's room or better editorial oversight.
Whatever nonsense you try to spin is just that. Nonsense.
Yeah. Isn't that a trait that Saru calls her on? Isn't that something she already proves when she commits to her mutiny, or when she decides to lure the Tardigrade away from the rest of the away team through the Glen when she's only assuming she knows the route to safety?
So, what is your point? That characters in the universe tell her she is wreckless and short-sighted (if not stupid) while the universe never punishes her, just the characters around her and she never, EVER learns from her mistakes or grows beyond being a harbinger of misery?
This is how you make a character no one is supposed to like. She is the Prince Geoffrey of Star Trek: Discovery.
But isn't that also a fairly common occurrence in Star Trek, people taking reckless actions rather than safe actions because they are convinced they are right? Like when Picard decides that he'd rather fly the Enterprise on manual control through the asteroid, or to take on a bunch of Nausicaans? When Riker stands still as the T'Kon guardian seemingly attacks him, being entirely certain he has no intention of actually hurting him? When Spock is absolutely certain of his logic that the events the crew is experiencing is only an illusion and the bullets in Spectre of the Gun can't hurt them (instead of it being a holodeck like environment with no safeties, or some omnipotent being fabricated reality?) When Riker orders an away team to capture the assimilated Picard certain he can accomplish something else but endangering the lives of some highly valuable officers? Or how Kirk proceeds with plans even after Spock has given them terrible odds at success?
All of those scenarios are "life and death" situations. It's slim odds vs slimmer odds (or just death).
After Security Chief McFacist got herself murdered, there was no pressing need to unleash a potentially dangerous lifeform. None. There was no "if we don't get the tartigrade to help us right now we are all doomed" scenario going on at the time. She just felt like testing a theory and putting herself and Stamets at risk, and d@mn the consequences. But, it all worked out because the showrunners said it would! Disney endings for everyone! Well, except McFacist, but we were not supposed to like her either. So, yay!
But on top of that -isn't she in the perfect situation for herself to make such crazy actions? Because her life most likely will be spend in prison, where she accomplishes nothing, but still has to face her guilt over her betrayal and loss of her mentor. If she's right, she gained valuable information, if not (and turning the lights up won't save her, unlike the last time the Tardigrade got loose), at least it's over, and she died trying to help the Federation.
What weird logic are you employing here?
It's better to get yourself murdered testing some unscientifically sound theory rather than atone for your misdeeds? You just make her sound like a coward. Is she a coward?
But of course, Burnham being reckless and taking great risks because she is extremely confident in her judgement (based on a Vulcan Science Academy training and 7 years of experience in the field), that is completely unacceptable.
Was she so confident in her judgement when she murdered T'Kuvma, guaranteeing the Federation would be embroiled in war? So, you are saying she never engaged in actions that would make the audience question her judgement? Not once? She ALWAYS displayed perfect judgement? If so, she would be the first major Star Trek character that did.
I don't care about the credentials of the character on screen. I want their actions to make sense within the context of what the story has told us. It is possible that some actions will be explained at a later date, but that clearly is not the case here.
Why? Does Discovery really rub you so wrong? Is it because she's a black woman with a man's name? Is it because she isn't a Captain? Or is it because you aren't [whatever age you were when you became Star Trek Fan] anymore that you can't accept such story conceits anymore?
What does any of this nonsense have to do with a single thing I said? Is this some kind of weird projection? Some scatter-shot attempt to stifle debate or shift the conversation somewhere else?
The issue, as I have said multiple times is: garbage writing. The answer is usually: better leadership in the writer's room or better editorial oversight.
Whatever nonsense you try to spin is just that. Nonsense.
The reason is that your arguments are weak and you ignore counter-arguments.
The examples of reckless behavior were not life or death situations at all. Riker standing still was risky, Riker moving out of the way was not. Picard engaging Nausicaans was risky, avoiding conflict was not. Trying to rescue Picard was only risky, there was no way of knowing that they could achieve anything with him. If that counts, why wouldn't figuring out the Tardigrade not count, because tthey learn they can use it to navigate the spore drive and save that colony?
