test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Why do people not like Discovery?

1679111217

Comments

  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    Tilly has become unbearable due to the hype. I liked her at first, but seeing her 'quirkyness' become one of the leading marketing stunts in history it got stale quick. It doesn't feel genuine any more (or rather organic for the character).
    That might happen in marketing and in STO, but I think her development in Discovery is pretty good and isn't hyped.

    I think part of the problem of today's discussions are that it has been a year since many last saw the show.

    It's like people talking about that "horny captain Kirk" which, if you actually revisit TOS, is a lot more understated and typically not motivated by any "horniness" but by honest emotion - or (counter)manipulation to save his crew. He isn't really a guy for "casual" relationships, unlike Riker.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    Some things to think about while this hatefest for Discovery goes on.

    - Kirk was the Harvey Weinstein of Starfleet.

    No he wasn't.
    - Spock really wanted to be human all along.

    No he didn't.
    - Picard was, and will probably remain, a pompous blowhard languishing in perpetual self pity.

    Seasons 1 & 2 maybe, but not the rest of the series (and definitely not the films).
    - Riker was a wannabe Kirk.

    Not really.
    - Data was a wannabe Spock.

    Ibid.
    - Troi and Seven of Nine were the fantasy girlfriends. For people who have problems with real relationships.

    Seven yes, Troi debatable.
    - Beverly was the MILF version of Troi and Seven of Nine.

    Not really.
    - Worf was a candy TRIBBLE.
    - The only reason Worf killed Gowron is because Gowron was a bigger candy TRIBBLE.

    No he wasn't, no it wasn't, and no he wasn't.
    - Janeway was a rogue operative who should have been shot.

    Good thing there's no death penalty in the C24th.
    - Cardassians are the worst second tier villains in the history of televison.

    The Ferengi would like a word.
    - Odo was a wannabe Worf.

    Not even in the same category.
    - Kira was a wannabe Beverly.

    You mean in the respect that her attitude, role, and general character was nothing like Beverly?
    - Archer should have taken that last leap home.

    There are plenty of issues with Archer's character. Scott Bakula is not one of them.
    - T'Pol was eyecandy. A cardboard cutout probably has better acting chops.

    Yes and no.
    - The JJprize is the ricer version of ENT-A.

    In what way?
    So you see, there's lots and lots to hate on in Star Trek. No need to confine your hatred to just one aspect or show.

    You imply these people only dislike DSC.
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,276 Arc User
    yeah...worf kind of was a candy TRIBBLE - there's a reason he has an entire tv trope named specifically after him that deals with him getting constantly beat up almost every week

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #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!"
    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.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    Which, again, stopped after Season 2 (for the most part), never happened in DS9, and Gowron certainly never had that problem. Same as how, despite the trope, Kirk didn't actually get romantically involved with every woman he came across (there were 2, maybe 3, across the entire show).
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,276 Arc User
    no, gowron was just batshit insane, complete with crazy bug eyes​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #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!"
    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.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    > @shadowfang240 said:
    > no, gowron was just batshit insane, complete with crazy bug eyes​​

    Ö.Ö
    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
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's interesting to me that some commenters here hold that Burnham is a bad character because she's a Mary Sue, and others say it's because she's unlikeable. You see, one of the primary characteristics of a Mary Sue is that everyone loves her, and anyone who disagrees is quickly shown to have been wrong to do so, and is probably a villain. ("Always being right" isn't so much a mark of a Mary Sue as a mark of a protagonist.) So, which is it? :smile:
    She's an automaton that does whatever the writer needs her to do to advance the plot. Her own decision making processes are inscrutable to the audience because sometimes she acts emotionally, and sometimes logically. Even after she has an "epiphany" that humans are innately illogical she continues to erratically act "logical" or "emotional".

    As a result, she has Mary Sue characteristics, but the disposition of a datapad. Unlike typical Mary Sues, she is deliberately portrayed as "unlikeable" so she can have a redemption arc. Which fizzled.
    Some things to think about while this hatefest for Discovery goes on.

