We learned that force is good.
Michael Burnham and the Klingon War
- Thread starter Ro_Laren
- Start date
I'd say we learned that the writers were more interested in paying lip service to the vague "Star Trek" ideals than actually testing Starfleet's ideals in story.
Or maybe we learned that peace in the Middle East is best achieved under the hand of a single strong dictator. Quite the parable for today.
I thought it was obvious, I guess it just went over your head.
Are mods in the personal insult business? Let's not play that way, please.
I thought what they gave us was obvious, alright.
At the end of the season, Burnham wasn't the only one to learn a lesson; Starfleet leadership did as well. They were reminded by Burnham and the rest of the Disco bridge officers what Starfleet stood for. As a result of re-learning Starfleet principles, Burnham was allowed to go back to Q'uonos and stop the Emperor from planting the bomb and instead, give it to L'Rell.
The parable for today is interesting. We have an erratic maverick of a world leader and an insecure boy/man born into power making toys of destruction to show off with. They trade barbs but then they decide to... talk.
Trek/Discovery didn't do that. It went old school and let the weapon rule the day.
I'll agree with you this is what happens, but I don't find it a very convincing turn of events, especially after they install a dictator to rule an entire planet and call it a day.
Good thing they had that goofy hydro bonb handy. Do you think L'Rell sleeps with it under her pillow?
That people who look just like your best buddy that are actually mass murderers from another universe are probably not people you should trust. Or something like that.
Don't fret about it - the show was mostly a hollow mercantile exercise and had nothing worthwhile to say.
Meh, some of us would have settled for competent drama that didn't rely for its audience appeal mainly on continuity reach-arounds for trufans.
That’s not a personal insult. If you believe it is, then you must have lead a very pampered life.
All I did was say you missed something I found obvious.
Now you're just playing coy. But no, despite the implication of "I guess it just went over your head," I'm not dim.
Then you simpy didn't like the way the storyline played itself out. That is a far cry from a suggestion that the writers didn't address the issue of the ethical and moral questions raised by Starfleet's decision to do to the Kingons what the Klingons were going to do to the Fed.
As to your remark about L'Rell, sometimes, especially when lives are at stake, diplomacy results in what is politically expedient rather than what might be done given time and careful consideration.
So they gave L'rell the bomb? They were hoping she would take care of the Klingon problem then the Federation could say they held true to their values.
Then report me and let the mods decide. Unless you just want to cause a lot of drama because you didn’t like me pointing out that you might be wrong about something.
But we have had a lot of characters on Star Trek who have been argumentative with their superiors or other officers (Spock and McCoy as the prime example, who also both could be argumentative with Kirk)
And as for her being over-eager to explore the unknown object...well that's kind of what Starfleet does, it's almost like crack to them.
"Ooooh? Something unknown? I wanna poke it!" "What? It could lead to some of the crew dying/experiencing a fate worse than death? Even Better!
" So Michael here is no different from (I can't think of a better example right now) Riker really, really wanting to visit Aldea in that Season 1 TNG episode.
I mean I don't find Michael that interesting and I do find her a bit obnoxious (truth be told the only character on Discovery I really liked so far was Georgiou who was pretty much everything Janeway should have been.
Aside from her everybody seems to be a combination of obnoxious and...well...abrasive.
So i guess the real lesson is that Starfleet's values are malleable when times get tough. I'd actually have been interested in that story, but instead they insist that this little morality play somehow validates Starfleet's principles and actions. It's a particularly Western viewpoint which draws some uncomfortable parallels, IMO.
Last edited:
I don't want to report you. I just want us to play nicely and discuss the show rather than each other.
That was the point. What’s important that in the end the crew of the Discovery stood up for the values the Federation stands for. The Federation means nothing if you through away your values because things get hard. That’s a very valuable lesson that a lot of modern countries need to remember.
So installing a dictator of your choosing to rule an empire, backed by a massively powerful weapon that can destroy a whole world, is in line with Federation values?
Better than genocide, I guess.
So they made a mess of things on Kronos, leaving a religious zealot with a bomb that can destroy the whole planet? Then walking away thinking they done right?
Similar threads