So I wonder if you aren't brushing such arguments away because they don't fit your world view.
And fundamentally you are just questioning her skills at being able t figure out the Tardigrade's real nature. On what basis do you do that? Are you an expert on alien biology or behaviour? Did you operate those sensors and observed the creature, too, and came to a different conclusion? Or could it not be that she has found sufficicent evidence for her own standards?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The reason is that your arguments are weak and you ignore counter-arguments.
Clearly not, since you chose not to revisit your statement that "Burnham is better off dead than atoning for her misdeeds". Nor are you continuing to defend how Burnham does not grow as a character. Nor are you continuing to make statements that her "credentials" put her judgement "above reproach".
You are irritated I did not got into any detail with two situations. Fine, let's correct that.
The examples of reckless behavior were not life or death situations at all. Riker standing still was risky, Riker moving out of the way was not. Picard engaging Nausicaans was risky, avoiding conflict was not. Trying to rescue Picard was only risky, there was no way of knowing that they could achieve anything with him. If that counts, why wouldn't figuring out the Tardigrade not count, because tthey learn they can use it to navigate the spore drive and save that colony?
So I wonder if you aren't brushing such arguments away because they don't fit your world view.
Again with the "world view" nonsense. "World view" has nothing to do with it. This is criticism of story creation and story delivery.
So, let's start with Riker vs Portal 63. I assume you are referring to the events in Star Trek: The Next Generation The Last Outpots. If not, feel free to correct me.
So, with much faffing about, Riker leads a team of Federation officers down to the planet surface to meet with a group of treacherous Ferengi because something on the planet is draining power from the Enterprise and the Ferengi ship, resulting in slow deaths for everyone. After a squabble with some Ferengi, Portal 63 appears and begins a dialogue with both parties. The Ferengi try to wheedle and coerce Portal 63 into being their friend, but the Portal is having none of their shenanigans.
So, we can tell the portal is not impressed with the craven Ferengi. It also possesses some measure of independent thought outside of being a simple computer program. Riker tries to impress Portal 63 with his steadfast adherence to his beliefs. Since everyone will die if Riker fails, is this something of a gamble, yes. It still fits with the "desperate times call for drastic action" situation that I pointed out in the previous post. I was just not as wordy that time.
As a side note, when we see the events of Star Trek: The Next Generation The Pegasus, we see Riker did NOT stick to his steadfast stance on his beliefs and regretted it ever since. He takes the opportunity to correct a past mistake. Too bad Burnham never got this chance.
I'm honestly not sure what episode you are talking about when you said, "Like when Picard decides that he'd rather fly the Enterprise on manual control through the asteroid, or to take on a bunch of Nausicaans." For some reason, I thought that was Star Trek: The Next Generation Tapestry where Q and Picard go back to when got his artificial heart in some not-dream sequence. I don't suppose you could mention the episode you are referring to?[/quote]
And fundamentally you are just questioning her skills at being able t figure out the Tardigrade's real nature. On what basis do you do that?
On the basis that there is no on screen evidence to support her theory that the tartigrade will not murder her and Stamets when they let it out of it's cage.
If the tartigrade has extraordinary biology or behavior that is not analogous to animals the audience is familiar with the writer must explain that. The basis of any fiction is "this setting is just like ours except (blank)", where the writer fills in the blank. Otherwise, the audience is going to assume the weird invincible, teleporting space bear is going to act analogously to ordinary bears, except as noted by the writer (such as being invincible or teleporting).
Did you operate those sensors and observed the creature, too, and came to a different conclusion? Or could it not be that she has found sufficicent evidence for her own standards?
As I said, unless the writer gives the audience some clue, follows Burnham on her investigation, we don't know why she does what she does. That is story telling 101. Even some off-hand exposition would do the trick. Did you not read what I already said on the matter?
A better way to approach the situation would have been if Burnham and Lorca were in Lorca's Man Murder Cave of Murder and then called Saru in for some routine meeting. Then, Burnham could have noticed that Saru's disfunctional "incoming murder ganglia" was not being triggered. She could then point it out, get everyone's opinion, and work forward from that. Instead, the writers make her devious, unlikable, and omniscient, all because they rushed to create an outcome.
