Is Spectacle better than character development?

[Groppler Zorn]

But I absolutely do not buy that such a heady moral decision would be overturned by Burnham's brief little speech on the bridge.

Totally agree. Even if Starfleet (Cornwell and Sarek and such) were in two minds about the terror bomb hostage plan on Qo’Nos, they had so little conviction for this plan that they were swayed easily by Michael. How many ships and crews must have been committed to manoeuvres following the detonation of that bomb who now had to be redeployed? How many officials at Starfleet had to have been involved in this plan and *all* had their minds changed by a mutineer? Even a mutineer-turned-good.

It just made Starfleet seem either A) like it was being run only by Cornwell, Sarek, and that other Vulcan guy, or B) like they were a bunch of inexperienced idiots who had no idea what they were doing and changed their minds like spinning on a sixpence.

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.

Definitely. When we compare it to a difficult decision someone like Sisko has to make in ds9, we get a great episode like “pale moonlight” and the effects of the romulans entering the war are felt throughout the rest of the series.

Maybe Michael should have read out the constitution to the command council?

 

[eschaton]

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.

But there's a deeper question here - why did Burnham "forget" her Starfleet training, and why did she get her "groove back?"

The prologue seems to suggest she was the model Starfleet officer under Georgiou for seven years. Then the encounter with the Klingons terrifies her due to suppressed trauma from her childhood. It's also implied that she's perhaps a little bit racist towards the Klingons. This thread is basically dropped entirely during the bulk of the season. Burham keeps her cool when fighting Kol, has no issue parlaying with L'Rell in the brig, deals with mirror Voq with an open mind. There's absolutely no hint that she has a hard time with the whole Klingon thing, or views them any more negatively than any other Starfleet officer. Until the season finale, when she brings it up again, in a long monologue about the death of her birth family.

The way it came across to me was that the writers basically forgot about this aspect of Burnham's character entirely, and felt the need to drag it back into the mix at almost the last possible second. When what they should have been doing was initially continuing to establish she was someone who was fearful and racist towards Klingons, but over time due to experiences in the series (with L'Rell, a more extensive mirror Voq plot?) her character is shown to slowly shift until she becomes someone who just views Klingons as people like any other.

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.

I have admitted that Starfleet has done nasty things in the past, and captains have stood against it. Examples include Picard being opposed to using Hugh to infect the Borg, and SIsko working with others to defeat Section 31's virus against The Founders. But the difference is that these sort of ruthless decisions in prior Treks looked like they would be successful. Starfleet's plan was just to blow up Qo'nos and basically see if that might make the Klingon fleet bearing down on Earth turn tail. The run-up to the siege of Earth was also horrible from a narrative standpoint, as it showed that the independent houses with absolutely no coordination of strategy, tactics, or logistics could almost completely annihilate Starfleet as a fighting force.

Also, the "solution" in no way kept with Starfleet values. Is the "Starfleet way" really to install a dictator onto a foreign empire and give said leader access to a bomb which they can use to (somehow) ensure compliance of the entire populace?

 

[gblews]

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.

You misunderstood my statement about "holding DSC to a higher standard", than the o/p held the other spins. You also took my statement out of context and created a strawman.

The "higher standard" to which the o/p is holding DSC refers to expecting to know DSC characters after the first 15 episodes of the first season, as well as he knew the TOS characters after 3 seasons of 26 episodes each. That is an unfair and unrealistic standard to expect DSC to live up to.

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.

As we all know, the franchise is so old and varied that I'll bet I could find an example of a rebuttal in support or opposition to any and every position taken by any character, alien race, governmental entity or army, that has ever appeared in a Trek show or movie or book.

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.

You've simply been indoctrinated by Trek to think that only the captain can do the heroic things we've seen Burnham do in season 1.

This is the type of thinking DSC is bucking with it's new format. Burnham is going to be the hero of the show's "A" story for the foreseeable future (as long as it is working). As such, she will continue to do heroic stuff that the "captain" character did on the other spins, and she will also continue on occasion, to give "hero speeches" that many, apparently, thought were solely in the domain of the captain. DSC is breaking new ground in the franchise.

I think the show is best viewed from a different perspective than we have viewed the previous shows.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

You misunderstood my statement about "holding DSC to a higher standard",

If so then I apologise. However my argument related to holding DSC to a higher quality standard given the current state of televisual entertainment.

You also took my statement out of context and created a strawman.

I made no attempt to present an argument that refuted an argument that was not actually made. I asked a question. Which you actually answer below. Suggesting that my argument was not a strawman to begin with

That is an unfair and unrealistic standard to expect DSC to live up to.

