and you don't find that the least bit contrived, which is why this discussion will go nowhere.
No more contrived than Kirk getting off with not even a slap on the wrist for what he did. You're also forgetting Lorca had ulterior motives for seeking out Burnham.
Pointing to other examples of bad writing to justify bad writing is, umm, bad writing. Yeah...
And you're forgetting that Starfleet has a whole bureaucracy which approves crew appointments. While Lorca might have had the chance to do something immediately after encountering Burnham, eventually that bureaucracy should have caught up to them and said, "Nope, send her back to prison to finish her sentence."
Burnham deserved what she got, because she failed. She failed, because her actions weren't merely irrational, they were incompetent as well as irrational.
And if she succeeded in her mutiny, then she might have succeeded. Hesitation was the worst choice for that situation. Destroying T'kuvma's ship or sacrificing the Shenzhou might have stopped the war from ever happening in the first place. If the Shenzhou was sacrificed, then T'kuvma would need another incident to start his war with the Federation since destroying a ship that never fired back would have never brought the other House to his side.
Your apprehension of the character of Michael Burnham is flawed, Patrick. However, repeated discussion of the matter has revealed that you're unwilling to reconsider this, so let's just let it go at this point and discuss the topic, which is the Michelle Yeoh spinoff. (Which, based on your ideas for your Masterverse contributions, I would have thought to be right up your alley...)
Burnham's actions cost the lives of her crew, her ship, and her captain, and failed to achieve a single objective.
No. Her actions didn't get anybody killed or cost anything. The klingons were there specifically to start a war. What she or anyone else did at that point wouldn't have mattered. Her behavior was dictated by what she thought was a different situation entirely and that she could not have had any way of predicting at the time. Nor could anyone else for that matter
Yes, she was. It was called Season 1. As far as the authors "bending the universe" - they did this for every single Star Trek character.
No. As patrick rightfully pointed out, she hasn't been redeemed and hasn't changed a bit. She still believes what she did was the correct thing to do at the time. That aside, given the situation with lorca, she should be back in prison following the war. She is over confident and self righteous and thats a dangerous combination
That said, getting back to the topic, the whole announcement for the new series seems bizarre at best. I don't get why they are announcing it at this point if they're saying its not likely to see the light of day until discovery ends. That implies that either the new series is intended to be a fair number of years off, given that they only just started season 2, or discovery is doing poorly enough that they already decided to scrap it in favor of a new series (in which case I don't get why they would use a character from that series to lead a new one....), or they are deliberately intending discovery to only go another season or two as part of the writing plan. That, or the whole 'it might not be produced until discovery is over' is just bs. So why announce it at all at this point?
But that aside, this could be a case of cbs deciding they want a long term entry into the franchise, are not entirely confident what will achieve that long term success and are coming up with all these new series in an effort to see what works and what doesn't. We're looking at what? 5 or 6 supposed concepts in development right now? Realistically at least one or two of those is going to fail to be successful at the very least. Its a strange move from a company who cited over saturation as a reason for the failure of enterprise and shelved the idea of a tv series for over a decade....Then again, these are also the people who admitted they screwed up and made a big mistake in making enterprise a prequel...only to do exactly the same thing with the very next series they produced. Because logic. and lets not even get into how much money they're putting into these new shows and that they already went over budget twice with discovery. The entire plan doesn't seem logically or financially viable to support long term. Particularly for shows that are locked behind a paywall
...and again, it goes back to 'what in hell makes Burnham so so special"?...we're talking someone whose training isn't that unique, her initial encounter can be charitably termed "Utter Failure", she wasn't one of the theorists behind teh drive tech, she's not a proven strategist, she isn't a veteran of prior warfare, and so on.
What made Kirk so special to become the youngest Captain in his time? What made Picard so special to be given command of the Federation flagship? As we all know Kirk failed his first three attempts and the academy final exam... wouldn't that categorize him as an "utter failure" assuming you get let go of the "but I like Kirk" excuse?
Burnham was the first human to graduate at the top of her class from the Vulcan Science Academy earning the Vulcanian Scientific Legion of Honor- that in of itself is no small feat.
She may not have decades of experience behind her yet, but she is no dummy.