You carry on like this is some weird personal attack against the fictional character "Micheal Burnham" and you have to "defend" her. She is a fictional character and she is the brunt of terrible writing. If you really wanted to help this character, you should look at this critically and give the show's creators some tangible feedback.
For all you have to pick through hundreds of episodes of Star Trek just to find TWO examples that MIGHT be analogous to ONE OF SEVERAL poor actions done by this character is extremely telling. This character is not just flawed. Flawed characters can work. I've said this. The show's creative team is doing it wrong. There is a sizable portion of the audience that likes STDZ and hates Burnham. Would it not be better to improve this? Look at what works and does not, and work to improve?
You know what? I have been critical of bad story telling in other episodes of Trek. If I had the opportunity, I would certainly have told the creators where their writing or story telling fell short. However, this is a Star Trek: Discovery thread. It is also the only show where my feedback might actually have an impact on the writing. Whinging about lampshading in Journey to Babel is not going to improve the next episode of TOS (though it may have prevented facepalming in both Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and Burham's backstory).
locked behind pay way and it's probably the show with the lowest viewership in history of series.
hmmm not Prime universe? Yeah I know right holders say it is so it is... but it's not right? the aesthetics didnt match the previous shows... personally I dont mind that much but that ship sailed when DS9 did the episodes where they went back and everyone had to "dress" the part. so you cant really set a show during that time period (10-20 years before) and say it's the same universe when the look, uniforms & tech all look so different. It's looks more of a Kelvin timeline show than a prime one. they even had to redo the Enterprise so it doesnt step on the TOS copyrights.
The rights holders get to make that call, Tigeraries, not us, it's one of the little benefits of OWNING those rights.
so it is, in fact, Prime Timeline no matter HOW ridiculous that assertion really is.
and if suddenly Disney buys CBS as well or they swap some IP and falls under Disney and they say its all linked to Star Wars... then it is right? yeah what if but still what the owners say goes right? till its not. $ talks and that's it.
Enterprise on Discovery was reworked so not to conflict with TOS IP. it's been scaled up. but yeah that's how the Enterprise always should be right... I mean the old scale/models were all wrong.
If TAS is considered canon then the Enterprise had a holodeck.
Which it is, thus it did.
But the question is if the Enterprise had a holodeck during TOS, but never shown or was it installed during one of the Enterprise's refits. It would have been easy to create a holodeck in TOS. Just show the deactivated holodeck and then introduce whatever scene they want to show. Holocommunicators could have been done in TMP since Star Wars had them 2 years earlier.
Although, realistically, there wouldn't be any holodecks in the 23rd Century. Holodecks require quite a lot of energy to create force fields when a 23rd Century VR system would achieve the same purpose, but at a lower cost. Add neural interfaces and it would be much easier to do in TOS. Just have a futuristic looking bed and helmet.
Yeah.... could they have done that? sure... would it have mattered? Not really.
Comments
Actually, at first she wasn't even nice to Burnham on her shift. She said "We have assigned stations, you can't take that one" when Burnham was trying to take the station next to her.
But she was revealed to be a liar by Stamets, who, when sending Burnham to do her new task, said they don't have assigned stations and she should just take one.
That was obviously something that Tilly felt bad about. Because that isn't her, or at least she didn't think it was her. So she changed her attitude towards Burnham. But this change in behavior was internal to her, it didn't matter who Burnham actually was.
My character Tsin'xing
But the question is if the Enterprise had a holodeck during TOS, but never shown or was it installed during one of the Enterprise's refits. It would have been easy to create a holodeck in TOS. Just show the deactivated holodeck and then introduce whatever scene they want to show. Holocommunicators could have been done in TMP since Star Wars had them 2 years earlier.
Although, realistically, there wouldn't be any holodecks in the 23rd Century. Holodecks require quite a lot of energy to create force fields when a 23rd Century VR system would achieve the same purpose, but at a lower cost. Add neural interfaces and it would be much easier to do in TOS. Just have a futuristic looking bed and helmet.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Voyager constantly reused the same holodeck scenes so the same could have happened with TOS. Just create at least 2 different sets, one showing the inactive holodeck and the other using an actual place from the 1960s.
