This I can agree with. I'm holding judgement on Burnham's characterisation until we see her interact with the real main cast (Siru had better be on it!). I think it could work so long as she's balanced against another more *ahem* 'balanced' personality, although we may see her more unbalanced personality in the premiere mellow as the show goes on. She has just been imprisoned for mutiny, assault of a superior, etc.
The fact that she'll be allowed to 'go on' is what puts a very serious dent into the show's entire credibility. These aren't extraordinary circumstances (like her being the only one in command out there on the rim or something, like a young Kirk). She's simply a bimbette, that stupidly got herself court-marshalled, and should normally never be heard of ever again.
Apparently, later on, a Captain on the ship where she's held prisoner will free her, give her a command position again, and everyone will be okay with that (including HIS superior officer). And that's just plain silly.
As I say, I'm reserving judgement until we see how that goes. I'm not going to pass judgement on something I haven't seen. But, from the trailer, it sounds like she'll pretty much be used as cannon fodder: given a ship tasked with a most-likely impossible mission so she has a chance to redeem herself: and if she fails, no big loss. She was an unprofessional mutineer anywhere. Besides, this situation isn't that different from 'The Menagerie'; Spock committed all but one of the same charges, plus a charge which automatically entailed the death penalty, and got off scot-free because, essentially, his intentions were good and things worked out in the end. That, to me, is just as if not even more absurd. (Spock still mutineered, endangered his ship and crewmates, etc. At the very least, he should have gotten a severe reprimand. Realistically, he would have been either demoted or discharged.) If Burnham's 'redemption' at least has more than plot armour to it, I can live with it. It's still not the dumbest thing Starfleet has done.
This I can agree with. I'm holding judgement on Burnham's characterisation until we see her interact with the real main cast (Siru had better be on it!). I think it could work so long as she's balanced against another more *ahem* 'balanced' personality, although we may see her more unbalanced personality in the premiere mellow as the show goes on. She has just been imprisoned for mutiny, assault of a superior, etc.
The fact that she'll be allowed to 'go on' is what puts a very serious dent into the show's entire credibility. These aren't extraordinary circumstances (like her being the only one in command out there on the rim or something, like a young Kirk). She's simply a bimbette, that stupidly got herself court-marshalled, and should normally never be heard of ever again.
Apparently, later on, a Captain on the ship where she's held prisoner will free her, give her a command position again, and everyone will be okay with that (including HIS superior officer). And that's just plain silly.
As I say, I'm reserving judgement until we see how that goes. I'm not going to pass judgement on something I haven't seen. But, from the trailer, it sounds like she'll pretty much be used as cannon fodder: given a ship tasked with a most-likely impossible mission so she has a chance to redeem herself: and if she fails, no big loss. She was an unprofessional mutineer anywhere. Besides, this situation isn't that different from 'The Menagerie'; Spock committed all but one of the same charges, plus a charge which automatically entailed the death penalty, and got off scot-free because, essentially, his intentions were good and things worked out in the end. That, to me, is just as if not even more absurd. (Spock still mutineered, endangered his ship and crewmates, etc. At the very least, he should have gotten a severe reprimand. Realistically, he would have been either demoted or discharged.) If Burnham's 'redemption' at least has more than plot armour to it, I can live with it. It's still not the dumbest thing Starfleet has done.
You make a cogent case. Not saying I like it, but I can see her being put on a ship of other misfits, as it were. And it wouldn't be the first time in military history 'problematic' crew have been used in such fashion.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
This I can agree with. I'm holding judgement on Burnham's characterisation until we see her interact with the real main cast (Siru had better be on it!). I think it could work so long as she's balanced against another more *ahem* 'balanced' personality, although we may see her more unbalanced personality in the premiere mellow as the show goes on. She has just been imprisoned for mutiny, assault of a superior, etc.
The fact that she'll be allowed to 'go on' is what puts a very serious dent into the show's entire credibility. These aren't extraordinary circumstances (like her being the only one in command out there on the rim or something, like a young Kirk). She's simply a bimbette, that stupidly got herself court-marshalled, and should normally never be heard of ever again.
Apparently, later on, a Captain on the ship where she's held prisoner will free her, give her a command position again, and everyone will be okay with that (including HIS superior officer). And that's just plain silly.
