She's been acting as main characters on TV shows for years already, if she hasn't gotten it together by now it's not happening.
Jason Isaacs VS Sonequa. Who Should Have Been The Series Lead? (Spoilers)
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
Amusingly I watched Jason Isaacs on YT in a 1992 film. He would have even been a great Captain back then. Talent and presence were there. He looked the same age then too, the Patrick Stewart effect.
I think there's an element of guilt at play when talking about SMG's performance. She's a black female lead on Star Trek, and that's obviously groundbreaking. Unfortunately, she is just not a good actress (and the writing doesn't help). But in pointing this out, I think some people would say she's being unfairly targeted because she's a black female. And so you may feel guilty for thinking she sucks.
I guess its an unfortunate side effect of MRA bullshit. For example, say I want to criticize Leslie Jones' performance in Ghostbusters 2016. I wouldn't dare, because legitimate criticism has been drowned out by idiot people calling her names and threatening her. Maybe I'm off base here, but it really seems like SMG is getting a pass from some as almost a form of virtue signaling.
I guess its an unfortunate side effect of MRA bullshit. For example, say I want to criticize Leslie Jones' performance in Ghostbusters 2016. I wouldn't dare, because legitimate criticism has been drowned out by idiot people calling her names and threatening her. Maybe I'm off base here, but it really seems like SMG is getting a pass from some as almost a form of virtue signaling.
That's not what I meant but I know this is futile so I'll drop it.
Amusing that Ghostbusters 2016 (just like Star Wars TLJ and STD) was another property where the critics were largely positive about it, but audiences were strongly divided on it.
They completely dropped the Vulcan stuff as well. She seems to have no problem struggling with human concepts and emotions beyond the first 2 episodes.
Honestly Burnham was most interesting when she was first brought aboard the ship straight from Vulcan and we get that scene where she first meets Georgiou. We're told she's the best Vulcan ever and the older sister of Spock and raised by Vulcans, but we see nothing Vulcan at all about her personality?
We've had another character in Trek who was Human, but raised by aliens and thus did not understand human concepts and emotions that were inherent insider her, her name, is Seven of Nine. Who is instantly more gripping and interesting character to watch and see grow through the series? Burnham or Seven?
Seven was so popular and so beloved that she basically stole the show and became the Lead. Burnham, people are wondering how best to sideline her.
SMG is extremely mediocre actress and there has been some absolutely cringe worthy acting from her in this series (Watch her as she first sees Tilly in the party scene, wtf is with those overacted facial expressions) but the problem is honestly mostly the writing. Discovery did literally nothing to set up it's characters, we don't know the characters beyond what they are doing for the plot. Stamets sort of gets some development then is just thrown into a coma. I don't even get what Burnhams character arc is supposed to be? What is the lesson she is supposed to learn?
As I've said here before, S1 should have been exploration and setting up the characters, they should have waited to the end of S1 or some point in S2 to start the Klingon War and battle for Binary Stars. That way they could have used a season to build characters ON BOTH SIDES, ratchet up tensions, world build and actually have stakes. Game of Thrones did this, war does not break out until S2.
Burnham could have been an interesting character, but lets be real, she's a Mary Sue, she's right, all the time, she's punished for being right, she's the best Vulcan ever, she's the sister of Spock and all she does is fail upwards (into most likely the Captains chair).
A decent written Burnham would have been someone who is basically Vulcan and acts Vulcan, but is struggling with her human emotions in a time of stress and conflict. Burnham is not that though.
If he becomes a recurring character then it's probably as a villain. i definitely don't want to see that.
He's more interesting. She's not as good an actress.
As I said in a separate thread about actors, casting Isaacs in the centre seat was very very risky. He is undoubtedly the most A list Hollywood actor to be cast in that role in a Star Trek series. As such, much as us fans on here would love to see him stay, the actor was NEVER going to sign on for multiple seasons like previous actors did - the world is his oyster and I predict an oscar for a movie soon. I'd bet my bottom dollar he signed up for one season, with an option on a second if DSC hit the ball out of the park. Plus, he may have signed on when Fuller led and it was intended to be an anthology show. He was always going to be a brilliantly acted character and as such, if the "point of view" character was to be Burnham, they HAD to cast someone of equal stature...which they didn't.
I take the point made above that the writing for Burnham has not been top notch so maybe we can't entirely blame SMG, but the fact remains she doesn't hold a candle to Isaacs and the wider audience (who don't dissect everything on this kind of site) are going to feel extremely short-changed when Isaacs exits (I'm betting on end of S1 but there's an outside chance they'll somehow keep him for S2, depending on what surprises they have up their sleeve for the final 3 episodes of S1).
I feel sorry for SMG - she wasn't first choice for the role, and other posters who are more knowledgeable than I have offered suggestions as to other actresses who might have played the role better. But, I think the show has a problem, ironically, for casting such a brilliant actor to sit in the centre seat. They need some really ground-breaking S1 concluding episodes to satisfy the wider viewers regarding SMG and Isaacs. At the moment the show appears to be heading for a fall with the "general fans" but, of course, my comments are all based on what we've seen so far. 3 more episodes to go!