Actually ,Shatner said the budget of TOS was pretty much the catering bill of today's TV.
But, as I feel a vast majority of TV and movies today being TRIBBLE, big budget means nothing. I'll choose TOS or classic Dr. Who over today's stuff.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
No one opened fire on anyone until well after the "distraction" had passed - Burnham was already securely ensconced in the Brig when the Klingons fired on Shenzhou. Number of people killed by Burnham's actions? Zero.
Yet somehow everyone else's mutinies, including Spock's multiple mutinies and Kirk's conspiracy to commit mutiny, can be swept aside without consequence, while Burnham's court martial and sentencing to life imprisonment (until she was pulled out by Lorca and proceeded to help save the Federation) just isn't enough. You're not just moving the goalposts here - you've mounted them on casters and are wiggling them around.
In general, however, Generations was terrible. The 2nd worst trek movie of all time. Regardless, it was a scene and we clearly understood why Data did what he did. At best, it's lampshading. At worst, the rest of the crew are openly admitting that Burnham reads the script.
Let's go back to the tartigrade example.
The show's creators wanted Burnham to have a connection to the tartigrade. They wanted her to see a parallel; that both her and the tartigrade had been misjudged. Writing is an art and a science; working backwards from an endpoint is perfectly fine. However, when you finish, you need to be able to follow the logic forward to the end point.
Burnham just knew the tartigrade was not a monster. Even though it murdered the unarmed "shushing Klingon" right in front of her and tried to murder her, she somehow thought it was not dangerous. She used Saru to test her theory (and of course, she was right, because the show's creators said so. repeatedly.).
A better way to approach the situation would have been if Burnham and Lorca were in Lorca's Man Murder Cave of Murder and then called Saru in for some routine meeting. Then, Burnham could have noticed that Saru's disfunctional "incoming murder ganglia" was not being triggered. She could then point it out, get everyone's opinion, and work forward from that. Instead, the writers make her devious, unlikable, and omniscient, all because they rushed to create an outcome.
As I have said many times, my issue with Star Trek: Discovery's writing is lack of leadership or editorial oversight. If someone was in charge and directed this creativity, the show would be much improved (as far as story goes).
Burnham attempted a mutiny. Given the circumstances, there seems to be some room for leeway for her actions there. Her captain, when given information from Sarek, continued to act in a manner that could be considered "irrational". She would definitely have a mark on her record, but I don't know about the whole "penal colony thing".
The other issue, the one the story tries to conflate with her mutiny, is not that she started the war.
She deliberately failed to STOP the war.
She murdered T'Kuvma, and left Phillipa's corpse on the Sarcophagus ship. She let her emotions run wild and determine her actions. The story tries to make it seem like her crime was "mutiny" and "starting the war", yet, as many have pointed out, T'Kuvma was going to get SOMEONE to start his war. So the audience could forgive Burnham for that crime.
Buut...
Her crime was not stopping the war when she had the chance. As a result, her actions cost the lives of millions. I was horrified when I rewatched the post-Terran Empire episodes and saw Admiral Deathflag talk about the worlds where the Klingons "destroyed the atmosphere, causing the deaths of millions". Holy TRIBBLE, Burnham. And you did it again with Empress Saru-breath. WTF is wrong with you?! Did you learn NOTHING over the course of the show?!
And what it was doing was killing people that had attacked or imprisoned it. But what it didn't do - eat any of them.
If it was a predator, it wouldn't just leave corpses lying around everywhere. If it was the kind of creature to kill and store food for later, it had omitted the storing part. If it was a creature that kills to immediately feed, it omitted the feeding part.
So it seems very likely that it was only defending itself.
And it's no surprise that it would attack anyone on the Glen - even an unarmed, shooshing, Klingon, because it was probably attacked by humanoids with energy weapons and Bat'Leth. How is it supposed to know that there are differences and only some of them are dangerous?
And beyond that - she had sensors and scanners to study the creature and figure out more about its physiology.
