Michael Burnham and the Klingon War

[Awesome Possum]

Why are you being so unpleasant in this thread? It's perfectly reasonable to discuss fictional characters' motivations and, yes, psychology. Otherwise none of us would be here.

Hating a decision made on a show by fictional people based entirely on knowledge of how you think those fictional characters should have behaved seems pointless and without any merit. It's confusing fan theory with what was clearly presented onscreen. Fan theory does not equal fact.

It's argue that the people making the show are wrong about the reality of the show because you as a fan know better than them. It's the height of arrogance and the misguided belief that the fans own some aspect of the show and deserve something because of that.

The show isn't wrong about Klingons because Klingons don't exist. The people making the show can have the Klingons do whatever they like because they are the ones making the show, not us. We don't own it and we don't know better than them. If you don't like it, you aren't required to watch it. But you aren't going to get a cookie just because they changed it and now you hate it. It never belonged to you in the first place.

 

[eschaton]

Hating a decision made on a show by fictional people based entirely on knowledge of how you think those fictional characters should have behaved seems pointless and without any merit. It's confusing fan theory with what was clearly presented onscreen. Fan theory does not equal fact.

It's argue that the people making the show are wrong about the reality of the show because you as a fan know better than them. It's the height of arrogance and the misguided belief that the fans own some aspect of the show and deserve something because of that.

By this standard, no one can critique any media beyond the simplest "I don't like it" because invariably part of critique is pointing out what was done wrong, and alternate ways it could have been handled.

Let me wind it all the way back to TOS for a second. Let's discuss Turnabout Intruder. The episode was a sexist pile of shit even by the standards of TOS. Direct dialogue from Janice Lester seems to indicate that in the TOS world, there really are no female Starfleet captains. Fan theory rightly declared this to be horrible in succeeding decades, and it's now interpreted by everyone (including the later showrunners) as either indicating Lester was crazy, or she was just saying there was no room in Kirk's personal mental space for female captains. But everyone can agree in retrospect it was a terrible decision to include that line, because it has caused so much consternation since.

 

[eschaton]

The show isn't wrong about Klingons because Klingons don't exist. The people making the show can have the Klingons do whatever they like because they are the ones making the show, not us. We don't own it and we don't know better than them. If you don't like it, you aren't required to watch it. But you aren't going to get a cookie just because they changed it and now you hate it. It never belonged to you in the first place.

Saw you added this...are you...calling me a snowflake? It sure seems like it.

Let me quote you from earlier in the thread:

I honestly think Trek fans long for the days of zero character growth or depth, where characters don’t make judgments about each other or situations or act human in any way. Just bland cardboard cutouts reciting technobabble, solving any issue in 45 minutes with a speech or by teching the tech. It’s why Star Trek died in the late 90s/early 00s and we should be grateful it’s never coming back. It’s boring and has no place on any show that isn’t another bland sitcom.

It sure seems like you're critiquing the writing choices of latter-day Berman Trek writers here. How dare you do that? Do you think you know better what to do with trek than Brannon Braga?

 

[Jadeb]

Hating a decision made on a show by fictional people based entirely on knowledge of how you think those fictional characters should have behaved seems pointless and without any merit.

What's pointless about debating whether behavior is in or out of character? I can't imagine a more fundamental aspect of our discussion than that. After all, they're all fictional characters, and we spend endless hours discussing their behavior based on what we know about them, don't we?

 

[fireproof78]

By this standard, no one can critique any media beyond the simplest "I don't like it" because invariably part of critique is pointing out what was done wrong, and alternate ways it could have been handled.

Technically, this is correct. Because, part of critique is personal preference. how it "should" be done. I say "should" in quotes, because the term should often equates to a standard that is expected to be universally accepted, and yet rarely is, not just in media critique but in life.

 

[Refuge]

Yes, Starfleet has had many evil admirals before. And yes, Section 31 attempted to genocide the founders with some assistance from within Starfleet. But this was on a different level - this was essentially saying the whole system was rotten from top to bottom, but all it takes is a speech from Burnham to make it right.

I didn't appreciate Cornwell being thrown under the bus for Burnham to look good either

 

[Mudd]

The show isn't wrong about Klingons because Klingons don't exist. The people making the show can have the Klingons do whatever they like because they are the ones making the show, not us.

Starfleet wasn't desperately fighting to save billions of people through mass murdering of Klingons because none of that exists. The people making the show can have Starfleet do whatever they like because they are the ones making the show, not us.

 

[fireproof78]

There will be no repercussions from the rottenness of leadership, either. No consequences. Amnesiac storytelling. These people are worthy because the writer tells you they are.

So, Star Trek? Because, there have been few times were I have watched Star Trek and felt like I was told a story that didn't forget some major breakthrough in technology (regrowing body parts for Nog? What about the Doctor suffering the loss of his kids? The transporter curing aging? All the various time travel shenanigans?). Discovery may be making some mistakes but I'm not going to grind it under my proverbial heal and stomp away because its making errors that Star Trek has done throughout its inception.