I take the point made above that the writing for Burnham has not been top notch so maybe we can't entirely blame SMG, but the fact remains she doesn't hold a candle to Isaacs and the wider audience (who don't dissect everything on this kind of site) are going to feel extremely short-changed when Isaacs exits (I'm betting on end of S1 but there's an outside chance they'll somehow keep him for S2, depending on what surprises they have up their sleeve for the final 3 episodes of S1).
I feel sorry for SMG - she wasn't first choice for the role, and other posters who are more knowledgeable than I have offered suggestions as to other actresses who might have played the role better. But, I think the show has a problem, ironically, for casting such a brilliant actor to sit in the centre seat. They need some really ground-breaking S1 concluding episodes to satisfy the wider viewers regarding SMG and Isaacs. At the moment the show appears to be heading for a fall with the "general fans" but, of course, my comments are all based on what we've seen so far. 3 more episodes to go!
The ratings for Discovery are going to NOSEDIVE if they get rid of Lorca. It's not a matter of "if" but "By how much". I legitimately would not be surprised if half the audience bails. I'm giving it to the end of the season but after the recent Voq/Tyler non-story and the Lorca mirror reveal, I'm definitely in the boat now to drop it. The only way they can save it for me is if they do a time reset and "Prime Lorca" becomes Captain of the show.
I fully understand that view....and I suspect a lot of people are like you. I'm hoping the final 3 episodes do something to make a Lorca exit palatable (or that the show do manage to keep him for S2 - but I personally doubt it) and keep people excited for a second season. I really really want the show to succeed but I think the mess-ups in the early stage due to CBS interference may have bad repercussions :-( But I live in hope that the writers have something up their sleeve to at least get people to give S2 a chance - I suspect that like all Trek incarnations it'll actually improve, but (in my opinion) they have made some serious mis-steps that make "fixing things" difficult.
Yep, if they get rid of Lorca I would seriously consider bailing myself.
I've been a die-hard fanboy singing the praises of this show, but if they demolish their best character and toss their best actor under some sort of SJW plot-bus then I will have little reason to keep watching. If they deliberately make the show less enjoyable just to virtue signal, I will not have much reason to pay them for the priviledge of being preached to.
I think any Lorca exit has less to do with what the makers want but what Isaacs negotiated at the outset. Much as I think he's a totally brilliant actor, he probably shouldn't have been cast as Lorca in the first place - or they should have ensured the casting was a "dual" nature regarding the Lorca and Burnham characters.
And behind the scenes contract negotiations don't matter to me in terms of whether I watch or not.
If they make the show less enjoyable, then I am less inclined to pay them to watch it.
And the way that they have been virtue signaling throughout this process, even if the real reason was that Isaacs only signed for S1, it is a safe bet that spokespeople for the show will be crowing that it is for the sake of "diversity", and so on. That's how the Hollywood hypocrisy works, almost all of the folks protesting the sexual predators there were all busy kissing and hugging Harvey Weinstein back in the day. They just mouth whatever seems to be the popular social cause at the moment, it is all just vacuous virtue signaling.
The complaints about Ghostbusters annoyed me. Too many men just didn’t like an all female cast. I’m seeing the same sort of reaction to Star Wars. As a woman who likes fantasy and sci fi, I like both the old and new versions of a Star Wars and Ghostbusters and I also like seeing actors of different ages and body types and races. With Discovery, I think the problem with the Burnham character is the writing.
That's not all they dropped. The opening prologue implied she had PTSD from childhood which was triggered by Klingons, and was perhaps a little bit racist towards them. But when she finally goes back to the Ship of the Dead, she reacts fine, and Ash is the one who has a meltdown.
Lorca might even be gone by the end of the next episode.
Why do I say that? Simple. We know two episodes were added to the season late in production. If these episodes were not added mid-arc, they likely were tacked on at the end of the season. This means the "main arc" will wrap up next week, and the last two will deal with something else entirely. So for example they could leave Lorca in the Mirror Universe, and then return to Prime and deal with the aftermath of Captain Killy or something.
The complaints about Ghostbusters were, for the most part, misogynistic for misogyny's sake. The tidal wave of MRA whining about raped childhoods and the such drowned out legitimate criticism of the movie, which suffered from not being very good. It's unfair. If I say I didn't like the cast of Ghostbusters, I'm automatically considered an MRA bullshitter. No, I just don't like Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, or Leslie Jones (everyone likes Kate McKinnon). I don't have a problem with all-women Ghostbusters. Who cares?
Same goes for Discovery. I don't have a problem with a female lead of any ethnicity. But SMG is awful even when you take the idiotic writing into account. And in some quarters, even saying that is considered sexist and/or racist. And it shouldn't be.
Well your derogatory use of the term "SJW" and little alt-right screed tells all I need to know about your opinion - that its not worth a frak.
But hey we all get it, you hate women in lead roles.
God I hope SM-G goes on to have a remarkable award-winning career, just because of all the shitposts in this thread.