As I say, I'm reserving judgement until we see how that goes. I'm not going to pass judgement on something I haven't seen. But, from the trailer, it sounds like she'll pretty much be used as cannon fodder: given a ship tasked with a most-likely impossible mission so she has a chance to redeem herself: and if she fails, no big loss. She was an unprofessional mutineer anywhere. Besides, this situation isn't that different from 'The Menagerie'; Spock committed all but one of the same charges, plus a charge which automatically entailed the death penalty, and got off scot-free because, essentially, his intentions were good and things worked out in the end. That, to me, is just as if not even more absurd. (Spock still mutineered, endangered his ship and crewmates, etc. At the very least, he should have gotten a severe reprimand. Realistically, he would have been either demoted or discharged.) If Burnham's 'redemption' at least has more than plot armour to it, I can live with it. It's still not the dumbest thing Starfleet has done.
Or when Data commandeered the Enterprise and endangered a critical mission to meet his creator. Did he suffer any consequences? "Oh, so you have some kind of remote access way to get you to follow a homing beacon, and you have the skill to completely take over the Enterprise for a while? Is that remote acess now safely deactivated and are there no more hidden features like that in your code, that you don't know about yet? You don't know? Excellent, go back to your post. Never."
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
This I can agree with. I'm holding judgement on Burnham's characterisation until we see her interact with the real main cast (Siru had better be on it!). I think it could work so long as she's balanced against another more *ahem* 'balanced' personality, although we may see her more unbalanced personality in the premiere mellow as the show goes on. She has just been imprisoned for mutiny, assault of a superior, etc.
The fact that she'll be allowed to 'go on' is what puts a very serious dent into the show's entire credibility. These aren't extraordinary circumstances (like her being the only one in command out there on the rim or something, like a young Kirk). She's simply a bimbette, that stupidly got herself court-marshalled, and should normally never be heard of ever again.
Apparently, later on, a Captain on the ship where she's held prisoner will free her, give her a command position again, and everyone will be okay with that (including HIS superior officer). And that's just plain silly.
Okay - whilst I understand your viewpoint, I will ask: How is this really any different to how Kirk was treated in the JJ movies?
I mean, lets look at this for a secnod:
2009 movie Kirk is promoted from Cadet to Captain almost immediately. Why? For attempting to save Vulcan? He FAILED. For defeating Nero? He didn't - the black hole did that; all he did was say "hey, want another chance?" and then shoot at the Nadara when the answer was no.
Into Darkness touched on the subject, with Kirk's ability to command called in question, mostly as a result of rule-breaking and impulsive behaviour - but he was re-promoted so quickly that I doubt his demotion ever made it to offical records anyway. And why? Because he was, inexplicably, the only person in Starfleet who could go after Khan because shut up.
And in both cases the Enterprise was pretty badly damaged.
And everyone was "okay with that". Because breaking rules, being reckless and acting dangerously is okay when it's Captain Kirk.
Why, Kirk didn't commit mutiny, for one. Granted, him having been appointed First Officer may have been a bit much, but Pike (was it?) saw something in him, and wanted to give him a chance. Spock lost it, mentally, so he automagically became (acting) Captain. And the rest is history.
Kirk definitely broke almost every rule out there, yes. And he was impulsive. And reckless. But he didn't commit mutiny. Everything else can usually be overlooked -- especially when things work out -- but blatant mutiny, particularly when it was so *not* warranted, no military ever puts up with that: they simply can't afford to, not even if they wanted to. The 'chain of command' is a biggie.
Speaking of 'chain of command' (Jayne), this reminds me of Firefly. Not exactly a model crew either; so I can live with Burnham serving on a not-exactly-your-apex-crew kinda ship. Might even be fun. And maybe I'm a little quick to judge; but yeah, I can't see her serve on a regular Star Feet ship any more, was my point, really.
1) Once again...no, she really did not. At least if her goal was survival and not kill more klingons. She fires on their ship. They fire back. EVERYONE dies. It's not JUST the mutiny that is the issue. The whole thing bloody made no sense. Either she was a blood thirsty psycho who wanted to murder klingons and damn her life and the life of her crewmates or she literally is the most stupid person on that ship. Either way, she should not be anywhere near command EVER again after that showing.
I'm going for 'literally is the most stupid person on that ship.'
As I said, that encounter was de facto a first-contact type of situation. She knows as good as absolutely nothing about the Klingons, let alone enough to warrant her fool-hearted mutiny.
She wouldn't even have had cause to consult with Sarek: it was simply not her call (and portraying the Vulcans as a 'shoot first, ask questions later' race was questionable to begin with: that's what started the whole Minbari war).
She's a Xeno Anthropologist, as was mentioned in the first few scene in the desert. That means she was extremely qualified to make an estimation on how to deal with Klingons, absent of people with actual facts.