Black bears are not predators. They don't eat humans. If you have a traumatized, frightened black bear (or any species of bear for that matter) that you locked in a cage, then handed it some tasty food, it would maul the ever-living TRIBBLE out of you. What Burnham did was incredibly stupid and reckless, given the lack of information we see on screen.
Yeah. Isn't that a trait that Saru calls her on? Isn't that something she already proves when she commits to her mutiny, or when she decides to lure the Tardigrade away from the rest of the away team through the Glen when she's only assuming she knows the route to safety?
But isn't that also a fairly common occurrence in Star Trek, people taking reckless actions rather than safe actions because they are convinced they are right? Like when Picard decides that he'd rather fly the Enterprise on manual control through the asteroid, or to take on a bunch of Nausicaans? When Riker stands still as the T'Kon guardian seemingly attacks him, being entirely certain he has no intention of actually hurting him? When Spock is absolutely certain of his logic that the events the crew is experiencing is only an illusion and the bullets in Spectre of the Gun can't hurt them (instead of it being a holodeck like environment with no safeties, or some omnipotent being fabricated reality?) When Riker orders an away team to capture the assimilated Picard certain he can accomplish something else but endangering the lives of some highly valuable officers? Or how Kirk proceeds with plans even after Spock has given them terrible odds at success?
But on top of that -isn't she in the perfect situation for herself to make such crazy actions? Because her life most likely will be spend in prison, where she accomplishes nothing, but still has to face her guilt over her betrayal and loss of her mentor. If she's right, she gained valuable information, if not (and turning the lights up won't save her, unlike the last time the Tardigrade got loose), at least it's over, and she died trying to help the Federation.
But of course, Burnham being reckless and taking great risks because she is extremely confident in her judgement (based on a Vulcan Science Academy training and 7 years of experience in the field), that is completely unacceptable. Why? Does Discovery really rub you so wrong? Is it because she's a black woman with a man's name? Is it because she isn't a Captain? Or is it because you aren't [whatever age you were when you became Star Trek Fan] anymore that you can't accept such story conceits anymore?
This is how you make a character no one is supposed to like. She is the Prince Geoffrey of Star Trek: Discovery.
All of those scenarios are "life and death" situations. It's slim odds vs slimmer odds (or just death).
After Security Chief McFacist got herself murdered, there was no pressing need to unleash a potentially dangerous lifeform. None. There was no "if we don't get the tartigrade to help us right now we are all doomed" scenario going on at the time. She just felt like testing a theory and putting herself and Stamets at risk, and d@mn the consequences. But, it all worked out because the showrunners said it would! Disney endings for everyone! Well, except McFacist, but we were not supposed to like her either. So, yay!
What weird logic are you employing here?
It's better to get yourself murdered testing some unscientifically sound theory rather than atone for your misdeeds? You just make her sound like a coward. Is she a coward?
Was she so confident in her judgement when she murdered T'Kuvma, guaranteeing the Federation would be embroiled in war? So, you are saying she never engaged in actions that would make the audience question her judgement? Not once? She ALWAYS displayed perfect judgement? If so, she would be the first major Star Trek character that did.
I don't care about the credentials of the character on screen. I want their actions to make sense within the context of what the story has told us. It is possible that some actions will be explained at a later date, but that clearly is not the case here.
What does any of this nonsense have to do with a single thing I said? Is this some kind of weird projection? Some scatter-shot attempt to stifle debate or shift the conversation somewhere else?
The issue, as I have said multiple times is: garbage writing. The answer is usually: better leadership in the writer's room or better editorial oversight.
Whatever nonsense you try to spin is just that. Nonsense.
The examples of reckless behavior were not life or death situations at all. Riker standing still was risky, Riker moving out of the way was not. Picard engaging Nausicaans was risky, avoiding conflict was not. Trying to rescue Picard was only risky, there was no way of knowing that they could achieve anything with him. If that counts, why wouldn't figuring out the Tardigrade not count, because tthey learn they can use it to navigate the spore drive and save that colony?
So I wonder if you aren't brushing such arguments away because they don't fit your world view.