You are the one citing Kirk as an example. Some of the things Kirk did were cringeworthy. It's a bad example.
See, when TOS came out it was a cowboy show in space. The guy in the white-hat rides into town, saves the day, and rides off into the sunset. That was the formula, and what happened in one episode had no relation to what happened in other episodes. All that mattered was that at the end of the show the main cast was alive and well and ready for their next bold mission.
The writers of Discovery did not use that formula. They changed the game. Kirk's rules don't matter any more because that's not the kind of storytelling they wanted. It was their choice to go with a serialized, 'realistic and gritty' style. That is the standard they set for themselves!
So, when referencing Kirk, the interval between episodes is null time. Nothing happened, there is no continuity from episode to episode, no consequences from the past unless the writers wanted that in a particular episode. In Discovery, however, there are supposed to be consequences! By the rules the producers and writers themselves established, Discovery is supposed to be one story from beginning to end.
So, consequences of mutiny? Get out of jail free card.
Consequences of starting a war? None. (And no, they don't know the Klingons were going to go to war anyway, so that is an invalid argument.)
Consequences of being a condescending TRIBBLE whose conversational skills are on par with Don Rickles?
Consequences of anything that carries on from the point we first encounter her?
She commits repeated failures, but everyone around her takes the blame for her failures, and it turns out if everyone had just listened to the girl who screwed up everything she touched, well, everything would have turned out okay. Huh?
So, no. She's not a Kirk, nor is she a Picard. She's a Reginald Barclay, but without the endearing charm. Or the skill with machinery. She's a Sir Robert Arbuthnot.
He's holding this to the standards of Star Trek. You're the one holding it to the standards of the ideals of West Point or Annapolis (you've served, you know the officers often fall short of the ideal in reality too).
My model is actually Starfleet Academy, as it was presented in the various shows. Falling short and giving a criminal a free ride are worlds apart.
As I've said before, if there wasn't the Trek logo on it, I wouldn't have a complaint. There are militaries which operate on nepotism, and incompetence is often overlooked or even rewarded in such militaries. (Promote the idiot until he can do no harm.) But Starfleet is supposed to set a higher standard.
I realize we're never going to agree, so I'll let this go. But as a point of fact, while I like Star Trek TOS for what it is, pointing to the parts I think are flaws is not going to convince me that those flaws are acceptable in new content. To quote Picard, the challenge is to improve yourself.
"Zero experience and zero failures". This is why Capt. Georgiou's first on-screen conversation with Burnham was about how it was time Burnham got her own starship? Burnham was just awarded the rank of Commander because of, what, her awesome hairstyle? Georgiou just imagined the years with Burnham as her first officer?
Yeah I keep seeing people say "nepotism" but I've yet to see anyone PROVE it. Sarek isn't the reason she got passing grades, and Sarek isn't the reason Lorca decided he needed her.
To use an example from the US military, you need a recommendation to get into certain military academies. What Sarek did is the equivalent of that.... and Sarek's influence ended there.
Comments
> lordgyor wrote: »
>
> https://trekmovie.com/2019/01/20/star-trek-discovery-update-kurtzman-talks-red-angel-yeoh-reveals-new-ship-red-carpet-pics-more/
>
> We have a picture of what might be Michelle Yeoh's Section 31 ship which could feature both in TRIBBLE season 2 and in a future Section 31 series.
>
>
>
> Looks a lot like a STO ship - can't remember the class name (Ushaan, maybe?), but the one I'm thinking of is an escort, Tier 3 I think.
Yes, I agree there is something of a resemblance, not completelycompletely, but partially. I look forward to seeing the ship in Discovery.
Pointing to other examples of bad writing to justify bad writing is, umm, bad writing. Yeah...
And you're forgetting that Starfleet has a whole bureaucracy which approves crew appointments. While Lorca might have had the chance to do something immediately after encountering Burnham, eventually that bureaucracy should have caught up to them and said, "Nope, send her back to prison to finish her sentence."
And if she succeeded in her mutiny, then she might have succeeded. Hesitation was the worst choice for that situation. Destroying T'kuvma's ship or sacrificing the Shenzhou might have stopped the war from ever happening in the first place. If the Shenzhou was sacrificed, then T'kuvma would need another incident to start his war with the Federation since destroying a ship that never fired back would have never brought the other House to his side.