She is trained to learn and understand how an alien culture work. And she would be the one expected to find an answer to such questions, not just in her role as advisor to the Captain, but due to her specific training. That she consulted with another expert on the matter is quite plausible.
What she could realistically expect is that if she took the first shot, she would apply damage tot he enemy ship, possibly reducing its combat capability before it can bring its full power to bear on the Shenzou.
She also had very good reason to believe that such a signal of strength would alter the Klingon behaviour in their favor, as it would establish respect.
She obviously had no right to mutiny (it wouldn't be mutiny if she did ), however.
Sad fact is however that at that point, nothing they could have done would have really altered their course. They did not know one important, critical fact: That the whole situation was carefuly engineered to convince the Kingon Houses to start a war with the Federation.
Personally, I wouldn't want her on my ship any more, ever, in whatever capacity. She's immature, disloyal, and ready to betray everything Star Fleet stands for at the very first sign of disagreement, making her wholly unqualified to serve in any kind of command chain. She can't be trusted, not even a little. Doesn't matter whether she thought she was right; in fact, it's completely irrelevant: everyone always thinks they're right (if not, they'd be thinking something else).
She didn't betray everything Starfleet stands for at the first sign of disagreement. She did so at the first time she believed not acting would kill everyone that she cared for.
Her bigger and graver error in all of this was that she killed T'Kuvma instead of capturing him. That seemed genuinely not neccessary. Maybe capturing him could have changed things.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Her bigger and graver error in all of this was that she killed T'Kuvma instead of capturing him. That seemed genuinely not neccessary. Maybe capturing him could have changed things.
This is probably my biggest issue with the whole thing: she was the one who advised Georgieu against killing T'Kuvma. The second T'Kuvma killed Georgieu (called it!) she, in the immortal words of a certain parody song 'shot to kill, shot to kill, shot to kill!' She allowed her emotions to override her better judgement.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Fact remains, even though she may have been well qualified to think she was right, ultimately it was the Captain's call to make. And I didn't see an immediate 'life or death' situation. They could have simply withdrawn (as the Sci Officer suggested), lose a bit of face maybe, and have assessed the Klingon situation from afar (and with higher command staff present). There was no pressing reason for her to think they'd all die on the a spot.
In fact, withdrawing was not just the right thing to do, but the show also alluded to the creation of a buffer zone, aka the Neutral Zone (when that Klink said he didn't want the Federation that close to their Empire, even when it was technically still Federation space).
And her killing T'Kuvma, that just showed me how immature and recklessly impulsive she really is, *especially* since they had already discussed the merits of taking him prisoner. And then she kills him anyway, single-handedly starting the Federation-Klingon war. For an alleged expert Xeno Anthropologist, I'd say she dropped the ball a few times.
It wasn't a character rights issue. It's that they changed their mind about how much they liked Locarno as a person and decided that Locarno's character flaws were too deep for them to want to try making him seem like a good person.
I know that that's the official story, that Locarno was considered irredeemable, but I'm sure I've read that rights to the character was also part of the decision Either way, they were confusing the two characters, and thinking that Paris' history was the same as Locarno's
The only difference was the level of negligence. Locarno did something he knew was reckless and stupid, and didn't really regret it.
Exactly. Locarno didn't regret it, so in the eyes of the producers/writers, he was considered irredeemable
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
if you have no regrets for pulling something that gets several of your classmates killed, you have no business in starfleet - or being anywhere other than treatment in a mental facility until such a time as you DO have regrets
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
A real face-off with a Klingon would not have gone anything remotely close to this....
Define "real."
Klingon decloaks behind you, fires some torps and disruptors. You blow up and the Klingons toast their epic victory with made up battle stories.
But a Klingon ship sitting there doing nothing and waiting for reinforcements before attacking ONE ship?!?! Yeah, that's a 'real' Klingon.
But who is the arbiter for determining what a "real" Klingon attack is? Truth be told, both episodes were fantastic. They're definitely on the right track here.
Well if you think they were fantastic, then that leaves you out of judging anything!
To borrow an overused phrase, they are literally Making Star Trek Great Again. This is by far the best first two episodes of any Star Trek series ever.
How much did CBS pay you?
I thought the same thing when I read his/her post.
Well, irrespective of what us Trekkies thought of it, from reading various reviews the overall response to Discovery has leant toward the postive. And it received an 89% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Doubt they are all trekkies, though. That site's just what the mainstream hipsters think.