And fundamentally you are just questioning her skills at being able t figure out the Tardigrade's real nature. On what basis do you do that? Are you an expert on alien biology or behaviour? Did you operate those sensors and observed the creature, too, and came to a different conclusion? Or could it not be that she has found sufficicent evidence for her own standards?
You are irritated I did not got into any detail with two situations. Fine, let's correct that.
Again with the "world view" nonsense. "World view" has nothing to do with it. This is criticism of story creation and story delivery.
So, let's start with Riker vs Portal 63. I assume you are referring to the events in Star Trek: The Next Generation The Last Outpots. If not, feel free to correct me.
So, with much faffing about, Riker leads a team of Federation officers down to the planet surface to meet with a group of treacherous Ferengi because something on the planet is draining power from the Enterprise and the Ferengi ship, resulting in slow deaths for everyone. After a squabble with some Ferengi, Portal 63 appears and begins a dialogue with both parties. The Ferengi try to wheedle and coerce Portal 63 into being their friend, but the Portal is having none of their shenanigans.
So, we can tell the portal is not impressed with the craven Ferengi. It also possesses some measure of independent thought outside of being a simple computer program. Riker tries to impress Portal 63 with his steadfast adherence to his beliefs. Since everyone will die if Riker fails, is this something of a gamble, yes. It still fits with the "desperate times call for drastic action" situation that I pointed out in the previous post. I was just not as wordy that time.
As a side note, when we see the events of Star Trek: The Next Generation The Pegasus, we see Riker did NOT stick to his steadfast stance on his beliefs and regretted it ever since. He takes the opportunity to correct a past mistake. Too bad Burnham never got this chance.
I'm honestly not sure what episode you are talking about when you said, "Like when Picard decides that he'd rather fly the Enterprise on manual control through the asteroid, or to take on a bunch of Nausicaans." For some reason, I thought that was Star Trek: The Next Generation Tapestry where Q and Picard go back to when got his artificial heart in some not-dream sequence. I don't suppose you could mention the episode you are referring to?[/quote]
On the basis that there is no on screen evidence to support her theory that the tartigrade will not murder her and Stamets when they let it out of it's cage. If the tartigrade has extraordinary biology or behavior that is not analogous to animals the audience is familiar with the writer must explain that. The basis of any fiction is "this setting is just like ours except (blank)", where the writer fills in the blank. Otherwise, the audience is going to assume the weird invincible, teleporting space bear is going to act analogously to ordinary bears, except as noted by the writer (such as being invincible or teleporting). As I said, unless the writer gives the audience some clue, follows Burnham on her investigation, we don't know why she does what she does. That is story telling 101. Even some off-hand exposition would do the trick. Did you not read what I already said on the matter?
You carry on like this is some weird personal attack against the fictional character "Micheal Burnham" and you have to "defend" her. She is a fictional character and she is the brunt of terrible writing. If you really wanted to help this character, you should look at this critically and give the show's creators some tangible feedback.
For all you have to pick through hundreds of episodes of Star Trek just to find TWO examples that MIGHT be analogous to ONE OF SEVERAL poor actions done by this character is extremely telling. This character is not just flawed. Flawed characters can work. I've said this. The show's creative team is doing it wrong. There is a sizable portion of the audience that likes STDZ and hates Burnham. Would it not be better to improve this? Look at what works and does not, and work to improve?
You know what? I have been critical of bad story telling in other episodes of Trek. If I had the opportunity, I would certainly have told the creators where their writing or story telling fell short. However, this is a Star Trek: Discovery thread. It is also the only show where my feedback might actually have an impact on the writing. Whinging about lampshading in Journey to Babel is not going to improve the next episode of TOS (though it may have prevented facepalming in both Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and Burham's backstory).
and if suddenly Disney buys CBS as well or they swap some IP and falls under Disney and they say its all linked to Star Wars... then it is right? yeah what if but still what the owners say goes right? till its not. $ talks and that's it.
Enterprise on Discovery was reworked so not to conflict with TOS IP. it's been scaled up. but yeah that's how the Enterprise always should be right... I mean the old scale/models were all wrong.
My character Tsin'xing