test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Discovery 2x12: Through the Valley of Shadows (spoilers)

2

Comments

  • mirrorchaosmirrorchaos Member Posts: 9,844 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    starkaos wrote: »
    There is no evidence that time is semi-sentient
    Except its brought up in both Voyager and the Kelvin timeline films.

    In Voyager, Annorax mentions how time itself seems to be fighting his attempts to change it, and in the Kelvin films old Spock notes that the sheer improbability of the Enterprise crew coming together on the same ship like they did in the Prime universe is indicative of time attempting to fix itself after Nero's incursion.

    those are opinions with no founded proof to them. again find something to back it up so i can't argue against it, that is on you.
    T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW.
    Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    starkaos wrote: »
    There is no evidence that time is semi-sentient
    Except its brought up in both Voyager and the Kelvin timeline films.

    In Voyager, Annorax mentions how time itself seems to be fighting his attempts to change it, and in the Kelvin films old Spock notes that the sheer improbability of the Enterprise crew coming together on the same ship like they did in the Prime universe is indicative of time attempting to fix itself after Nero's incursion.

    those are opinions with no founded proof to them.

    So is yours. The difference is, the Trek writers put those opinions in the show. Yours was not.
    Post edited by thegrandnagus1 on

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    There is no evidence that time is semi-sentient
    Except its brought up in both Voyager and the Kelvin timeline films.

    In Voyager, Annorax mentions how time itself seems to be fighting his attempts to change it, and in the Kelvin films old Spock notes that the sheer improbability of the Enterprise crew coming together on the same ship like they did in the Prime universe is indicative of time attempting to fix itself after Nero's incursion.

    Why would Time care to bring the Enterprise crew together? There is absolutely no reason why time would fix itself by bringing together a bunch of people about 10 years earlier than when they met in a previous timeline or even have them meet at all. It makes far more sense if some omnipotent being is having some fun by messing with lower lifeforms. So unless we can determine that time has a will, then it is far more likely that omnipotent beings are messing around with Annorax and the Enterprise.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    There is no evidence that time is semi-sentient
    Except its brought up in both Voyager and the Kelvin timeline films.

    In Voyager, Annorax mentions how time itself seems to be fighting his attempts to change it, and in the Kelvin films old Spock notes that the sheer improbability of the Enterprise crew coming together on the same ship like they did in the Prime universe is indicative of time attempting to fix itself after Nero's incursion.

    Why would Time care to bring the Enterprise crew together? There is absolutely no reason why time would fix itself by bringing together a bunch of people about 10 years earlier than when they met in a previous timeline or even have them meet at all. It makes far more sense if some omnipotent being is having some fun by messing with lower lifeforms. So unless we can determine that time has a will, then it is far more likely that omnipotent beings are messing around with Annorax and the Enterprise.

    There is also the possibility that it behaves like an organic lifeform that "repairs" itself when damaged, but has no real sentience per say.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • szimszim Member Posts: 2,503 Arc User
    After watching this episode I kept thinking, why does control still need the sphere data? It can send itself across the galaxy, take over ships, kill everybody on board, impersonate anybody, assimilate whoever it wants - appearently without help from any real person (they never gave an explanation why somebody would sit down in a nanite injection chair, just another giant plot hole)... control is already a bigger threat to the Federation than the Borg ever were. Yet the Disovery crew still thinks that if they destroy the sphere data everything will be fine.
  • szimszim Member Posts: 2,503 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    szim wrote: »
    (they never gave an explanation why somebody would sit down in a nanite injection chair, just another giant plot hole)
    No one ever did just sit down in such a chair. Control infected Leland in such a manner that it knocked him out, Control took over his body, moved him over to the chair, and then strapped himself down, so he could infect Leland more thoroughly.