I never use sites like that, or any tv/film critics.
Fact remains, even though she may have been well qualified to think she was right, ultimately it was the Captain's call to make. And I didn't see an immediate 'life or death' situation. They could have simply withdrawn (as the Sci Officer suggested), lose a bit of face maybe, and have assessed the Klingon situation from afar (and with higher command staff present). There was no pressing reason for her to think they'd all die on the a spot.
In fact, withdrawing was not just the right thing to do, but the show also alluded to the creation of a buffer zone, aka the Neutral Zone (when that Klink said he didn't want the Federation that close to their Empire, even when it was technically still Federation space).
And her killing T'Kuvma, that just showed me how immature and recklessly impulsive she really is, *especially* since they had already discussed the merits of taking him prisoner. And then she kills him anyway, single-handedly starting the Federation-Klingon war. For an alleged expert Xeno Anthropologist, I'd say she dropped the ball a few times.
The war had already started. The Klingons fired the first shots before Shenzhou even entered the system. I'll just quote what I said in the other thread:
@redvenge: As I said, I find it a logical next step that a culture that prioritizes interpersonal violence and glory in battle would think less of a culture more inclined to peace. That contrast is at the heart of Federation-Klingon relations from TNG on, ergo I do find it credible that the Federation would have had to prove itself a worthy opponent before the cold war detente of TOS was possible.
(Hell, by STO, there are Klingons convinced that the Federation is the one enemy the Klingon Empire can never defeat.)
Also, according to producer statements the Klingon Great House depicted in the pilot are extremists even by Klingon standards. I'm willing to give the concept the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
What part of the concept are you giving the benefit of the doubt? The only way to deal with Klingons is to shoot them?
That's... STUPID.
That shows a painfully shallow depth to any culture, not just Klingons. How does any communication occur at all? Why would such a culture ever communicate with another? Why would it bother with universal translators or the like? Klingons would just shoot or be shot. It does not matter how canon this is. This concept is dumb.
I'm saying that Klingons have a tendency not to respect people who won't stand up to them to their faces. Even Picard, the pillar of the Federation's ideal, recognized that: When a Klingon named Vagh called him a liar to his face, Picard promptly cussed him out in tlhIngan Hol. Vagh was considerably more polite afterwards. And this after the Klingons have been nominally allies of the Federation for a good six decades. ETA: Or look at Quark at the climax of "The House of Quark": he faces down D'Ghor on the Council, then throws down his sword and dares him to go ahead and kill him. Doesn't win D'Ghor's respect, but it damn sure wins the respect of every other Klingon present: D'Ghor ends up discommendated.
Now, let's look at the situation dispassionately. The House of T'Kuvma came out blatantly trying to pick a fight, by their own admission. They cross into Federation territory, shoot up Federation property, and then attack a Starfleet officer without provocation who was just out there trying to figure out what the frell happened to their subspace relay. It'd be like if Russia sent the Pyotr Velikiy into Alaskan waters and started firing at random buildings on-shore: an act of war, plain and simple. Frankly, Burnham and Georgiou both missed that the war had already started and that the Klingons had already shot first.
Now, you can bring up the counterargument that T'Kuvma's ship outgunned the Shenzhou, but the point is Burnham was right: the situation wasn't going to be resolved without bloodshed from the second T'Kuvma left port. If the Shenzhou gets off the first shot, maybe they manage to hit something critical and at least damage the ship enough they can get away, if not mission-kill it.
But mutiny was indeed a step too far; I'm not excusing that.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
This I can agree with. I'm holding judgement on Burnham's characterisation until we see her interact with the real main cast (Siru had better be on it!). I think it could work so long as she's balanced against another more *ahem* 'balanced' personality, although we may see her more unbalanced personality in the premiere mellow as the show goes on. She has just been imprisoned for mutiny, assault of a superior, etc.
The fact that she'll be allowed to 'go on' is what puts a very serious dent into the show's entire credibility. These aren't extraordinary circumstances (like her being the only one in command out there on the rim or something, like a young Kirk). She's simply a bimbette, that stupidly got herself court-marshalled, and should normally never be heard of ever again.
Apparently, later on, a Captain on the ship where she's held prisoner will free her, give her a command position again, and everyone will be okay with that (including HIS superior officer). And that's just plain silly.
Okay - whilst I understand your viewpoint, I will ask: How is this really any different to how Kirk was treated in the JJ movies?
