CGI still needs work. Just a different kind. And model makers don’t exactly get to copy pasta and resin stuff that easily.
Is Spectacle better than character development?
- Thread starter T'Boggan
- Start date
CGI still needs work. Just a different kind. And model makers don’t exactly get to copy pasta and resin stuff that easily.
There’s spectacle and spectacle. There are scenes in ten forward in the old days that were spectacular at the time. People sitting and having drinks, but in a really cool scene. There was a little of that in DSC (the shuttle bay scene with stagers and Lorca comes to mind) but even then it was always a little too much in some ways. A little bit artistic cinematography and production design being looked at could do a lot. The scenes in the galley always felt like a cheaper, badly shot version of Neelix place in Voy, and its not like Voyagers galley was a high point particularly.
I'm more for a fun and interesting hour (+/-) of TV rather than spectacle -- although a little spectacle does not make something any less fun and interesting.
As for character development, it is not required for a fun and interesting hour of TV, either. It does help if the characters are interesting, but they don't necessarily need to develop that much -- although at least a little character development is inevitable as a series moves along and characters are faced with new situations.
As for character development, it is not required for a fun and interesting hour of TV, either. It does help if the characters are interesting, but they don't necessarily need to develop that much -- although at least a little character development is inevitable as a series moves along and characters are faced with new situations.
Really? Not only are we given a clear idea of Burnham's personality in the first few episodes, we actually see that personality change in response to her situation within the first few episodes.
When we first see her, Burnham is supremely confident, a bit arrogant, but with a subdued sense of humor. In a flashback to when she first arrived on the Shenzhou, we see that Burnham's personality has evolved from arrogance almost to the point of contempt for her own species.
After the mutiny and her conviction, we see Burnham's personality change to sulleness, her confidence gone, She becomes tentative. Her personality has changed to reflect the guilt, humiliation, regret, fear (about her future).
Finally, after a series of events, she realizes she is still one of the best officers in Starfleet which brings much of her old personality back. That's partly on display when she "dares" to lecture Starfleet brass on the error of their ways.
Okay, that's just Burnham. I could go on because Tilly, Saru, Lorca, Stammets, and Ash's personalities are just as well defined.
How did you miss all this?
Actually, I think you're quite right. What's on screen is the same ol' Star Trek template laid out way back in the first two pilots and used ever since: Competent and respected Starfleet officer undergoes wrenching emotional ordeal and ends up ... a competent and and respected Starfleet officer. Only now the reset occurs over the season rather than over an episode. We'll have to wait until next season to see if Burnham has actually changed in a substantial way. (Truth be told, I'm not sure they established her character well enough initially for us to be able to tell.)
That said, I simply have no concept of Burnham as a character at the end of the season. As you rightly point out, she seems ... pretty much like she was at the beginning. All the threads about her Vulcan background, her PTSD, her ordeal with Ash, the loss of her mentor, the betrayal by Lorca -- they don't add up to much. The only things she seems to learn are that genocide is bad, terrorism is OK and that she still knows best. Then she gets a medal for behaving in the same fashion she did at the beginning of the season. That's a character arc?
Suggesting she's back to where she started, as your post does, seems terribly unsatisfying to me as serialized drama. Especially when she starts out so thinly drawn.
Last edited:
Well, I'm glad you are acknowledging that Burnham's personality was indeed well defined and obvious. Now, it is purely subjective as to whether or not you liked the way her personality was depicted.
Burnham was as well defined as any Trek character in the first 15 episodes of any Trek series.
I'd suggest a more careful re-watch of season 1.
She didn't have be taught that genocide was bad. As soon as she found out what Starfleet's plan was for Qu'onos, she immediately moved to stop it. She taught Starfleet that genocide was bad. Not sure what you mean by terrorism.
You're confusing the fluctuations in Burnham's personality due to her changing circumstances, with character development. As a character, she went from being a person who was ready to defy orders and tradition at the drop of a hat (end justifies the means), to a person who considers all angles, including what is morally right as well as Starfleet tradition and protocol, before acting. That is what led her away from Starfleet's plan to destroy Qu'nous. That's character development despite how you feel about that development.
As for her personality, Burnham's regained her real personality once she began to regain her confidence while working on the DISCO.
I disagree. I knew a lot more about Kira 15 episodes into Season 1 of DS9 than I know about Burnham.