    Control stuck a giant needle in his eye and knocked him out. Then he magically hovered over to the nanite chair and even strapped himself in. Leland was still himself up to the moment when nanites were injected. It WAS a giant plot hole.
  • szimszim Member Posts: 2,503 Arc User
    szim wrote: »
    Control stuck a giant needle in his eye and knocked him out. Then he magically hovered over to the nanite chair and even strapped himself in. Leland was still himself up to the moment when nanites were injected. It WAS a giant plot hole.
    And if you go back and rewatch that scene, when Leland falls to the floor, you can see Control's nanites begin infecting his face, meaning Control had some limited control over Leland before Leland was in the chair.

    Then why still strap him into a chair? If control had gained posession over his body but not his mind, it could have just walked him over to the table, take a syringe and inject as many nanites into his body as necessary. This entire procedure becomes even more questionable since we now from the latest episode that these nanites can - apparantly - crawl over the floor and infect anybody, without needles and without syringes.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    It's only whataboutism if the point brought up doesn't contribute to the topic but rather tries to derail. The objective truth is no sillyness influences the other. Time crystals don't get more or less silly because there is the orb or the guardian. But it tries to defend/paint one thing in a better light by deflecting and that makes it so annoying.

    It doesn't help that the crystals were "demonstrated" to accelerate plant growth. I find that is an understandable, but mistaken way of portraying the flow of time, because plants do not grow "by themselves" just as people don't age and mature just through time. The crystals don't control the sunlight etc. or get a future person back into the present, they just accelerate aging, at least the way they are portrayed to work.

    That means what they are supposed to do doesn't work, which makes them a really weak plot device in my opinion. That is different from entering a portal 'into another time'. Just like the 'spore drive' - the show relies a lot on "magic" just to get from a to b, and to me personally at least it does so way more obnoxiously than a occasionally "reverted polaron flow". At least in my opinion.
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ 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
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    It doesn't help that the crystals were "demonstrated" to accelerate plant growth. I find that is an understandable, but mistaken way of portraying the flow of time, because plants do not grow "by themselves" just as people don't age and mature just through time. The crystals don't control the sunlight etc. or get a future person back into the present, they just accelerate aging, at least the way they are portrayed to work.
    You mean like the ep of TNG where Picard's HAND was able to age faster than the rest of his body?
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • crypticarmsmancrypticarmsman Member Posts: 4,100 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    How are 'Time Crystals' more silly than:
    - a sentient gateway that can send people thorough time
    - a stone portal left by an 'ancient civilsation' able to send people back in time at least 300 years
    - certain Orbs that represent wisdom, prophecy and time
    - being transported to a mirror universe via transporter + storm
    - being transported through time via transporter and particles
    - 'Red Matter'

    Time crystals themselves didn't bother me so much. It's making the Klingon/Gallifreyan time lords protecting them that was silly to me. As I said, Kol (and others like him) would have been all over those things if it were to have helped him gain control of the empire.

    The Klingons WERE trying to make time crystal tech work - they said as much when talking about why Section 31 was creating the suit. They abandoned it. (Much in the same way in TOS "Errand of Mercy" the Klingon had a 'Mind Scanner' that they used on Spock and threatened to use on Kirk to turn him into a mental vegetable <--- And which we've NEVER seen mentioned agaiin in 53+ years of more Star Trek.

    I actually liked that there is more to Klingon society and they have some things bordering on mysticism now. Hell, I always wonder how Klingon society survived and even had ANY technology given that since the TOS days all we've been shown about Klingons:

    - ONLY the Warrior Caste matters (anything else is seen as 'dishonorable').

    - Klingons LOVE battle above all else, and ship maintenance be damned IF there's a battle to be had. (Kurn's reply to Worf in TNG S5 "Redemption II" when Worf brings up the damaged stabilizers on the ship illustrates this. )

    - Klingons believe the sick should die. (Yet they have equivalent medical tech to the Federation.)

    - Klingons believe the wounded/infirm should commit ritual suicide.

    - Klingons believe any Klingon captured in battle should commit ritual suicide.

    So yeah, given all the above, I have to wonder HOW Klingons made and maintain their Empire or bother to advance their technology (Which if we go by TNG and DS9 they only had Hurq 'leftovers' anyway.)

