• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x15 - "Will You Take My Hand?"

Rate the episode...

  • 10 - A wonderful season finale!

    Votes: 89 26.2%
  • 9

    Votes: 51 15.0%
  • 8

    Votes: 64 18.8%
  • 7

    Votes: 46 13.5%
  • 6

    Votes: 18 5.3%
  • 5

    Votes: 24 7.1%
  • 4

    Votes: 15 4.4%
  • 3

    Votes: 10 2.9%
  • 2

    Votes: 7 2.1%
  • 1 - An awful season finale.

    Votes: 16 4.7%

  • Total voters
    340
I doubt that is on the statute books of humankind
well, it should be. or else humans would be breaking it all the time.

jokes aside, the definition of mutiny is hundreds of years old, including the '2 or more people' thing and hasn't been changed all over the world except for the United States. And since this is about the definition of a word, which of course can change - that's why new dictionaries are still a thing -, we as a 21st century audience still have to understand the meaning of those words and therefore assume those definitions are the same in the 23rd century as they are now. If we can't assume that, every word said in Trek can be questions. If they mention a 'tree', is that really a tree in our definition of the word or has the meaning changed to include dogs? are 'photons' to 23rd century people still what we call photons or are photons then defined completely differently? it opens a Pandora's box, really
 
^ In this case the 'one person, one mutiny' issue is just a problem for USA audience since the rest of the world speaks another language.
 
^ In this case the 'one person, one mutiny' issue is just a problem for USA audience since the rest of the world speaks another language.
most languages, if the cultures attached had a boat-based military branch, have a word for mutiny, roughly defined the same
 
Burnham could not have run the ship alone, therefore if she intended to keep control of the ship her plan would have involved having the aid, complicit or not, of other members of the crew, but that's a legalism that might have got her out of the charge. Her actual crime if we used modern day law, might be "Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer"

Out of interest I looked but I haven't found a single example of a single-person mutiny. Probably as such a thing would have always been unsuccessful, no one ever tried it, and it seems clear Burnham only wanted command of the ship long enough to begin the attack.

I'll just take it that Starfleet decides trying to take the captains' chair without permission is good enough for a mutiny charge.
 
This reminds me of when you complained that the crew didn't have interpersonal off duty conversations after the first 2 or 3 episodes, something we almost immediately began to see in the next few episodes.

Yes, and I posted a follow up a few episodes later saying I was wrong. Unfortunately, as I noted, those sort of conversations basically stopped after Episode 8, after which time the show shifted back to being all about the "epic" plot (or Burnham) all the time.

What was done to Stamets in particular is almost unforgivable. He changes from a well-rounded individual in an adult, well-depicted relationship to a plot device. The love of his life is fridged, and what do we see? There are some touching moments in the mycelial network, although "Culber" also babbles out a lot of plot exposition. Then as soon as he wakes up, he basically has no response to his lover's death other than one mildly peeved freakout at the man (well, the body) who murdered him, and a mournful look when getting his posthumous medal. That's it. Aside from that, in the last three episodes he seems not only not depressed, but chipper, and belts off spore drive technobabble. The last episode literally gives him only two fucking lines. He was my favorite character - until he stopped being one.

How was it "strongly implied" that Burnham had PTSD as a child, and if so, that it wasn't treated?

A T'Bonz notes, in that flashback to her childhood, when she clearly starts thinking back to the attack and freaking out, Sarek is basically an inconsiderate dick to her - even if it's because as a Vulcan, he just can't grok what she's going through.

Maybe she received treatment later, but she was supposed to be in an irrational, agitated state after she got back from the EVA encounter with the torchbearer. I definitely remember fanon at the least at that time (some on this forum) claiming was showing PTSD.

I agree that she did not show any after the pilot, so this may have been a Fuller idea which was dropped.

Huh? Tilly's been involved with the spore drive since it's introduction. They didn't suddenly pull it out their ass, she's been front and center in all the spore related episodes. She gets to be Captain Killy because she's Killy's doppelganger. Being on the mission with Georgiou is probably a case of "main characterism", but no more egregious than in other shows. At least the bridge crew/senior staff isn't in every landing party.

As I've said in the past, the third episode made it clear that Tilly was one of several people who worked on the spore drive with Stamets. Those extras have never been seen again, but presumably some or all of them outranked her as a cadet.

As to the "Captain Killy" thing - as is often the case, I'm making a criticism of the show's implausible writing. Responding with a "within show" reason does not negate that the showrunners had other reasons for doing it. I actually think the main reason they decided on this particular twist was because they thought it would be funny. That said, I think some of her later stuff in the MU (like trying to "heal" Stamets) was done to give her a role in episodes she would otherwise be left doing nothing.

I freely admit that "main characterism" exists in every Trek. It never made sense why on VOY Harry Kim was the only ensign invited to the ready room for meetings. I preferred how DS9 did things though. If there was no real story need for the character in the A plot or the B plot, just have them in one of the "Piller Filler" scenes at the start or end of the show, and leave it at that.
 
