"Burnham’s choice...affects Starfleet, affects the Federation; it affects the entire universe..."
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
Very true.
Oddly, there are fans here who insist that because producers say a thing - like, say, that this isn't a reboot - that makes it true.
Not so odd when taken with the actual episode. But, who cares, right? You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want.
I think her logic was sound. If he dies for his cause he's a martyr. If he lives as a prisoner, he's shamed. She was dumb as a post for killing him given this was her belief regardless of whether her hypothesis was correct or not.
That's actually an interesting theory. It could well be true. It will be interesting if the truth is ever revealed about this.
This would have made a million times more sense. I did feel like a cop-out to have Georgiou stop Burnham before she could fire the first shot. Would have made for a much stronger – and more interesting – story development for the series. But oh well, I'm looking forward to how they will go from here.
Interestingly, I think it wouldn't be all that hard to cut a version of the premiere episodes that retains that chain of events.
The thing is, it's pretty obvious that T'kumva was out for war with the Federation to begin with. It didn't matter whether the federation opened fire first or not. Vulcans were treating the Klingons as if they were a logical species with logical ends, when most Klingons just want to kill something. Federation cruisers, traders, science ships, space garbage, anomalies.
Vulcan ships firing first just meant the Klingon captain lost the chance for a surprise attack.
So yeah, Michael's suggestion would have made no difference there whatsoever.
So I expect the big choice she made was shooting T'Kuvma instead of capturing him.
Vulcan ships firing first just meant the Klingon captain lost the chance for a surprise attack.
So yeah, Michael's suggestion would have made no difference there whatsoever.
So I expect the big choice she made was shooting T'Kuvma instead of capturing him.
I'm curious to see how they'll explain Burnham getting out of prison to serve on the Discovery. That is such a tired old movie and TV trope. Some messed up ex-hero is in prison and is called from there because HE/SHE TOTALLY IS NEEDED.
I'm sure this doesn't actually happen in the real world. The navy doesn't go: "Oh, we need good people. Let's get this asshole out of prison who started a mutiny and attacked her captain! This should be a wonderful idea!"
I'm sure this doesn't actually happen in the real world. The navy doesn't go: "Oh, we need good people. Let's get this asshole out of prison who started a mutiny and attacked her captain! This should be a wonderful idea!"
Michael Burnham is the Snake Plissken of the Star Trek universe.
To clarify and to give credit where it's due, the "hasty late script rewrite" analysis was provided to me by my close associate Rose Bailey, who is quite a good writer.
Full disclosure, I enjoyed the pilot (both episodes) despite its flaws, but this would have made quite an interesting story. I actually kind of see why they changed it though....if you go with that situation where she actually fired how redemable is she really? How likeable is she really? Just looking at response to her all of the negative stuff is about how shes mutinied. Imagine the reaction if she had actually fired.
You don't call all out war between the Federation and Klingons 'Universe Changing'? (In the eyes of the Federation.)
^^^
The previous major war Earth fought was the Earth/Romulan War <--- Which led to the formation of the Federation, This is probably the first major war th Federation (as a Star Nation) was involved in.)
Not for the majority of the viewers though. Because we already know whatever peace or understanding they come to, is incredibly short lived.
This wouldn't be different in a non-prequel setting, though - we can always tell that no change lasts in TV Land because status quo is more profitable.
Whether there's war or peace matters a lot to the people in the Trek universe. Similarly, whether WWII happened or not would have been of interest to people in the 1940s even if we today have no such interest - and great drama has been written and acted out in various fori on the decisions leading to that thing that we all know did ultimately happen.
Not that there should be an answer to a question that is so purely hypothetical - "if Brunham's choice affected stuff, what would that choice be/have been?" is not a feature of the Trek universe itself. But we can approach that bit of hyperbole differently, too: the "choice" would have great repercussions even if it made no difference, as it would be a necessary formal step into those inevitable repercussions.
Timo Saloniemi
Whether there's war or peace matters a lot to the people in the Trek universe. Similarly, whether WWII happened or not would have been of interest to people in the 1940s even if we today have no such interest - and great drama has been written and acted out in various fori on the decisions leading to that thing that we all know did ultimately happen.
Not that there should be an answer to a question that is so purely hypothetical - "if Brunham's choice affected stuff, what would that choice be/have been?" is not a feature of the Trek universe itself. But we can approach that bit of hyperbole differently, too: the "choice" would have great repercussions even if it made no difference, as it would be a necessary formal step into those inevitable repercussions.
Timo Saloniemi
I don't recall - were fans complaining when TNG did it to bring in the character of 'Ensign Ro Laren' back in 1991?
I don't recall - were fans complaining when TNG did it to bring in the character of 'Ensign Ro Laren' back in 1991?
I think its a bit differently when it is something that is a minor piece of the show. You can overlook it, if it doesn't make sense to you. Quite a bit different when it is a defining element of the central character and story being told.
The universe is awfully large. I don't think Burnham's action is that important. LOL
Considering the Ro character ebcaume a regular on the show after her introduction; and the actress been interested - we would have had Ro, (and not the Kira character) on the DS9 series - sorry, don't see much of a difference.
It's import to everyone in said Universe who's a member of Starfleet, or who lives in the Federation; and considering the Star Trek franchise in general only deals with 'The Federation' part of said Universe...
Similar threads
