When Do You Want To See Burnham Become The STD Captain?

[fireproof78]

Commission of a crime shouldn't be ignored either.. and Wesley and Tom and Kirk aren't exactly references Michael will be able to use. Michael doesn't hold any rank, so thoughts of her becoming Captain and over better qualified and higher ranked candidates with more experience and service would be a big stretch.

In Star Trek universe, it does demonstrate precedence that Starfleet is willing overlook a lot.

I don't think it should be ignored, but I don't think she's beyond redemption either. The quickness to rubber stamp "Irredeemable" or "Damaged Goods" is odd to me, to say the least.

 

[Refuge]

In Star Trek universe, it does demonstrate precedence that Starfleet is willing overlook a lot.

I don't think it should be ignored, but I don't think she's beyond redemption either. The quickness to rubber stamp "Irredeemable" or "Damaged Goods" is odd to me, to say the least.

Do you think she needs to be a Captain to attain redemption and fit the role of lead? I wonder if that is in part what drives the desire for her to achieve that role. Redemption and her worth doesn't have to be rewarded by Starfleet rank. Her mutiny, any mutiny shows a lack of respecting the command structure and Captain Georgiou was a mentor, Michael turned on her. She also made it easy for the Klingon war to be based on a martyr. These are not trifles. Getting redemption is of course a noble pursuit but making her Captain, especially if it's too soon smacks of a kind of character self-indulgence. Everything has to make way around her, deserving or not.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I doubt it will be "too soon". This isn't the JJverse.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Burnham would not work well as Saru's XO.

Really? They did argue a lot when they served together on the Shenzhou, but it could be argued that this is a good thing. Command relationships that always agree, OTOH, rarely are.

What good is an XO who's just a glorified yes-man?

 

[Refuge]

Michael has already avoided any 'time' worth counting. She's moving fast in this. Gone from criminal to an instant specialist position on the Discovery. Soon she'll be going on missions like a valued and experienced member of the actual crew I mean really? Things are already moving too soon.

 

[Turtletrekker]

So, no redemption is possible?

Why does redemption necessarily mean the captaincy of a Starship?

 

[cultcross]

In Star Trek universe, it does demonstrate precedence that Starfleet is willing overlook a lot.

I don't think it should be ignored, but I don't think she's beyond redemption either. The quickness to rubber stamp "Irredeemable" or "Damaged Goods" is odd to me, to say the least.

The Maquis and Tom Paris did far worse than Burnham and while an argument from necessity can be made for Janeway's approach to them, there's little suggestion that their change in status is anything other than permanent.

 

[Refuge]

The Maquis and Tom Paris did far worse than Burnham and while an argument from necessity can be made for Janeway's approach to them, there's little suggestion that their change in status is anything other than permanent.

They had different rank pips

 

[cultcross]

Paris didn't

 

[fireproof78]

Do you think she needs to be a Captain to attain redemption and fit the role of lead? I wonder if that is in part what drives the desire for her to achieve that role. Redemption and her worth doesn't have to be rewarded by Starfleet rank. Her mutiny, any mutiny shows a lack of respecting the command structure and Captain Georgiou was a mentor, Michael turned on her. She also made it easy for the Klingon war to be based on a martyr. These are not trifles. Getting redemption is of course a noble pursuit but making her Captain, especially if it's too soon smacks of a kind of character self-indulgence. Everything has to make way around her, deserving or not.

Being a part of a terrorist cell isn't a trifle either, and yet there are the Maquis.

At the core of this is the idea that she can grow, change and become better. Pretty sure that is part of Star Trek too.

Why does redemption necessarily mean the captaincy of a Starship?

It doesn't necessarily, but the idea that Michael can be redeemed to a certain point but captaincy is off limits is odd to me.

It feels like she could end in command because Lorca and Saru are dead, perform a heroic last stand preventing a Klingon attack against a colony world, saving millions, and she would still be denied the rank of captain.

 

[Ronald Held]

Really? They did argue a lot when they served together on the Shenzhou, but it could be argued that this is a good thing. Command relationships that always agree, OTOH, rarely are.

What good is an XO who's just a glorified yes-man?

Yes when it is differences of opinions and not personally based.

 

[MacLeod]

Kirk committed mutiny in the films, but after he saved the world... starfleet looked the other way.

They'll do the same with Burnham. It's inevitable. If they weren't going to have her take charge, they would have made Lorca a competent, heroic Captain, instead of an unstable war monger.

Mutiny wasn't among the offenses Kirk was listed as being charged with.