    As to the line of "If you take teh Crystal, your fate is sealed..." - please, his fate was sealed because of the Man Pike is (IE - In any situation like that he'd sacrifice himself if it meant saving multiple lives). IMO - That's just a belief these Klingon 'Monks' have regarding the Crystals.

    And IDK but are 'Time Crystals' any more or kess riduculous then the 'can do anything the plot needs' Bajoran 'Orbs of the Prophets' (not to mention Ben Sisko being half Wormhole Alien?) ;)
    Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012
    TOS_Connie_Sig_final9550Pop.jpg
    PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,659 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    How are 'Time Crystals' more silly than:
    - a sentient gateway that can send people thorough time
    - a stone portal left by an 'ancient civilsation' able to send people back in time at least 300 years
    - certain Orbs that represent wisdom, prophecy and time
    - being transported to a mirror universe via transporter + storm
    - being transported through time via transporter and particles
    - 'Red Matter'

    You know this is strictly subjective. But why does somebody always relent to whataboutism any time someone criticizes DSC?

    To me personally "time crystals" are way, way more silly than any of the mentioned, however, that doesn't mean everything prior was gold. But that isn't what I mean when I find the idea of "crystals" that not only tell you the time but influence the "flow" of time itself AND "seal your fate" when you take them from Boreth, which is now the home of Klingon timelords, way more silly than an advanced, forgotten time portal on a deserted planet.

    Am I the only one who thought Future!Pike's sequence was the scariest (and best) thing of the episode, especially with the breath practically being a 1:1 copy of the original from TOS?

    Because unlike Control that keeps getting more and more over-the-top and ridiculous OP powers that makes it less and less believable and scary (yay, techno-lovecraftian-styled superpowers and assuming direct control to an entire fleet, to add to superhuman speed, invulnerability, strength and healing factor), Pike's fate taps into your fears of scary and believable conditions (being paralyzed, unable to speak, horribly disfigured, forced to live on life-support for the rest of your life) as well as probably triggering memories of the TOS episode which may have been disturbing at its time for younger viewers.

    No, this was really well done and reasonably scary. For the first time I felt DSC touched upon a real, relatable fear (in contrast to jumping around magic mushrooms and the time crystals themselves) and it was a great character moment for Pike. I will say again, in my opinion we didn't need that "bridge" between the pilot and TOS, nor did I ever question what Pike and Spock did in the meantime, however the portrayal of the Enterprise crew is solid, at least not terrible, and I would have watched THAT show over Discovery if this was a possibility.​​

    Pretty much, yes.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    Mostly due to the series that came before being put on some sort of pedestal? I'm sorry, but by the same token why is it okay to say "Discovery did something silly" but NOT okay to identify the fact that silly Trek plot devices are most defintely not something unique to Discovery?
    Not all of previous Trek is on a pedestal. Most of Enterprise is trash. There are several TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY episodes that are also garbage.

    Many, many times you see people criticize "technobable" (a common plot device in TNG). You've heard cringe about "humans evolving into salamanders". Enterprise almost ruined Vulcans. DS9 gave us the sh*t-sandwitch that is Section 31.

    The ONLY difference here is, the topic is; STAR TREK: DISCOVERY. You are criticizing posters for STAYING ON TOPIC. Take a step back here and get a little perspective. Even if you say "people are always hating on ST:D"; again, look at the thread title.

    At best, your argument is "Well, Star Trek: Discovery is pretty terrible, but so is the rest of Trek!". Is that really how you want to defend ST:D?
    reyan01 wrote: »
    Again, I don't see 'Time Crystals' as being any more or less silly than an anicent sentient time portal; then again, almost nothing was learnt about that since it simply answered any questions put to it with replies that define the Cryptically Unhelpful Answer trope.
    The difference is context.

    The ancient time portal was a plot device to examine the perils of time travel. It served as a vehicle for a science fiction story; just like a warp drive. The time crystal is a forgettable generic plot device macguffin that does not lend itself to any discussion about the perils of time travel. The story is the same one Hollywood has been telling for years: "Oh noes; the thing is gonna make everybody die!".