I mean, lets look at this for a secnod:
2009 movie Kirk is promoted from Cadet to Captain almost immediately. Why? For attempting to save Vulcan? He FAILED. For defeating Nero? He didn't - the black hole did that; all he did was say "hey, want another chance?" and then shoot at the Nadara when the answer was no.
Into Darkness touched on the subject, with Kirk's ability to command called in question, mostly as a result of rule-breaking and impulsive behaviour - but he was re-promoted so quickly that I doubt his demotion ever made it to offical records anyway. And why? Because he was, inexplicably, the only person in Starfleet who could go after Khan because shut up.
And in both cases the Enterprise was pretty badly damaged.
And everyone was "okay with that". Because breaking rules, being reckless and acting dangerously is okay when it's Captain Kirk.
Or hell, Prime Kirk. In ST3, Kirk and senior staff commit a slew of crimes including barratry, assault, sabotage of friendly facilities (the Excelsior's transwarp drive), but because they save the day in the end, the others are acquitted and Kirk only loses his admiral's stars.
I like how the Debt of Honor comic book handled that, incidentally. Sulu explains to a junior officer that because they're the best ship in the fleet but also politically inconvenient, Starfleet basically uses them as expendable troubleshooters. Their Klingon and Romulan counterparts Kor and T'Cel are in the same category: Kor is a smooth-forehead when the corrugated-foreheads have regained power (this was written pre-DS9), and T'Cel... not really explained but I think it's partly because she's half-Vulcan, was raised Vulcan in the Federation, and the Romulan establishment doesn't fully trust her.
/editmonsterscrewyou
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I'm not immersed in this show like you are.
I watched it and my point ultimately is that the writing was substandard, even for Star Trek.
Perhaps as I've aged my standards have become too high for this type of PC-TV, but for CBS to expect us to pay for this drivel, it has to be considerably better than what these episodes put forward.
The Axanar project was far better written than this, kept true to the style and look of the Pre-TOS era, modernized all the designs without violating that style, and used a portion of Star Trek lore (though not necessarily official) that is recognized by many fans--The Four Years War--and it would have been FREE to watch online.
So please, with me at least, don't try to talk to me like I'm into TRIBBLE because I am not.
I agree. But I also think that much can be said for the entertainment industry chasing $ rather than good fiction. Seems to me most of the industry has gotten people stoked on action rather than story. It's much easier to blow something up than to creatively write your way out of a bad situation.
I'm saying that Klingons have a tendency not to respect people who won't stand up to them to their faces. Even Picard, the pillar of the Federation's ideal, recognized that: When a Klingon named Vagh called him a liar to his face, Picard promptly cussed him out in tlhIngan Hol. Vagh was considerably more polite afterwards. And this after the Klingons have been nominally allies of the Federation for a good six decades. ETA: Or look at Quark at the climax of "The House of Quark": he faces down D'Ghor on the Council, then throws down his sword and dares him to go ahead and kill him. Doesn't win D'Ghor's respect, but it damn sure wins the respect of every other Klingon present: D'Ghor ends up discommendated.
Now, let's look at the situation dispassionately. The House of T'Kuvma came out blatantly trying to pick a fight, by their own admission. They cross into Federation territory, shoot up Federation property, and then attack a Starfleet officer without provocation who was just out there trying to figure out what the frell happened to their subspace relay. It'd be like if Russia sent the Pyotr Velikiy into Alaskan waters and started firing at random buildings on-shore: an act of war, plain and simple. Frankly, Burnham and Georgiou both missed that the war had already started and that the Klingons had already shot first.
Now, you can bring up the counterargument that T'Kuvma's ship outgunned the Shenzhou, but the point is Burnham was right: the situation wasn't going to be resolved without bloodshed from the second T'Kuvma left port. If the Shenzhou gets off the first shot, maybe they manage to hit something critical and at least damage the ship enough they can get away, if not mission-kill it.
But mutiny was indeed a step too far; I'm not excusing that.
[/quote]
Space is a bit different from Alaska waters. A shot-at piece of property on the outskirts of Federaion space is, without further aggression, an incident at best. I'll admit the Klingons were cetainly baiting the Federation, and hoping for them to show en masse, so war could ensue. But just because someone provokes you (see North Korea vs. Trump), doesn't mean you have to allow yourself to be goated into actually starting one. Look at wen Russia invaded Turkey airspace, and got their fighter shot down: neither party immediately declared war on the other. Some manner of restraint, at command level, is definitely not a bad quality. The Klingons almost certainly would have tried again, and maybe a war was really going to be inevitable; but that wasn't Burnham's call to make.