 

[Refuge]

Mutiny is very specific and in a command structure it is against command authority. Michael should have to face some consequences and if being considered a lesser candidate to be the authority figure herself is one of those - then so it should.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It doesn't necessarily, but the idea that Michael can be redeemed to a certain point but captaincy is off limits is odd to me.

It feels like she could end in command because Lorca and Saru are dead, perform a heroic last stand preventing a Klingon attack against a colony world, saving millions, and she would still be denied the rank of captain.

I know a woman who saved her restaurant from bankruptcy after the owner suffered a major heart attack and two days later the general manager and night manager were both arrested for drug trafficking. She, a cashier, stepped into the role of manager just because nobody else wanted to and essentially ran the entire place for a month until the owner recovered enough to come back to work.

Said owner then hired a new GM and two new night managers and sent her back to the cash register.

Life is funny like that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Mutiny is very specific and in a command structure it is against command authority. Michael should have to face some consequences and if being considered a lesser candidate to be the authority figure herself is one of those - then so it should.

It's the Peter Principal.

No one ever gets fired for incompetence or for making mistakes. You only ever get fired for disturbing the hierarchy. It doesn't matter to anyone that Burnham was 100% correct in her assessment and that her mutiny would have prevented the war if it had been successful. She went against the hierarchy and undermined her superior officers, and that action is unforgivable.

 

[Ithekro]

If her record gets wiped, which is a possibility, her rank would, in theory, be restored as Commander. That much is plausible within the context of Discovery. Her gaining a captaincy would take a lot longer since she would not only have to earn the trust of her commanding officer to recommend her for such a position, but she would also have to get over the stigma of her expunged record to the Admiralty. Should she remain in Starfleet following the war (as oppose to returning to her life sentence, which I would gather will be removed for her actions during the war, or are permanently suspended due to Captain Lorca's efforts to get her on his ship and under his command, even as a Specialist, than she would likely climb up the ranks again.

She might not be captain within the next two decades, but if she's still in Starfleet and her record is expunged, eventually those old Admirals will retire or the cloud over her will fade (for most people....there will always be someone who blames her for the war and their lost kin). At which point, assuming she does actually have command qualities as Captain Georgiou suggests, will be promoted to captain of a starship. Because, if that is her best destiny, anything else would be a waste of material, as her brother says to one Admiral Kirk.

She is a little bit older than James T. Kirk. He however went up the ranks quickly. Burnham, if there was no war, might have gotten her first command after being in Starfleet for say eight years, depending on how quickly Captain Georgiou was intending for Michael to get her own ship, or if she was laying the foundation of the idea in Michael's head so she would excel in that direction and get her own command within the next three years or so. Kirk (in this universe at least) became captain in less than ten years from graduating from the Academy. It is possible he was in command of a ship prior to getting USS Enterprise from Pike. We don't know for sure. But with Burnham's record hanging over her head (even if it is expunged) her career will do a restart, and it will take time to become a captain. If she does make it, she would probably still be a captain of a starship during the time Kirk was an Admiral. She would probably never make admiral, but that might suit her just fine. Retire by the beginning of the 24th century if she lives that long and reaches the 75 year retirement age around the time Picard is born.

And I have heard people suggest that Michael Burnham could be retconned into being the Captain of USS Saratoga in 2286 (as played by Madge Sinclair). Burham would be around 60 years old at that time.

 

[Refuge]

Why should her record be wiped?

 

[Worf2DS9]

After Lorca loses all respect from the sane members of his crew, with the finale involving Burnham leading the scientists in a mutiny vs Lorca's loyal security.

Would they really put Burnham in a position to mutiny again?? Maybe she'll be reluctant to do so again, but joins in when someone else takes action against Lorca.

 

[Refuge]

Would they really put Burnham in a position to mutiny again?? Maybe she'll be reluctant to do so again, but joins in when someone else takes action against Lorca.

She has that tendency, you know what I mean? If for a moment we separate whether she is right or wrong with her behaviour she is still bucking the 'system'. Again I'm not saying she is wrong as such in the examples. Take last night's episode. Of course Saru was impaired at some level and his authority was in question. Yet once again Michael goes against him. Let me stress again, she had reason, but she has already broken the 'taboo' of following orders, it is in her now.

I think she will always be somewhat of a rebel, and even though other rebels exist (Lorca somewhat), Michael may no longer be a good choice for a command role. Her value may be better off suited in another way.

 

[Ithekro]

Why should her record be wiped?

There is no record of a mutiny prior to Garth's crew, and that wasn't even listed as a mutiny. There have clearly been other mutinies, but no record of them. Thus Burnham's record as Starfleet's first mutineer must have been wiped.