    - Kirk was the Harvey Weinstein of Starfleet.
    - Spock really wanted to be human all along.
    - Picard was, and will probably remain, a pompous blowhard languishing in perpetual self pity.
    - Riker was a wannabe Kirk.
    - Data was a wannabe Spock.
    - Troi and Seven of Nine were the fantasy girlfriends. For people who have problems with real relationships.
    - Beverly was the MILF version of Troi and Seven of Nine.
    - Worf was a candy TRIBBLE.
    - The only reason Worf killed Gowron is because Gowron was a bigger candy TRIBBLE.
    - Janeway was a rogue operative who should have been shot.
    - Cardassians are the worst second tier villains in the history of televison.
    - Odo was a wannabe Worf.
    - Kira was a wannabe Beverly.
    - Archer should have taken that last leap home.
    - T'Pol was eyecandy. A cardboard cutout probably has better acting chops.
    - The JJprize is the ricer version of ENT-A.

    So you see, there's lots and lots to hate on in Star Trek. No need to confine your hatred to just one aspect or show.
    I doubt anyone in this thread is suggesting that there are NO issues with other stories in Trek (for instance, see that awful bit of lampshading in Journey to Babel that serves as a "write whatever nonsense you want about Spock because you can" card that needs to die in a fire). Feel free to make a thread about Star Trek: Enterprise or ANY of the TNG movies and I will GLADLY eviscerate the garbage tier story telling and characterization.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    redvenge wrote: »
    Why does Star Trek: Discovery evoke more "negative" passion than "positive" passion? Someone must be passionate about this show. Where are the lengthy posts about the positive aspects of the show?
    Actually, this is a false equivalency. :p It's basic human psychology, negative emotions are more likely to encourage you to do something. There simply isn't a positive equivalent of rage posting because it goes contrary to human psychology.
    If Burnham was more consistent (sometimes, she acts like a human, sometimes like a vulcan; never with any consistency) she would at least be relatable, instead of an automaton that moves the plot.
    That's part of her character. She WANTS to act like a Vulcan all the time, but it just doesn't work.
    starkaos wrote: »
    Another problem with Discovery could be due to the overexpectations of a new Star Trek series from not having one for over 10 years. Lots of fans only want new Star Trek series to be the same, but better. Then there is the problem with the first episode of Discovery, every other Star Trek series took at least a couple of seasons to establish the background of the series before throwing them into a war. Having the Vulcan Hello as the Season Finale instead of the Season Premiere would have helped to fix the issue of Discovery not feeling like Star Trek especially with the Shenzhou exploring various different cultures. At least Discovery wouldn't have to deal with criticism about the Spore Drive and the Klingons until much later.
    I feel like invoking one of Aesop's fables here. Namely the one where the moral of the story is "you can't please everyone". There are innumerable things they could have done differently, possibly better, but any of them would have ticked off someone. So we're getting into degrees of fan outrage, which.. good luck predicting those.
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's interesting to me that some commenters here hold that Burnham is a bad character because she's a Mary Sue, and others say it's because she's unlikeable. You see, one of the primary characteristics of a Mary Sue is that everyone loves her, and anyone who disagrees is quickly shown to have been wrong to do so, and is probably a villain. ("Always being right" isn't so much a mark of a Mary Sue as a mark of a protagonist.) So, which is it? :smile:
    It's always amusing when someone talks about her being a "Mary-Sue" but follows by listing her flaws... Or says "she's always right" then lists when she wasn't...
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    Red, all fictional characters, from Kirk and Spock to Picard and Riker right on up to Burnham and Lorca, are "automatons that do what the writers want". They aren't real people. I hate to break that to you, but it is what it is.

    And Burnham's characterization has been consistent. She is Human, with all that implies, but was raised on Vulcan from childhood after her parents were killed. She wanted to be Vulcan, but lacked both the necessary training from infancy and the psychological structure necessary for this. She's adjusting, especially since learning that her "failure", her essential Humanity, did not come as a disappointment to her mentor, Sarek - rather, he avoided her because he blamed himself (and because he tried to advance her interests over those of his own son, while neglecting to explain this to either of them, which is a large part of his alienation from Spock as well).

    The problem appears to be that you want her to be plainly Human, or plainly Vulcan, while her character is constructed from both. Think of her as high-functioning autistic, because although her neurology does appear to be NT, her upbringing would result in something very similar to HF ASD. If she ever started acting the way you expect her to, that would indeed be poor characterization.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    Oh, no, Patrick, your issues with Burnham are entirely different, and aside from your misapplication of the Mary Sue trope to her, yours are mostly matters of personal taste.