    Good science fiction stories use these science fiction elements to explore concepts.Using the ancient gate, what happens if we change the past just a little bit? Let's look at the time crystals. You have a rare phenomenon that some Klingons realize could bring disaster to their people and possibly the universe. Yet, somehow, over the course of Star Trek: Discovery THREE of the time crystals managed to be smuggled off Borath: once when Harry Mudd pulled off a bank robbery; once when Harry Mudd attacked the Discovery; and once going onto the black market that was the original power source for the red-matter time suit. Why are these things so easy to smuggle off Borath? Why are F-ing CRIMINALS the ones who always have them? What the heck is wrong with the guardians of Borath? They suck!

    What if Kahless instituted some kind of "time crystal guardians" order that didn't actually suck at their job? What if they were a kind of Section 31 counterpart within the Klingon empire who's semi-secret job was "protect the empire from time threats", but it's real scope was to prevent time crystals from being misused and to suppress the knowledge of the time crystal's existence? Here you see a technology (or "fantastic science", if you prefer) introduced and you see the social and political ramifications of that. Instead, ST:D just throws fantastic elements around left and right with no regard how those elements would impact the universe. "Time crystals" are not stupid simply because of the name. They are stupid because they are just more garbage "technobable"; the worst story elements of Trek.
    reyan01 wrote: »
    So I'm afraid the "whataboutism" will continue, because whilst I too have mixed feelings about 'time crystals' I fail to see why the older series should be immune from the same critisism that is being levelled at Discovery.
    Star Trek: Discovery is pure fantasy with a sloppy science fiction paintjob.

    Episode: "Thanks to the efforts of the Hogwarts division of Section 31, we have a super incredible advanced time suit gundam that can go anywhere AND anytime! Simply insert a time crystal, then wave your tricorder while invoking 'TRIBBLE lubricus' and presto! Even better, you can see anywhen without being seen yourself! Now, there is a slight problem of being tethered to one place in time. It has to do with the Fruit Loop feed destabilizing before it gets to the pixie dust intermix chamber. It could be fixable if we have a strawberry flavored time crystal, but that is impossible! EVERYONE KNOWS, time crystals only come in chocolate and vanilla flavors!"

    Next Episode: "Well gang, thanks to the leprechauns sharing their lucky charms, it turns out strawberry time crystals ARE possible! I Love Science!"

    Last Episode: "They are after my lucky charms!"
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    redvenge wrote: »
    You have a rare phenomenon that some Klingons realize could bring disaster to their people and possibly the universe. Yet, somehow, over the course of Star Trek: Discovery THREE of the time crystals managed to be smuggled off Borath: once when Harry Mudd pulled off a bank robbery; once when Harry Mudd attacked the Discovery; and once going onto the black market that was the original power source for the red-matter time suit. Why are these things so easy to smuggle off Borath? Why are F-ing CRIMINALS the ones who always have them? What the heck is wrong with the guardians of Borath? They suck!
    I don't know where you got this idea that either Mudd or the Red Angel suit's time crystals came from Boreth... they didn't, nor did anyone say they did.

    Nope, sorry, this is incorrect. Ignoring that Leland admits the suit's time crystal was stolen from the Klingon Empire (which is why the Klingons attacked the Burnham lab), L'Rell states directly in the latest episode that the crystals are unique to Boreth (at least within the Klingon Empire). That means the crystal powering the suit has to have come from Boreth.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    redvenge wrote: »
    At best, your argument is "Well, Star Trek: Discovery is pretty terrible, but so is the rest of Trek!". Is that really how you want to defend ST:D?
    More like: if this is your reason for thinking Discovery is terrible, why do you like Star Trek?
    The problem with Klingon culture in Star Trek is that we have only ever seen the Klingons in some form of cultural decline, which gives the false impression that Klingon culture was always this backwards when it wasn't originally.
    I think this analysis is inadequate. Their culture has been unstable since the Hur'q invasion, and they've just never figured out how to stabilize their society. They've avoided total collapse by periodic restructuring, but each time it merely delayed to collapse.