 

[Awesome Possum]

By this standard, no one can critique any media beyond the simplest "I don't like it" because invariably part of critique is pointing out what was done wrong, and alternate ways it could have been handled.

Let me wind it all the way back to TOS for a second. Let's discuss Turnabout Intruder. The episode was a sexist pile of shit even by the standards of TOS. Direct dialogue from Janice Lester seems to indicate that in the TOS world, there really are no female Starfleet captains. Fan theory rightly declared this to be horrible in succeeding decades, and it's now interpreted by everyone (including the later showrunners) as either indicating Lester was crazy, or she was just saying there was no room in Kirk's personal mental space for female captains. But everyone can agree in retrospect it was a terrible decision to include that line, because it has caused so much consternation since.

It’s sexist because the writing was sexist. The person saying it doesn’t really matter.

 

[Jadeb]

I'm glad we've reached the inevitable conclusion that none of this matters and none of us should care anyway. That will save us all a lot of typing.

 

[eschaton]

Technically, this is correct. Because, part of critique is personal preference. how it "should" be done. I say "should" in quotes, because the term should often equates to a standard that is expected to be universally accepted, and yet rarely is, not just in media critique but in life.

I take it as a given that whenever I, or anyone else, engages in these sort of discussions, everyone understands that opinions are just that. I never claim that my taste is impeccable, but the whole point of being on a discussion forum regarding a show is in large part to argue (hopefully civilly) about the finer points of it.

 

[Refuge]

I'm glad we've reached the inevitable conclusion that none of this matters and none of us should care anyway. That will save us all a lot of typing.

Lol, that won't stop meeeeeeeeeee! I type because I can.

 

[eschaton]

It’s sexist because the writing was sexist. The person saying it doesn’t really matter.

So, what you're saying is that I can argue that it was shitty writing for the showrunners to imply that the Klingons would withdraw from the assault on Earth due to Qonos being blown up, I just can't say it's out of character?

 

[fireproof78]

I'm glad we've reached the inevitable conclusion that none of this matters and none of us should care anyway. That will save us all a lot of typing.

Well, yes. But, Ecclesiastes dealt with this a while ago.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I'm glad we've reached the inevitable conclusion that none of this matters and none of us should care anyway. That will save us all a lot of typing.

Let's blow it all up.

 

[fireproof78]

I take it as a given that whenever I, or anyone else, engages in these sort of discussions, everyone understands that opinions are just that. I never claim that my taste is impeccable, but the whole point of being on a discussion forum regarding a show is in large part to argue (hopefully civilly) about the finer points of it.

Ideally, yes. But, that doesn't appear to happen too often, sadly. Which seems to be the frustration when individuals don't enjoy the same thing.

 

[Refuge]

That gif looks like a Koala.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Just in case it saves everyone a lot of typing:

I rewatched “Vulcan hello” and “battle at the binaries” last night and something occurred to me.

We see Michael knocked off the Klingon beacon and she’s unconscious.

The next time we see Michael she’s in the sickbay scanner. We never see her wake up in the suit.

I don’t think Michael started the Klingon war at all.

She’s in a coma.

Everything we’re seeing is in her mind like “Life on Mars”.

There’s precedent for this - they didn’t have the guts to make DS9 a dream (Benny Russell’s) like they wanted to - what a twist that would be, for Michael to wake up and the whole thing had been a dream.

All the out of character moments, the plot twists, the seemingly nonsensical changes of direction in the show would be explained by it being Michael’s subconscious trying to make sense of the torchbearer attack.

They’ve never done “Dallas” before on Star Trek...

*hides*

 

[Spot261]

Just in case it saves everyone a lot of typing:

I rewatched “Vulcan hello” and “battle at the binaries” last night and something occurred to me.

We see Michael knocked off the Klingon beacon and she’s unconscious.

The next time we see Michael she’s in the sickbay scanner. We never see her wake up in the suit.

I don’t think Michael started the Klingon war at all.

She’s in a coma.

Everything we’re seeing is in her mind like “Life on Mars”.

There’s precedent for this - they didn’t have the guts to make DS9 a dream (Benny Russell’s) like they wanted to - what a twist that would be, for Michael to wake up and the whole thing had been a dream.

All the out of character moments, the plot twists, the seemingly nonsensical changes of direction in the show would be explained by it being Michael’s subconscious trying to make sense of the torchbearer attack.

They’ve never done “Dallas” before on Star Trek...

*hides*

Keep hiding, we'll get you later, promise.....

 

[Spot261]

So, what you're saying is that I can argue that it was shitty writing for the showrunners to imply that the Klingons would withdraw from the assault on Earth due to Qonos being blown up, I just can't say it's out of character?

Have you considered the showrunners were showing a flawed plan? Showing a flawed plan based on flawed predictions made by flawed characters who had little or no understanding of what would happen next and had trusted a monster from another universe to guide them?

That part of the point was to suggest the most effective way forward was also to maintain one's ideals and be true to them, a foil to the moral ambiguity of (for instance) "In the Pale Moonlight"?

Not to mention "klingon psychology" has hardly been portrayed consistently enough to really profess expertise.