What was done to Stamets in particular is almost unforgivable. He changes from a well-rounded individual in an adult, well-depicted relationship to a plot device. The love of his life is fridged, and what do we see? There are some touching moments in the mycelial network, although "Culber" also babbles out a lot of plot exposition. Then as soon as he wakes up, he basically has no response to his lover's death other than one mildly peeved freakout at the man (well, the body) who murdered him, and a mournful look when getting his posthumous medal. That's it. Aside from that, in the last three episodes he seems not only not depressed, but chipper, and belts off spore drive technobabble. The last episode literally gives him only two fucking lines. He was my favorite character - until he stopped being one.

I think the decision to show Stamets back into action and getting things done has been deliberate. He's still been running on adrenaline but that will eventually end. At some point you have to face that emptiness beside you in the room.

But I also think Stamets hasn't come to terms with Culber's death because he may believe on Culber is still accessible, possible even capable of being saved. We've never seen a ghost in Star Trek, as far as I recall, and its still not certain what "Culber" in the mycelial network actually was. I don't think we're done with the good doctor yet.
 
As I've said in the past, the third episode made it clear that Tilly was one of several people who worked on the spore drive with Stamets. Those extras have never been seen again, but presumably some or all of them outranked her as a cadet.
because Tilly was there when they added the Tardigrade to the drive (with thanks to Burnham) and the extras weren't so she gained knowledge the extras hadn't. That lead to her helping develop the Tardigrade DNA solution, in which the extras weren't a part of, which then again made her the only one besides Stamets to be an expert on the drive. It's not like the experts were dropped, it grew organically, with Tilly being at the right place at the right time with a little help from her roommate
 
because Tilly was there when they added the Tardigrade to the drive (with thanks to Burnham) and the extras weren't so she gained knowledge the extras hadn't. That lead to her helping develop the Tardigrade DNA solution, in which the extras weren't a part of, which then again made her the only one besides Stamets to be an expert on the drive. It's not like the experts were dropped, it grew organically, with Tilly being at the right place at the right time with a little help from her roommate

Again dudes, for the 50th time. I'M DISCUSSING THE EPISODE FROM A WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE, NOT A CANON PERSPECTIVE!!!

Frankly, I don't give AF if you can come up with headcanon to explain it away. It's pretty clear the reason it was done was to include Tilly in the episodes. Which, as I said, was exactly the same reason why Harry Kim was in the ready room on Voyager despite being an ensign. It's not a critique unique to Discovery, but it's a writerly contrivance nonetheless.
 
a) don't scream
b) DON'T SCREAM!!!!!!!
c) Tilly being there had nothing to do with canon

I'm sorry. I just get frustrated when I say "____ didn't make any sense in terms of logic, prior episodes, character depiction, etc - I think the writers chose to do this because of ____" and then people (not just you) respond by spitting back exactly what was shown on screen (sometimes with a little bit of fanon added on top). It doesn't really answer anything.

I mean, I read - and loved - the 50-year mission. Lots and lots of stuff within Trek canon was basically a massive asspull, which sometimes worked, and sometimes didn't. The story of how flawed episodes get made is often much, much more interesting than the episodes themselves.
 
How many laws stay exactly the same for 300 years.

Not many laws stay the same over 300 years but there exceptions how about this one that is over 800 years old and is still in effect today

NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right

One of the few clauses of the Magna Carta still in effect today.
 
I know the fustration. In episode 14, when it was Burnham, Stamets and Saru getting the war debrief, I was thinking "when are we going to stop pretending Burnham is not a Commander/First Officer." I understood Stamets, as he is the keeper of the spore drive and a senior science officer on a science ship. I understand Saru as Discovery Actual and as the lead of the cloak breaking technology. From that scene until her scene on earth, it took me out of focusing on the war and into the focus on when she would get her commission back. Funny enough, it did the same to the writers who decided to replace 5-10 minutes of fleet battles near sol with 5-10 minutes of additional Burnham character development.


Again dudes, for the 50th time. I'M DISCUSSING THE EPISODE FROM A WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE, NOT A CANON PERSPECTIVE!!!

Frankly, I don't give AF if you can come up with headcanon to explain it away. It's pretty clear the reason it was done was to include Tilly in the episodes. Which, as I said, was exactly the same reason why Harry Kim was in the ready room on Voyager despite being an ensign. It's not a critique unique to Discovery, but it's a writerly contrivance nonetheless.
 
Not many laws stay the same over 300 years but there exceptions how about this one that is over 800 years old and is still in effect today

NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right

One of the few clauses of the Magna Carta still in effect today.
Magna Carta was overturned by sitting monarchs like John and others a few times before it finally was put into practice continually. I think there's an obscure law in part of Germany regarding the legal ingredients allowed in beer that is still on the books and remains the oldest continually enforced written law, wierdly enough, not counting religious laws that may have been enforced by secular authorities..
 