That was one of the worst narrative choices DIS made - making everyone else in Starfleet both stupid and immoral in order to make Burnham seem smart and righteous. I mean, Starfleet has shown a willingness to do evil things in past Treks, like infect the Borg and Founders with fatal viruses. But these were not shown as consensus actions by the Federation - and seemed to be more foolproof than the plan to "blow up" Qu'onos.
By terrorism he means that L'Rell was installed as head of the Klingon empire with the implicit threat that she would destroy the planet if all did not bow to her.
She began the series as someone who showed a willingness to defy orders to obey her own internal moral compass and whatever gut choices she made.
She ended the series as someone who showed a willingness to defy orders to obey her own internal moral compass and whatever gut choices she made.
Nope.
Burnham is overstuffed with backstory but devoid of personality. When a series lead defies description other than "kinda smug," there's a problem.
We could not be further apart on this. Watch any handful of episodes of TOS and you get a sense of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. You'll understand their perspective and get a taste of their personality. You get a sense of how they behave, as you do with real people. They are well defined. By making Burnham an emotionally damaged stoic Vulcan who is a human who is ruled by logic except when she isn't, who can't figure out how to interact with humans even though she has a strong bond with her human mentor and has served in Starfleet for years, they've made her everything and nothing. Next season they could play her as impulsive or reserved, logical or intuitive, emotional or stoic, hauty or humbled and it would all be in character. That's because there's no there there. After a whole season as series lead, her personality is still a blank slate. Even Tilly is better drawn.
I love this sentence. Thank goodness Michael Burnham was there to teach Sarek and Starfleet that genocide is bad.
Let's just say I think you're being rather charitable.
I don't deny there's a certain pleasing symmetry to Burnham initially defying orders to escalate a conflict with the Klingons, and ending the season with defying orders to resolve a conflict with the Klingons.
However, that shows that most of what changed was the circumstances around her, with Starfleet going from "we come in peace" to "burn them all!" It doesn't really show much growth on the part of Burnham, because she still fundamentally thinks she knows better than her commanding officer and doesn't respect the chain of command.
It's just that this time, her random-ass decision making doesn't blow up in her face, and she gets a medal.
However, that shows that most of what changed was the circumstances around her, with Starfleet going from "we come in peace" to "burn them all!" It doesn't really show much growth on the part of Burnham, because she still fundamentally thinks she knows better than her commanding officer and doesn't respect the chain of command.
It's just that this time, her random-ass decision making doesn't blow up in her face, and she gets a medal.
Yeah, the whole season (and the appeal of the parallel structure) is undermined by the show's unwillingness to really take chances with its lead. Michael's is a redemption story where no redemption is needed -- Starfleet ultimately realizes she is correct, that the Klingons are unreasoning brutes who can only be dealt with by force. Weird theme for a Trek show.
For all the talk about the potential of the serialized format to end the famed Trek reset button, I wonder if the desire to protect the valuable Trek IP won't win out, as I kinda suspect it did here.
I argued back when the finale was finally shown that the best way to close Burnham's arc from the season would have been a reset of the universe. Basically have Quonos go boom, yet the assault on Earth not to abate (Klingons would want vengeance, not to limp home for relief efforts). Stamets jumps them back to before the BoTBS. This time around though Burnham (with L'Rell's help) convinces T'Kuvma that this is the wrong way to unify the Klingon Empire). T'Kuvma's forces, together with the Shenzhou, Discovery, and the Federation, fight Kol's and win, though at great cost (PU Shenzhou blows up, meaning the other instance of Bunrham and Saru - along with Georgou (again) are gone.
This sort of arc would allow Burnham to grow because it would put her in the same place (literally) as she was at the beginning of the season, but with a different perspective, since she can now see Klingons as individuals with their own agendas rather than a horde of faceless monsters. But wouldn't fix everything, because her mentor would still die at the end. And it would have solved why there was a war we had never heard of, because DIS had "edited" the TL to erase it.
I think you're confusing what you knew about the TOS characters after viewing 3 seasons of 26 or so episodes each, with what you knew about Michael Burnham after only the first 15 episodes of DSC. Sounds like you're holding Burnham and DSC to a much higher standard than you've held any of the other shows. I haven't done a re-wtch of TOS in a while, but I think that show is a bad example for the case at hand. I think we actually know more of Burnham's personality and character traits than most of the TOS characters in the first 15 episodes. 22222
Hmm, the description you give above sounds quite a bit like Spock, or at least the Spock we came to know after a couple of seasons of TOS. That you've picked up on these traits kind of proves my point about what we know about Burnham's personality in the first 15 episodes. Also, let me add, these are personality traits,even though you choose not to recognize them as such.