No. Her actions didn't get anybody killed or cost anything. The klingons were there specifically to start a war. What she or anyone else did at that point wouldn't have mattered. Her behavior was dictated by what she thought was a different situation entirely and that she could not have had any way of predicting at the time. Nor could anyone else for that matter
No. As patrick rightfully pointed out, she hasn't been redeemed and hasn't changed a bit. She still believes what she did was the correct thing to do at the time. That aside, given the situation with lorca, she should be back in prison following the war. She is over confident and self righteous and thats a dangerous combination
That said, getting back to the topic, the whole announcement for the new series seems bizarre at best. I don't get why they are announcing it at this point if they're saying its not likely to see the light of day until discovery ends. That implies that either the new series is intended to be a fair number of years off, given that they only just started season 2, or discovery is doing poorly enough that they already decided to scrap it in favor of a new series (in which case I don't get why they would use a character from that series to lead a new one....), or they are deliberately intending discovery to only go another season or two as part of the writing plan. That, or the whole 'it might not be produced until discovery is over' is just bs. So why announce it at all at this point?
But that aside, this could be a case of cbs deciding they want a long term entry into the franchise, are not entirely confident what will achieve that long term success and are coming up with all these new series in an effort to see what works and what doesn't. We're looking at what? 5 or 6 supposed concepts in development right now? Realistically at least one or two of those is going to fail to be successful at the very least. Its a strange move from a company who cited over saturation as a reason for the failure of enterprise and shelved the idea of a tv series for over a decade....Then again, these are also the people who admitted they screwed up and made a big mistake in making enterprise a prequel...only to do exactly the same thing with the very next series they produced. Because logic. and lets not even get into how much money they're putting into these new shows and that they already went over budget twice with discovery. The entire plan doesn't seem logically or financially viable to support long term. Particularly for shows that are locked behind a paywall
You are the one citing Kirk as an example. Some of the things Kirk did were cringeworthy. It's a bad example.
See, when TOS came out it was a cowboy show in space. The guy in the white-hat rides into town, saves the day, and rides off into the sunset. That was the formula, and what happened in one episode had no relation to what happened in other episodes. All that mattered was that at the end of the show the main cast was alive and well and ready for their next bold mission.
The writers of Discovery did not use that formula. They changed the game. Kirk's rules don't matter any more because that's not the kind of storytelling they wanted. It was their choice to go with a serialized, 'realistic and gritty' style. That is the standard they set for themselves!
So, when referencing Kirk, the interval between episodes is null time. Nothing happened, there is no continuity from episode to episode, no consequences from the past unless the writers wanted that in a particular episode. In Discovery, however, there are supposed to be consequences! By the rules the producers and writers themselves established, Discovery is supposed to be one story from beginning to end.
So, consequences of mutiny? Get out of jail free card.
Consequences of starting a war? None. (And no, they don't know the Klingons were going to go to war anyway, so that is an invalid argument.)
Consequences of being a condescending TRIBBLE whose conversational skills are on par with Don Rickles?
Consequences of anything that carries on from the point we first encounter her?
She commits repeated failures, but everyone around her takes the blame for her failures, and it turns out if everyone had just listened to the girl who screwed up everything she touched, well, everything would have turned out okay. Huh?
So, no. She's not a Kirk, nor is she a Picard. She's a Reginald Barclay, but without the endearing charm. Or the skill with machinery. She's a Sir Robert Arbuthnot.
***
As I've said before, if there wasn't the Trek logo on it, I wouldn't have a complaint. There are militaries which operate on nepotism, and incompetence is often overlooked or even rewarded in such militaries. (Promote the idiot until he can do no harm.) But Starfleet is supposed to set a higher standard.
I realize we're never going to agree, so I'll let this go. But as a point of fact, while I like Star Trek TOS for what it is, pointing to the parts I think are flaws is not going to convince me that those flaws are acceptable in new content. To quote Picard, the challenge is to improve yourself.
To use an example from the US military, you need a recommendation to get into certain military academies. What Sarek did is the equivalent of that.... and Sarek's influence ended there.
My character Tsin'xing