    It's Red, it would seem, who expects her to act in a certain way that comports with his 21st-century Human NT norms, and is upset because she doesn't.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • lordrezeonlordrezeon Member Posts: 399 Arc User
    I think part of the problem was with making Burnham the central focus of the story rather than spreading the burden among the rest of the cast. When you go that route the main character has to be compelling enough to carry the weight of the entire story.

    In my particular case I found Burnham to be very unappealing, as she comes across as a fundamentally selfish person who has been gifted tremendous privilege without actually earning it or even being grateful for it. It is hard to stay invested in a story when you don't sympathize with the lead character that you are following.

    Other shows in the franchise have had similar problems, but the ensemble casts were better able to compensate.
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    Actually, this is a false equivalency. :p It's basic human psychology, negative emotions are more likely to encourage you to do something. There simply isn't a positive equivalent of rage posting because it goes contrary to human psychology.
    False equivalency? There is no "positive" emotion that is more likely to rouse a human to action?

    Nonsense. Humans are motivated by "positive" emotions all the time. Love, gratitude, even kindness promote action. You continue to find new ways of saying "Star Trek: Discovery does not promote positive emotions in viewers; only apathy, which is why no one posts about how much they enjoy the show".

    This includes you, by the way.
    jonsills wrote: »
    Red, all fictional characters, from Kirk and Spock to Picard and Riker right on up to Burnham and Lorca, are "automatons that do what the writers want". They aren't real people. I hate to break that to you, but it is what it is.
    Story telling is an art and a science. If the audience can "see the man behind the curtain", you've messed up. Not every Trek story has good characterization. However, enough has been established about Kirk, Spock, Picard and Riker that when they react to events we see on screen, it makes sense.

    Let's compare Data and Burnham for a moment. Data is a being of logic (from his point of view) who has a hard time grasping emotion. His stated goal is to be more "human" and experience emotions for himself. In the movie Generations, Riker orders the computer to remove the plank, dumping Worf into the water. While the rest of the crew laughs, Data admits to Doctor Crusher that he doesn't understand why Worf falling into freezing cold water is so amusing to people. Beverly tells him that it's just a bit of harmless fun, and he should try and get into the spirit of things and 'do something unexpected'. Data tells her he understands, then suddenly pushes her overboard, falling into the sea taking Worf back in with her. Data turns expecting laughing, only to find the faces of his horrified crewmates telling him that was 'not funny'.

    We may or may not find the scene "funny", but we understand why Data would do what he did. He does not understand emotions well.

    Compare this to Burnham's actions in The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry (as a sidenote, that is an extremely pretentious title for such an average story). Burnham is convinced (based on no on screen evidence) that the tartigrade is not a monster, but simply "misunderstood". Of course, Burnham is ultimately proven right (even after the creature mauls Security Chief McFacist).

    Both Data and Burnham have strange decision making processes. We know enough about Data to get "why" he does what he does. Burnham has no such exposition. She just does things and "everything works out". It's why some accuse her of being a Mary Sue.
    jonsills wrote: »
    And Burnham's characterization has been consistent. She is Human, with all that implies, but was raised on Vulcan from childhood after her parents were killed. She wanted to be Vulcan, but lacked both the necessary training from infancy and the psychological structure necessary for this. She's adjusting, especially since learning that her "failure", her essential Humanity, did not come as a disappointment to her mentor, Sarek - rather, he avoided her because he blamed himself (and because he tried to advance her interests over those of his own son, while neglecting to explain this to either of them, which is a large part of his alienation from Spock as well).
    The writers have done a poor job of showing us any kind of struggle or growth. Much like Seven of Nine, Burnham will state "I get it!", then the next episode she is back to being logical or emotional depending on what the writer and director needs her to do for a scene.
    jonsills wrote: »
    The problem appears to be that you want her to be plainly Human, or plainly Vulcan, while her character is constructed from both. Think of her as high-functioning autistic, because although her neurology does appear to be NT, her upbringing would result in something very similar to HF ASD. If she ever started acting the way you expect her to, that would indeed be poor characterization.
    I need to understand why she is doing what she is doing, OR have her characterization consistent OR have her characterization simplified. Doing things without context from what is going on in the show makes it look like she is reading the script. Hence the accusations of Mary Sue.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    edited November 2018
    patrickngo wrote: »
    valoreah wrote: »
    lordrezeon wrote: »
    In my particular case I found Burnham to be very unappealing, as she comes across as a fundamentally selfish person who has been gifted tremendous privilege without actually earning it or even being grateful for it.