Space is a bit different from Alaska waters. A shot-at piece of property on the outskirts of Federaion space is, without further aggression, an incident at best. I'll admit the Klingons were cetainly baiting the Federation, and hoping for them to show en masse, so war could ensue. But just because someone provokes you (see North Korea vs. Trump), doesn't mean you have to allow yourself to be goated into actually starting one. Look at wen Russia invaded Turkey airspace, and got their fighter shot down: neither party immediately declared war on the other. Some manner of restraint, at command level, is definitely not a bad quality. The Klingons almost certainly would have tried again, and maybe a war was really going to be inevitable; but that wasn't Burnham's call to make.
It was someone's call. the question was who and how many Feds the Klingons would take out first.
Also, when people deliberately provoke you, sometimes the best option is to make them regret it.
Also, when people deliberately provoke you, sometimes the best option is to make them regret it.
^Absolutely. Anyone remember the BSG episode "Hand of God"? Fantastic bit of dialogue there to explain.
Adama : "If you keep running from a schoolyard bully, he keeps on chasing you. But the moment you turn around and stop and you punch him really hard in a sensitive spot, he'll think twice about coming back again."
An even better example from within Trek canon would be "Balance of Terror".
MCCOY: War is never imperative, Mister Spock.
SPOCK: It is for them, Doctor. Vulcan, like Earth, had its aggressive colonising period. Savage, even by Earth standards. And if Romulans retain this martial philosophy, then weakness is something we dare not show.
All true. But still not Burnham's call. Imagine a soldier on the South-Korean border deciding that's she fed-up with the North's provocations and, all of her own, resolves "to make them regret it." Do you really want scenarios like that?!
A real face-off with a Klingon would not have gone anything remotely close to this....
Define "real."
Klingon decloaks behind you, fires some torps and disruptors. You blow up and the Klingons toast their epic victory with made up battle stories.
But a Klingon ship sitting there doing nothing and waiting for reinforcements before attacking ONE ship?!?! Yeah, that's a 'real' Klingon.
But who is the arbiter for determining what a "real" Klingon attack is? Truth be told, both episodes were fantastic. They're definitely on the right track here.
Well if you think they were fantastic, then that leaves you out of judging anything!
To borrow an overused phrase, they are literally Making Star Trek Great Again. This is by far the best first two episodes of any Star Trek series ever.
How much did CBS pay you?
Actually I paid them.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
Yeah, basically the Federation's main foreign policy challenge is that it's a peace-loving liberal democracy in a region where literally every other major power besides the Ferengi Alliance is an expansionist might-makes-right power of some kind: whether a right-wing military dictatorship (Cardassia pre-"The Way of the Warrior"), a warrior-glorifying feudal system (Klingon Empire), or a quasi-feudal pseudo-democracy (Romulan Star Empire). Plus whatever the hell the Breen and Tholians are, and we haven't even gotten to the wormhole to the Gamma Quadrant yet. In all cases, they can't afford to look like an easy target or else the people of the Federation, i.e. their voters, WILL be victimized... which is exactly what happened to Burnham's birth family.
@meimeitoo: That example actually proves my point if you go deeper than the headline. The Russian Air Force had made a habit of violating Turkish airspace (while operating in support of the Assad regime) previous to that, but unlike the Klingons in "The Vulcan Hello", they hadn't fired on any Turkish targets. The Turks had already repeatedly warned them off and they weren't listening, so the Turks escalated by shooting down the next pilot to think he could fly anywhere he pleased because Russiaball stronk. At which point the Russians got the message and stopped.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Adama : "If you keep running from a schoolyard bully, he keeps on chasing you. But the moment you turn around and stop and you punch him really hard in a sensitive spot, he'll think twice about coming back again.
That's the best outcome, and a very likely one as bullies are cowards but not the only one and sometimes, it makes things worse because bullies are idiots and can be stubborn to near-suicidal levels if their pride is hurt.
The bully could see that as a challenge/insult and raise the stakes by hitting harder or bringing some buddies for you next time.
What is best? To appear weak or simply turn the other cheek and hope the bully will lose interest eventually or not increase the pain too much over time or appear strong and risking having an escalation in violence and numbers of people involved?
Best example of two stubborn people, including a bully, these days, has reached the "serious risk of nuclear conflict and lots of collateral damage and dead people" treshold because both sides have an idiot leader. You know which one I'm talking about.