    Also I've come to the conclusion that Klingons treat technology as a spoil of conquest, thus much of what they do have is probably adapted tech they took from their enemies.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,569 Arc User
    I figured somebody would bring up the 'look' of this Enterprise Bridge. Sorry this is not the 60s, period. To those whose heads explode because... I have two words:

    Mount McKinley.

    The most important thing about this Episode was Christopher Pike. He actions elevate him into the pantheon of Star Trek. They have said that Anson Mount and Rebecca Rojmin were leaving Discovery at the end of the Season, hopefully it is to do Star Trek: Pike or some such series focused on Pike's Enterprise.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    How are 'Time Crystals' more silly than:
    - a sentient gateway that can send people thorough time
    - a stone portal left by an 'ancient civilsation' able to send people back in time at least 300 years
    - certain Orbs that represent wisdom, prophecy and time
    - being transported to a mirror universe via transporter + storm
    - being transported through time via transporter and particles
    - 'Red Matter'

    You know this is strictly subjective. But why does somebody always relent to whataboutism any time someone criticizes DSC?
    ​​
    1. Whataboutism isn't something only done to DSC, so I guess the counter-question here would be: Why wouldn't people resort to common argument "strategies" and arguments to defend DSC?

    2. The reason I would bring up such comparisons is because I accepted them freely before, and I am surprised that suddenly a Star Trek fan wouldn't. How could you become a Star Trek fan if all these things bother you so much? And if they didn't bother you so much, is your problem perhaps not that these elements exist, and the fact that the elements that let you ignore them don't? Maybe it would be far more telling to identify those?

    Protomatter, Dilithium Crystal, Red Matter, Heisenberg Compensators, Time Crystals, Chronitons, Subspace, Mycelium and what not - these are all just some form of fictional elements that were given a particular role in the universe, and might or might not be based on "real" things or not. They exist fo the needs of a plot. It's less important that they make sense or are realistic, and more what they enable (or hinder) the characters to do and how they deal with them.

    That the protagonists in Star Trek are thrown in a lot of situations that seem too much for just them is also a very common element in any show. We accept that because the interesting part is seeing how people that we know deal with them in their own ways.
    Theoretically every episode could deal with some issue that a completely new crew needs to solve. But it's not as interesting, because we don't know the crew yet, we don't know what the are about, we can't see how they grow or falter with those challenges, because we don't know enough about them. So instead we reuse characters.

    So if you think "Michael Burnham is involved in too many world-shattering" events, maybe the problem isn't really that she's involved in too many world-shattering events, it's just that you're not interested in seeing her character develop. For some reason she leaves you cold. Identifying that reason would likely be far more interesting than debating whether she's involved in too much or not.

    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 4,385 Arc User
    Theoretically every episode could deal with some issue that a completely new crew needs to solve. But it's not as interesting, because we don't know the crew yet, we don't know what the are about, we can't see how they grow or falter with those challenges, because we don't know enough about them. So instead we reuse characters.
    Well, here's an idea: how about introducing the other characters and making them interact with the rest of the crew so you can start to grow attached to them, since the writers must have planned in advance their fate?

    Wouldn't have it be better to have Airiam do other things than just existing for several episodes so you start growing attached to this semi-proto Data, to explore her past a bit and how she deals with her cybernetics and her husband's death. And just when you start saying "hey, I like this character, she's pretty cool and she reminds me of Data, except she has emotions but more cybernetic limitations which is a nice "mirror" of the character development of Data". So when she dies, you actually feel bad because you grew attached to her and since she can't just be rebooted or "repaired" like Data when corrupted, but you hope she can still be saved, her death has a bigger impact.

    In DSC, however, it feels like "Hey, see this character you were wondering when she was going to get a whole expanded universe and wiki page for? Here's a backstory dump as she's getting possessed, so feel bad for her before her inevitable death scene, woops, she's dead, here's a collection of sad reaction faces to hammer into your skull how much she was loved, even if it was never shown before this episode."