Again dudes, for the 50th time. I'M DISCUSSING THE EPISODE FROM A WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE, NOT A CANON PERSPECTIVE!!!

Frankly, I don't give AF if you can come up with headcanon to explain it away. It's pretty clear the reason it was done was to include Tilly in the episodes. Which, as I said, was exactly the same reason why Harry Kim was in the ready room on Voyager despite being an ensign. It's not a critique unique to Discovery, but it's a writerly contrivance nonetheless.
I don't need head canon. I saw it on screen.
 
I don't need head canon. I saw it on screen.

You're right that I misused the word.

However, let's look at other awful things in Trek history. It is canon that if a human travels at infinite warp speeds they will evolve into some sort of salamander thing. Does that excuse the decision by the writers to go there?
 
Well, I canceled CBS all access but I'm still paid up till the end of the month. Plenty of time to binge the season one more time.:techman:
 
You're right that I misused the word.

However, let's look at other awful things in Trek history. It is canon that if a human travels at infinite warp speeds they will evolve into some sort of salamander thing. Does that excuse the decision by the writers to go there?
No, it doesn't but the standard of "awful" is going to be subjective and its impact upon future stories. I mean, they could easily retcon why that happened, so it doesn't bother me as much.

I guess my larger attitude is that if I watch the show and I can make sense of a plausible reason "Why" then it's ok. Poor writing or not, I can usually engage the material in a way that it makes sense to me.

Now, personal bias, I am freely admitting that I give far more grace to writers than a lot of people I know, and that the expectations are different for all. But, I'm just more willing to look at clues, how I would expect characters to behave based upon human behavior and go from there.
 
In ENT the Vulcan treatment for PTSD was memory repression. Look how well that turned out for T'Pol. Vulcan Medical treatment seems to work well for Vulcans...some of the time.
I doubt Vulcans would be unaware that humans would require different treatment than would a Vulcan.
Yes, and I posted a follow up a few episodes later saying I was wrong.
I think you should have learned from this.
Unfortunately, as I noted, those sort of conversations basically stopped after Episode 8, after which time the show shifted back to being all about the "epic" plot (or Burnham) all the time.
Pretty sure I could go back through the episodes and easily prove you wrong on this as well.
What was done to Stamets in particular is almost unforgivable. He changes from a well-rounded individual...
You just posted a page or two ago that Stamets was one of the characters who was not "fleshed" out, so calling him "well rounded" now would seem to be a contradiction, no?
in an adult, well-depicted relationship to a plot device. The love of his life is fridged, and what do we see? There are some touching moments in the mycelial network, although "Culber" also babbles out a lot of plot exposition. Then as soon as he wakes up, he basically has no response to his lover's death other than one mildly peeved freakout at the man (well, the body) who murdered him, and a mournful look when getting his posthumous medal. That's it. Aside from that, in the last three episodes he seems not only not depressed, but chipper, and belts off spore drive technobabble. The last episode literally gives him only two fucking lines. He was my favorite character - until he stopped being one.
I disagree. Although you characterize them as 'babbles', I think those scenes in the Mycelial network between Hugh and Paul were very meaningful and touching. Stamets, along with the rest of the crew, were in the middle of fighting a war. There was not much time to show grieving. However, I thought that scene between Tyler and Stamets was very powerful. Also, there was that cut away shot of Stamets reacting to the words about Culber during the medal ceremony. However, I would like to either see, or have mention made, of a memorial service for Culber in season 2.
A T'Bonz notes, in that flashback to her childhood, when she clearly starts thinking back to the attack and freaking out, Sarek is basically an inconsiderate dick to her - even if it's because as a Vulcan, he just can't grok what she's going through.
Sarek was not a doctor, He certainly may not have understood what was going on with her. However, there is no indication that teenage Burnham carried any symptoms of PTSD into aduthood. Because of that, I think it can be plausibly argued that she either didn't require treatment as a child (because she didn't suffer from PTSD), or that she did receive treatment and was cured of the condition.
Maybe she received treatment later, but she was supposed to be in an irrational, agitated state after she got back from the EVA encounter with the torchbearer. I definitely remember fanon at the least at that time (some on this forum) claiming was showing PTSD.
Yes, PTSD in adult Burnham is nothing but fanon, which of course usually means nothing in terms of what is actually happening in the show. The reason Burnham was agitated and upset after she woke up in sick bay was because she had just had an encounter with a Klingon.and wanted to report it to the captain right away. That's why she ran out sick bay without her uniform. It was as simple and as clear, as that.

Fans, over thinking it as usual, took the scene with teenage Burnham and the way adult Burnham acted after the encounter with the Torchbearer, and drew the conclusion that adult Burnham was suffering from PTSD, when this was never established on screen. Other fans picked up on this unsubstantiated storyline and accepted it as fact. Thus, fanon.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top