Also, speaking of the first JJ Trek movie's mutiny, behavior was incredibly stupid as well, but on the other side (Spock's):
"Hey, this one guy is trying to be a smartass, but no-one really believes in his semi-attempt to mutiny, so instead of just throwing him into the brig, I'm gonna strand him on a very inhospitable planet and pick him up later. No reason he risks death for various reasons, it's not like a good chunk of the fleet got trashed and there is a huge ship able to destroy entire planets led by a crazy guy bent to destroy the Federation."
A real face-off with a Klingon would not have gone anything remotely close to this....
Define "real."
Klingon decloaks behind you, fires some torps and disruptors. You blow up and the Klingons toast their epic victory with made up battle stories.
But a Klingon ship sitting there doing nothing and waiting for reinforcements before attacking ONE ship?!?! Yeah, that's a 'real' Klingon.
But who is the arbiter for determining what a "real" Klingon attack is? Truth be told, both episodes were fantastic. They're definitely on the right track here.
Well if you think they were fantastic, then that leaves you out of judging anything!
To borrow an overused phrase, they are literally Making Star Trek Great Again. This is by far the best first two episodes of any Star Trek series ever.
Comments
As I say, I'm reserving judgement until we see how that goes. I'm not going to pass judgement on something I haven't seen. But, from the trailer, it sounds like she'll pretty much be used as cannon fodder: given a ship tasked with a most-likely impossible mission so she has a chance to redeem herself: and if she fails, no big loss. She was an unprofessional mutineer anywhere. Besides, this situation isn't that different from 'The Menagerie'; Spock committed all but one of the same charges, plus a charge which automatically entailed the death penalty, and got off scot-free because, essentially, his intentions were good and things worked out in the end. That, to me, is just as if not even more absurd. (Spock still mutineered, endangered his ship and crewmates, etc. At the very least, he should have gotten a severe reprimand. Realistically, he would have been either demoted or discharged.) If Burnham's 'redemption' at least has more than plot armour to it, I can live with it. It's still not the dumbest thing Starfleet has done.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
You make a cogent case.
*cough*children aboard frontier-exploring flagship*cough*
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Or when Data commandeered the Enterprise and endangered a critical mission to meet his creator. Did he suffer any consequences? "Oh, so you have some kind of remote access way to get you to follow a homing beacon, and you have the skill to completely take over the Enterprise for a while? Is that remote acess now safely deactivated and are there no more hidden features like that in your code, that you don't know about yet? You don't know? Excellent, go back to your post. Never."
Why, Kirk didn't commit mutiny, for one. Granted, him having been appointed First Officer may have been a bit much, but Pike (was it?) saw something in him, and wanted to give him a chance. Spock lost it, mentally, so he automagically became (acting) Captain. And the rest is history.
Kirk definitely broke almost every rule out there, yes. And he was impulsive. And reckless. But he didn't commit mutiny. Everything else can usually be overlooked -- especially when things work out -- but blatant mutiny, particularly when it was so *not* warranted, no military ever puts up with that: they simply can't afford to, not even if they wanted to. The 'chain of command' is a biggie.
Speaking of 'chain of command' (Jayne), this reminds me of Firefly.
She's a Xeno Anthropologist, as was mentioned in the first few scene in the desert. That means she was extremely qualified to make an estimation on how to deal with Klingons, absent of people with actual facts.
She is trained to learn and understand how an alien culture work. And she would be the one expected to find an answer to such questions, not just in her role as advisor to the Captain, but due to her specific training. That she consulted with another expert on the matter is quite plausible.
What she could realistically expect is that if she took the first shot, she would apply damage tot he enemy ship, possibly reducing its combat capability before it can bring its full power to bear on the Shenzou.
She also had very good reason to believe that such a signal of strength would alter the Klingon behaviour in their favor, as it would establish respect.
She obviously had no right to mutiny (it wouldn't be mutiny if she did
Sad fact is however that at that point, nothing they could have done would have really altered their course. They did not know one important, critical fact: That the whole situation was carefuly engineered to convince the Kingon Houses to start a war with the Federation.
She didn't betray everything Starfleet stands for at the first sign of disagreement. She did so at the first time she believed not acting would kill everyone that she cared for.
Her bigger and graver error in all of this was that she killed T'Kuvma instead of capturing him. That seemed genuinely not neccessary. Maybe capturing him could have changed things.
This is probably my biggest issue with the whole thing: she was the one who advised Georgieu against killing T'Kuvma. The second T'Kuvma killed Georgieu (called it!) she, in the immortal words of a certain parody song 'shot to kill, shot to kill, shot to kill!' She allowed her emotions to override her better judgement.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
You too make good points.