    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    1. Whataboutism isn't something only done to DSC, so I guess the counter-question here would be: Why wouldn't people resort to common argument "strategies" and arguments to defend DSC?
    Stop being disingenuous. If you make a "whataboutism" defense, then defend it. Stop saying "the problem isn't my defense; it's your personal issues".
    2. The reason I would bring up such comparisons is because I accepted them freely before, and I am surprised that suddenly a Star Trek fan wouldn't. How could you become a Star Trek fan if all these things bother you so much? And if they didn't bother you so much, is your problem perhaps not that these elements exist, and the fact that the elements that let you ignore them don't? Maybe it would be far more telling to identify those?
    You are being disingenuous here too. Are there episodes in Star Trek that have poor storytelling? Are there episodes that have good storytelling?

    If the answer to EITHER of these questions is "Yes", then your argument is busted. Calling someone's fan status into question because they enjoy well told stories within the Trek setting is nonsense.

    What elements of the stories in the "bad" episodes bring them down? What elements of the "good" stories elevate them above other episodes of Trek? This is when we examine these elements and see how they are used. Is the "technobable" used as a "plot device"; ie is it's purpose to solve the central conflict, or is it used to establish/support/detract from the conflict? If the "technobable" is used to resolve the conflict for characters, that weakens the story. If the "technobable" elements are introduced with no prior explanation, that weakens the story. If the "technobable" has poorly defined limits and seems to be able to do EVERYTHING, that kills any sense of tension, and weakens the story.
    So if you think "Michael Burnham is involved in too many world-shattering" events, maybe the problem isn't really that she's involved in too many world-shattering events, it's just that you're not interested in seeing her character develop.
    I don't think you know what "character development" is. "Character development" involves the character encountering something that they cannot overcome and has to change to deal with it. If the character does not change there is no development. Burnham either succeeds (which causes no growth) or fails, but the universe resolves the issue for Burnham, so no growth is necessary. You point out "loss", but those situations do not lead to growth either, since Burnham takes no time to reflect on her "loss" before the story picks up, and she is acting exactly the same as she did before. The character that murdered T'Kuvma in episode 2, season 1 is exactly the same as the character in season 2, episode 13.

    For reference, Captain Picard had very few character development moments. Most notable is how the Borg effected him (which, was never really consistent between the shows and the movies). Captain Kirk did not get any character development until Star Trek was shown in theaters. It is extremely common for characters in Trek to have little to no personal development or growth.

    Typically, the growth and development shown in Trek brought about by how the characters affect the universe around them. Some characters (Wesley Crusher, Worf, Odo, Doctor Bashir, The Doctor (Voyager), Seven of Nine) do receive character growth, but this is generally the exception, rather than the norm.

    Getting back to Burnham, the reason we want to see her growth is because she continues to make the same mistakes over, and over. She comes across as arrogant. Since she is the focal character, the writers have written the entire show around her. This magnifies the issue because now, she is "always right" because either her actions prove her correct or the universe alters itself to prove her correct. Rather than becoming a vehicle for the audience to experience the story, she is now some hollow messiah figure that constantly makes mistakes that the universe corrects for her.

    In the latest epsiode, she drops any pretense of the chain of command to just tell Pike what to do. She tells the captain of the ship "belay that". Just, wow. Micheal Burnham has become "self aware". She knows the universe is centered around her and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    Burnham was raised on Vulcan. One would expect her to have developed something of an arrogant personality as most all Vulcans come across as arrogant.
    Except she does not consistently act "vulcan". She waffles between "human" and "vulcan" depending on who is writing the episode. Her arrogance is one trait that is consistent, and it is an off-putting trait.

    Arrogance has to be handled with some level of skill, or your character becomes insufferable. Sherlock Holmes is a well known character who is arrogant, but also deeply flawed. Sherlock unravels mysteries in front of us and details the methods he does so. As a result, his arrogance is somewhat justified. His myriad personality flaws make him grounded. While Sherlock has a sharp mind, he often relies on research to fill in his gaps of knowledge as well as informants to keep him "up to date". If Sherlock solved all his mysteries "off screen", had no real personality flaws, and knew all knowledge instantly, he would be a terrible character rather than one of the most iconic figures in story-telling.
Sign In or Register to comment.