    "Gifted tremendous privelege"? That's among the most obscure and absurd comments I've read about the character.

    Abundantly clear she worked very, very, very hard for what she achieved while growing up on Vulcan. It was not easy for her being human trying to keep up academically with Vulcans.

    except its' NOT "Abundantly clear". She's the adopted daughter of teh nearest thing to 'royalty' Vulcan has, and further, enjoys a closer relationship to him than his own blood kin. She's accorded special access into Starfleet without passing Starfleet Academy, with a rapid promotion that ignored said incompatible training. The "Hard work" is implied or stated, but never shown.
    How can it not be abundantly clear that she worked very hard, but you can rule the Vulcan training she recieved as "incompatible" with Starfleet Academy?


    Isn't what we see on screen in the show pretty clear that yes, she was really good and worked hard since she excelled at the Vulcan Academy, and that the training for the Vulcan Science Academy was considered equivalent to the training at Starfleet Academy? I mean, anything else seems to require making up assumptions definitely not stated on screen, or deliberately ignoring what is happening on screen?

    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • lordrezeonlordrezeon Member Posts: 399 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    lordrezeon wrote: »
    In my particular case I found Burnham to be very unappealing, as she comes across as a fundamentally selfish person who has been gifted tremendous privilege without actually earning it or even being grateful for it.

    "Gifted tremendous privelege"? That's among the most obscure and absurd comments I've read about the character.

    Abundantly clear she worked very, very, very hard for what she achieved while growing up on Vulcan. It was not easy for her being human trying to keep up academically with Vulcans.

    Her position within Starfleet had nothing to do with her academic achievements on Vulcan. It was a political favor between Georgiou and Sarek plain and simple, with Georgiou bending over backward to accommodate Burnham's privileged attitude. A prime example that nepotism is the real currency of the Federation, right up there with Wesley Crusher being treated as an acting officer despite being a child. Plus, just like with Wesley, Burnham's personal journey ended with bloodshed when she wasn't getting her way.

    It is utterly ridiculous to claim that she earned any of it, the story is practically tying itself into knots trying to make her some kind of "chosen one" savior of the universe. Just listen to the narration for the season 2 trailer, it is all about how special Burnham is and how she is the only one who can see the bigger picture.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    redvenge wrote: »
    Actually, this is a false equivalency. :p It's basic human psychology, negative emotions are more likely to encourage you to do something. There simply isn't a positive equivalent of rage posting because it goes contrary to human psychology.
    False equivalency? There is no "positive" emotion that is more likely to rouse a human to action?

    Nonsense. Humans are motivated by "positive" emotions all the time. Love, gratitude, even kindness promote action. You continue to find new ways of saying "Star Trek: Discovery does not promote positive emotions in viewers; only apathy, which is why no one posts about how much they enjoy the show".
    The reason why I say false equivalency is that you operate under the assumption that positive and negative are equal. It's not a question of IF people are motivated by positive feelings, it's a question of how much. As an example, have you(redvenge) ever liked a TV show so much you felt the need to write essays about how much you liked it on internet message boards filled with people who disagree with your opinion? I'm guessing the answer is NO, and that is exactly my point. Rage motivates you to act far more than happiness or contentment. As I said before, it's basic human psychology. Negative emotions motivate you to make them stop, positive emotions motivate you to sit back and enjoy them.
    jonsills wrote: »
    Red, all fictional characters, from Kirk and Spock to Picard and Riker right on up to Burnham and Lorca, are "automatons that do what the writers want". They aren't real people. I hate to break that to you, but it is what it is.
    Story telling is an art and a science. If the audience can "see the man behind the curtain", you've messed up. Not every Trek story has good characterization. However, enough has been established about Kirk, Spock, Picard and Riker that when they react to events we see on screen, it makes sense.