So, you're arguing that there were too many character traits shown by Burnham, or not enough. Which is it?
I think you may have missed the irony involved with this situation.
I'm glad you picked up on this. It was one of the more clever aspects of the season 1 writing. It is something I posted about months ago.
But, it looks like you missed the details that made the irony so smoothly beautiful. When facing off against the Klingons back at the Klingon shrine, Burnham decided to disobey Starfleet protocol because she thought Sarek knew better, When her plan was rejected by Capt Georgiou, Burnham decided on a mutiny attempt because she thought she knew better than Georgiou. Bottom line is that Burnham didn't trust Starfleet protocol when she should have and she didn't trust her captain.
In the events leading up to the finale, including taking the moral high ground and freeing Ripper, seeing the "evil" version of Starfleet in the MU, re-bonding with Saru in saving the crew of the DISCO, among other things, brought Burnham back to not just her Starfleet training, but also with the core of what Starfleet stood for and who they were as a representative and protector of the Federation.
Meanwhile, Starfleet brass seemed to have forgotten everything Burnham had forgotten at the shrine because of the desperate situation they were in (just like the Shenzhou). Armed with her newly re-discovered revelation re: Starfleet principles, Burnham was able to bring Starfleet leadership back to who they really were; an organization that promotes civilizations, not one that destroys them. This was a clever and beautiful piece of writing. Burnham, as well as Starfleet, had brought full circle in a very plausible way.
I think if this same situation turned up on a show you liked, you'd be cheering.
BTW, I think you do suffer from Lord Garth Syndrome because you probably are thinking, "who is Burhnham to lecture Starfleet?" Burnham is the show's main protagonist, so who better to have done it? It is NOT the captain this time, folks.
Should we not do this in this golden age of streaming television funded by Netflix, though? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hold DSC to a higher standard than even the latest Berman Trek that is around 15 years old now.
I wonder if that’s why they made her Spock’s sister? Like if she’d just been raised by any other Vulcan, we’d all be shouting “she’s just like spock!” So this is the get out of jail free card here - “of course she’s like Spock, she’s his sister!” Logic.
Except for that nasty debate about the Klingons when Praxis explodes. Or when they wanted to move a tribe of native Americans to another planet. Or when they wanted the fountain of youth in the briar patch. Or when they wanted to end the war with the founders.
Starfleet leaders are awfully fickle.
Yes, that is Starfleet.
The fact that she’s NOT the captain actually raises this question.
I could understand a captain lecturing Starfleet command. Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, even Janeway - have all let the brass have it now and again.
Who *is* Michael to lecture Starfleet? She’s not a captain. She’s just some random officer and a former mutineer. She’s *not* the captain. The question is valid.
...unless you’re determined to cast her in the role of captain, even though she’s not, because she happens to be the protagonist.
We should be careful not to over-evaluate Michael’s importance in-universe.
Yes, they're personality traits. The problem is that she has too many of them, and too many that stand in direct contradiction to each other. They don't add up to a coherent and believable character. She's overstuffed with backstory but devoid of personality.
The irony of the circumstance is of no interest to me when that circumstance can exist only because of plot contortions that are so trite and brainless.
Again, good thing Burnham was there to point out the obvious when Starfleet and Sarek were too dumb or bloodthirsty to consider it.
The fact that she's not the captain bothers me much less than what she says to save the day. It's just insulting to suggest no one else has considered it. A better written show could have let her have a similar moment without making everyone else an idiot. Giving her something to say that only she could say would have better served her character, too, and explained why the speech was coming from her and not the captain (or any of the other multitudes in Starfleet).
Last edited:
Agreed. And why would anyone care about the opinion of a (former) mutineer anyway - regardless of her expunged record.
I suppose some might argue “yes but section 31”. But we’ve seen s31 operate in that way before (when Starfleet was at war) and it’s not that they didn’t consider the other options - it’s that they didn’t care. I didn’t get that sense in DSC.
I'd even buy the notion that Starfleet didn't care -- that it had made the decision that destroying the planet was justified by the lives saved by winning the war. (Like the decision to drop the bomb in WWII.) But I absolutely do not buy that such a heady moral decision would be overturned by Burnham's brief little speech on the bridge.
I'd love a serialised Trek show where complicated decisions like these were really examined, rather than resolved in heroic monologues. What we got was Omega Glory stuff.
Similar threads