Fact remains, even though she may have been well qualified to think she was right, ultimately it was the Captain's call to make. And I didn't see an immediate 'life or death' situation. They could have simply withdrawn (as the Sci Officer suggested), lose a bit of face maybe, and have assessed the Klingon situation from afar (and with higher command staff present). There was no pressing reason for her to think they'd all die on the a spot.
In fact, withdrawing was not just the right thing to do, but the show also alluded to the creation of a buffer zone, aka the Neutral Zone (when that Klink said he didn't want the Federation that close to their Empire, even when it was technically still Federation space).
And her killing T'Kuvma, that just showed me how immature and recklessly impulsive she really is, *especially* since they had already discussed the merits of taking him prisoner. And then she kills him anyway, single-handedly starting the Federation-Klingon war. For an alleged expert Xeno Anthropologist, I'd say she dropped the ball a few times.
http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/24/star-trek-discovery-premiere-interview/
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
if you have no regrets for pulling something that gets several of your classmates killed, you have no business in starfleet - or being anywhere other than treatment in a mental facility until such a time as you DO have regrets
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Same here.
Doubt they are all trekkies, though. That site's just what the mainstream hipsters think.
I never use sites like that, or any tv/film critics.
The war had already started. The Klingons fired the first shots before Shenzhou even entered the system. I'll just quote what I said in the other thread:
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
system Lord Baal is dead
Or hell, Prime Kirk. In ST3, Kirk and senior staff commit a slew of crimes including barratry, assault, sabotage of friendly facilities (the Excelsior's transwarp drive), but because they save the day in the end, the others are acquitted and Kirk only loses his admiral's stars.
I like how the Debt of Honor comic book handled that, incidentally. Sulu explains to a junior officer that because they're the best ship in the fleet but also politically inconvenient, Starfleet basically uses them as expendable troubleshooters. Their Klingon and Romulan counterparts Kor and T'Cel are in the same category: Kor is a smooth-forehead when the corrugated-foreheads have regained power (this was written pre-DS9), and T'Cel... not really explained but I think it's partly because she's half-Vulcan, was raised Vulcan in the Federation, and the Romulan establishment doesn't fully trust her.
/editmonsterscrewyou
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Do you really think we'll be that lucky?
I agree. But I also think that much can be said for the entertainment industry chasing $ rather than good fiction. Seems to me most of the industry has gotten people stoked on action rather than story. It's much easier to blow something up than to creatively write your way out of a bad situation.
Space is a bit different from Alaska waters.
Also, when people deliberately provoke you, sometimes the best option is to make them regret it.
My character Tsin'xing
All true. But still not Burnham's call. Imagine a soldier on the South-Korean border deciding that's she fed-up with the North's provocations and, all of her own, resolves "to make them regret it." Do you really want scenarios like that?!
@meimeitoo: That example actually proves my point if you go deeper than the headline. The Russian Air Force had made a habit of violating Turkish airspace (while operating in support of the Assad regime) previous to that, but unlike the Klingons in "The Vulcan Hello", they hadn't fired on any Turkish targets. The Turks had already repeatedly warned them off and they weren't listening, so the Turks escalated by shooting down the next pilot to think he could fly anywhere he pleased because Russiaball stronk. At which point the Russians got the message and stopped.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
That's the best outcome, and a very likely one as bullies are cowards but not the only one and sometimes, it makes things worse because bullies are idiots and can be stubborn to near-suicidal levels if their pride is hurt.
The bully could see that as a challenge/insult and raise the stakes by hitting harder or bringing some buddies for you next time.
What is best? To appear weak or simply turn the other cheek and hope the bully will lose interest eventually or not increase the pain too much over time or appear strong and risking having an escalation in violence and numbers of people involved?
Best example of two stubborn people, including a bully, these days, has reached the "serious risk of nuclear conflict and lots of collateral damage and dead people" treshold because both sides have an idiot leader. You know which one I'm talking about.
Also, speaking of the first JJ Trek movie's mutiny, behavior was incredibly stupid as well, but on the other side (Spock's):
"Hey, this one guy is trying to be a smartass, but no-one really believes in his semi-attempt to mutiny, so instead of just throwing him into the brig, I'm gonna strand him on a very inhospitable planet and pick him up later. No reason he risks death for various reasons, it's not like a good chunk of the fleet got trashed and there is a huge ship able to destroy entire planets led by a crazy guy bent to destroy the Federation."
^^ LOL. Good answer!