    Let's compare Data and Burnham for a moment. Data is a being of logic (from his point of view) who has a hard time grasping emotion. His stated goal is to be more "human" and experience emotions for himself. In the movie Generations, Riker orders the computer to remove the plank, dumping Worf into the water. While the rest of the crew laughs, Data admits to Doctor Crusher that he doesn't understand why Worf falling into freezing cold water is so amusing to people. Beverly tells him that it's just a bit of harmless fun, and he should try and get into the spirit of things and 'do something unexpected'. Data tells her he understands, then suddenly pushes her overboard, falling into the sea taking Worf back in with her. Data turns expecting laughing, only to find the faces of his horrified crewmates telling him that was 'not funny'.

    We may or may not find the scene "funny", but we understand why Data would do what he did. He does not understand emotions well.

    Compare this to Burnham's actions in The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry (as a sidenote, that is an extremely pretentious title for such an average story). Burnham is convinced (based on no on screen evidence) that the tartigrade is not a monster, but simply "misunderstood". Of course, Burnham is ultimately proven right (even after the creature mauls Security Chief McFacist).

    Both Data and Burnham have strange decision making processes. We know enough about Data to get "why" he does what he does. Burnham has no such exposition. She just does things and "everything works out". It's why some accuse her of being a Mary Sue.
    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.
    jonsills wrote: »
    And Burnham's characterization has been consistent. She is Human, with all that implies, but was raised on Vulcan from childhood after her parents were killed. She wanted to be Vulcan, but lacked both the necessary training from infancy and the psychological structure necessary for this. She's adjusting, especially since learning that her "failure", her essential Humanity, did not come as a disappointment to her mentor, Sarek - rather, he avoided her because he blamed himself (and because he tried to advance her interests over those of his own son, while neglecting to explain this to either of them, which is a large part of his alienation from Spock as well).
    The writers have done a poor job of showing us any kind of struggle or growth. Much like Seven of Nine, Burnham will state "I get it!", then the next episode she is back to being logical or emotional depending on what the writer and director needs her to do for a scene.
    jonsills wrote: »
    The problem appears to be that you want her to be plainly Human, or plainly Vulcan, while her character is constructed from both. Think of her as high-functioning autistic, because although her neurology does appear to be NT, her upbringing would result in something very similar to HF ASD. If she ever started acting the way you expect her to, that would indeed be poor characterization.
    I need to understand why she is doing what she is doing, OR have her characterization consistent OR have her characterization simplified. Doing things without context from what is going on in the show makes it look like she is reading the script. Hence the accusations of Mary Sue.
    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.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    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.
    Hence my comment that her upbringing resulted in something akin to high-functioning autism. Because in-universe, my behavior often seems "erratic and hard to understand" to NTs. On the other hand, I understand Burnham quite well. I don't always agree with her actions (in fact, I frequently disagree), but I understand them.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,007 Arc User
    I imagine that if Burnham was qualified to join the Vulcan Expeditionary Group she’s more than likely qualified for Star Fleet
    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.
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,007 Arc User
    Someone like that should be court martialed
    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.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    khan5000 wrote: »
    Someone like that should be court martialed
    Well, she kind of was... :wink:
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,007 Arc User
    Oh so it all worked out
    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.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    She was locked in a dark room and interrogated by barely visible shadow admirals. You know, how Starfleet was shown again and again to handle things.
    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
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    Because drama!

    "Say, I have an idea! How about we have our main character TRIBBLE up massively, get court-martialled (basically) off-screen, scapegoated by public opinion for starting a war, and then spend the entire season trying to redeem herself for starting a war she didn't start rather than what she was actually guilty of? That'll make the audience like her, right?"

    "Genius!"
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    khan5000 wrote: »
    Oh so it all worked out

    She was sentenced to life imprisonment (which she probably wouldn't have survived if the attitude of the prison shuttle inmates was anything to go by).
  • lordsteve1lordsteve1 Member Posts: 3,492 Arc User
    Only reason she got out of jail free was because of Lorca, and we all know how that ended up. So honestly I think if it hadn't been for his meddling she would have been done for, stuck to a life of prison labour.

    And as a character we're not really meant to like her, she's supposed to annoy us as much as she annoys the crew she works with. Not everyone needs to be Mr/Mrs Perfect and always a shining example of Starfleet.
    SulMatuul.png
Sign In or Register to comment.