So she's like the vast majority of the human race... who are also convinced they're right the whole time.
Just read the last 199 pages on this one post if you need further proof.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
Just read the last 199 pages on this one post if you need further proof.
Fuck, if you don't like Burnham's Starfleet righteousness I'd hate to think how you must perceive characters like Picard and Janeway.
Picard = Awesome
Janeway = Pretty cool
Burnham = Booooooooriing (if I hear another one of her monologues...)
Never had any issue with any other previous captain opening their mouth. If Burnham became mute all of a sudden, it would be a vast improvement.
Sorry, but Burnham actually feels like a real person.
Boring is someone who is so predictable and perfect in their actions and interactions that the story has no tension, drama, or intensity because everything they do is a foregone conclusion.
That's Jean-Luc Picard.
And Janeway was basically the same character but played by a weaker performer, with a different gender and coffee as opposed to earl gray.
So, nah.
Boring is someone who when they start speaking, you fall asleep. Burnham is that.
Now you take back your words about Picard, or there will be trouble.
Boring is someone who when they start speaking, you fall asleep. Burnham is that.
Now you take back your words about Picard, or there will be trouble.
Honestly (no joke) I can't make it through a TNG episode these days without nodding off. It's all just so stilted and sterile and (to use your word) boring. At this point, I find even ENT easier to watch.
I'm excited about Picard coming back, but only because the promise is that he'll be a different man.
The TNG Picard is, frankly, dull. I even felt that way as a teenager when the show was in first-run. It's part of the reason I can't make it through. Give me Riker and Worf centered episodes and I might be ok.
It's heartwarming and refreshing to see ENT get a lot more love these days. Even if some of it was unplanned and even accidental. 
No, I'm with @Vger23 . Picard puts me to sleep. Even when he shoots himself in a time loop it feels uninspired and lacks tension. In fact, it paints him as a bit disinterested. There are times when he is interesting, but they are few and far between for me.Boring is someone who when they start speaking, you fall asleep. Burnham is that.
Now you take back your words about Picard, or there will be trouble.
Maybe it’s because Burnham is that nineties stereotype. Brooding. It’s like she escaped off the set of Buffy or Angel or Dawson’s creek. She has no hobbies apart from brooding. In fact the only person with a hobby is Lorca. And that’s also brooding, but also collecting weapons near which to brood. Other Trek characters have hobbies. A personality. Knick knacks in their quarters. Most of DSC I am waiting to have personality traits delivered by Tuesday. We hear about Culberts Opera at least.
I don't even have to compare Burnham to Picard or Janeway, but without sounding too arrogant it does surprise me that the actress could be compared with Stewart or Mulgrew. She, in my opinion lacks the presence. That is something really hard to navigate. She's like ... there.
The character is pretty darn uninspiring. I reckon a fermenting turnip would outshine her in a scene.
You mean knick knacks like Burnham's copy of Alice in Wonderland? Or Georgiou's telescope? Or Georgiou's commbadge?
Or hobbies like helping Tilly improve her resume? Or, speaking of Tilly, there's that thing she has for musicians (and apparently disco parties).
The story went by a bit too fast to stop and really delve into everyone's personal life, but the claim that there's nothing there is just false.
And it has only been 15 episodes so far. I'm rewatching TNG right now - just made it to the beginning of season 3 (more than 50 episodes in) and I'd be hard-pressed to name much more about some of those characters in terms of hobbies and knick knacks, based just on that time frame. Data wants to understand humanity and has a memento of Tasha Yar. Crusher has a thing for Picard that she won't admit to, but she mostly just obsesses about Wesley. Pulaski never seemed to get any hobby other than screwing with Data. Riker's only hobbies are apparently jazz and sex (something Shades of Grey made sure to put an extra point on). Picard likes tea. I'm honestly not even sure if his whole archaeology thing has even shown up yet, so if it has, it didn't make much of an impression. And what is Geordi's hobby supposed to be? Just hanging out with Data is really the only thing I can think of. Worf and Wesley are really the only ones whose personal lives are shown in any great detail, and even Wesley spends most of his time studying and working on projects.
I tried doing a TNG rewatch not long ago and ended up skipping heaps of episodes after watching them for about 20 minutes. A lot of TNG is just dull as dishwater and it didn't help that apart from Picard, Data and Riker the other characters were terribly uninteresting.
for a first season that was plot driven, there was plenty of detail:
Georgiou seemed to have a lot of curios in her quarters, but she died early. She was never depicted as what she might have been like 6 months into a losing war.
Saru tends to be a loner by nature, salts his tea, enjoys blueberries.
Tyler apparently liked/(likes?) boating.
Tilly likes to party and goes through various guy phases and will not be denied salsa on her burrito.
Culbert and Stamets met in an opera.
Lorca: collects weapons, skeletons..fortune cookies, possibly a serial womanizer.
Burnham: recounts Lewis Carrol under stress.
this wasn't TNG. they were in the middle of a war on a front line covert ship, but yes, the show can do better. I hope to know more about the characters 2nd season. The writers could look to how Band of Brothers managed that in that kind of setting to see how to humanize a character even when things are worse.
Its true we don't get to know much about Burnham. Maybe she had a pet selaht or something. it would be interesting to know. Spock and T'Pol both had one so it seems to be common on Vulcan. She came to the ship a prisoner and had nothing but the clothes she was wearing. Season 1 wasn't a good time for her to take up accordion or fly fishing.
The telescope and book were all I could come up with too, but they were plot points rather than texture.
TNG is very sparse in that regard, but we have Picard Shakespeare tome, people use the holodeck, do sports, mention cultural things through dialogue. Geordi is a bit of a blank spot, but mostly I was thinking about leads. Certainly by the later series, the characters are much for fleshed out...we go into Caretaker knowing about Janeways dogs and fiancé, and everyone picks up stuff fairly quickly, and doesn’t stop picking stuff up. Tom and his 20th century fascination for instance.
DSC is spartan apart from fortune cookies and WMDs. Georgiou had her telescope, and that alone made her have more interest as a character in the first episode. Burnham has things given to her as plot points by mother figures, but nothing if her own. This almost starts out as story point...she is the orphan others are shaping. But she’s too old to be Anne of Green Gables, she’s of an age where she needs to be more Anne of Avonlea. She needs to have some personality of her own.
98 episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise later and I still don't know what Archer did to become Enterprise captain aside from being the son of the guy who made the warp 5 engine. He flew a test ship in "First Flight". Was a captain before? Did he serve on other ships? We don't even know if he went to Starfleet Academy since all they mention is "flight school"
And he was the series lead. We got more backstory on Burnham in the first 2 episodes.
And he was the series lead. We got more backstory on Burnham in the first 2 episodes.
And yet still more boring.
Yeah but many of them don’t narrate their lives the whole timeSo she's like the vast majority of the human race... who are also convinced they're right the whole time.
I still can’t quite put my finger on what I don’t like about Michael. I think it’s that she never learns anything. Except for that one glimmer of hope with Tilly, I don’t think she learns anything in s1 except not to sulk. Maybe I’ll be able to pin it down in s2 when we’ve explored more of the minutiae of Michael Burnham’s inner thoughts and feelings.
Yeahbut,
"No, we will not break the rules."
-Michael Burnham
It's a bit on-the-nose, isn't it?
What I think makes her so unlikeable is her permanent unhappy face and demeanour. She plays the same dour, boring character as she did on walking dead but she at least had a reason to be moaning then with all the zombies. You can’t say it’s because she was raised on Vulcan because I’ve seen more likeable and jovial Vulcans than her who didn’t make me want to turn off the tv...
Similar threads