I would debate this. DSC exists in a new landscape where first seasons are expected to be amazing. Respectfully I think you’re letting the general trend of Star Trek first seasons being terrible (and that we should therefore give them a pass) influence your perception here.

As we all know, the franchise is so old and varied that I'll bet I could find an example of a rebuttal in support or opposition to any and every position taken by any character, alien race, governmental entity or army, that has ever appeared in a Trek show or movie or book.

This suggests that bringing Starfleet back to “who they really were” may be more of a challenge than you originally suggest then.

I’m happy to discuss said examples though - since you didn’t present any I can’t say much more on this point.

You've simply been indoctrinated by Trek to think that only the captain can do the heroic things we've seen Burnham do in season 1.

Not at all. I’m suggesting that it’s counter intuitive from an in-universe perspective. Wesley gave a heroic speech in the one where he leaves with the traveller. Just before he resigns from Starfleet. That made sense for the character and in the context of the episode. Michael’s speech did not make sense to me in the context of everything she’d done up to that point. She was not a hero. I (again, respectfully) suggest that you may have been indoctrinated to think that the main character is always the hero. That’s not always the case.

I think the show is best viewed from a different perspective than we have viewed the previous shows.

Agreed. We should perhaps not hold it to the same standards as other Trek shows. Maybe we should have higher expectations for DSC given the wider context of its production. This comment refers back to my erroneously named “strawman” argument from earlier.

In any case let’s hope that season 2 shows some improvement

 

[gblews]

But there's a deeper question here - why did Burnham "forget" her Starfleet training, and why did she get her "groove back?"

The prologue seems to suggest she was the model Starfleet officer under Georgiou for seven years. Then the encounter with the Klingons terrifies her due to suppressed trauma from her childhood.

There is nothing shown on screen that confirms Burnham suffered any repressed trauma or PTSD while serving on the Shenzhou. This is fanon.

It's also implied that she's perhaps a little bit racist towards the Klingons. This thread is basically dropped entirely during the bulk of the season.

There was no implied racism by Burnham against the Klingons. There is nothing shown on screen that suggests Burnham wanted to fire on T'Kuvma's ship for any other reason than her belief that it would save the Shenzhou and stop a war. The reason you didn't see any more of "Burnham 's racism or hatred toward Klingons" is because it didn't exist within the show's canon for season 1.

Burham keeps her cool when fighting Kol, has no issue parlaying with L'Rell in the brig, deals with mirror Voq with an open mind. There's absolutely no hint that she has a hard time with the whole Klingon thing, or views them any more negatively than any other Starfleet officer. Until the season finale, when she brings it up again, in a long monologue about the death of her birth family.

What she brought up to Ash was that the Klingons who were playing that game reminded her of a really unpleasant memory; that of hiding in the cupboard listening to the Klingons who would eventually kill her parents. Once she walked away from that scene and centered herself, she was fine.

The reason Burnham was able to work with L'Rell and fight Kol with a certain amount of detachment was because she didn't harbor any racist feeling toward Klingons. Acting on racist feelings requires irrational behavior. Burnham was anything but irrational.

Hate to say it but, what you and others have concluded was this huge plot hole or amnesia by the writers is simply an illusion created by a belief (by some fans) that they were seeing a storyline which did not exist on screen.

Also, the "solution" in no way kept with Starfleet values. Is the "Starfleet way" really to install a dictator onto a foreign empire and give said leader access to a bomb which they can use to (somehow) ensure compliance of the entire populace?

The solution was by no means "perfect" and fell far short of a peaceful, negotiated cease fire, however, it was made quite clear in the finale that the Klingons would not negotiate and would stop at nothing short of total annihilation of the Federation. Remember?

So even though Burnham's solution didn't fit into the parameters of what Starfleet would have wanted in a perfect world, the point was, that it was a heck of a lot better than initiating genocide against an entire race of people.

 

[gblews]

If so then I apologise. However my argument related to holding DSC to a higher quality standard given the current state of televisual entertainment.

I made no attempt to present an argument that refuted an argument that was not actually made. I asked a question. Which you actually answer below. Suggesting that my argument was not a strawman to begin with

Well actually, you did. My statement re: holding DSC to a higher standard had nothing to do with "holding DSC to a higher quality standard given the current state of televisual entertainment". That is something you brought up after misinterpreting what my statement meant. That was the strawman you created and then argued against.

I would debate this. DSC exists in a new landscape where first seasons are expected to be amazing. Respectfully I think you’re letting the general trend of Star Trek first seasons being terrible (and that we should therefore give them a pass) influence your perception here.

I think DSC's first season was amazing, and from the standpoint of consistency, better than all of the other spinoffs' first seasons.

Not at all. I’m suggesting that it’s counter intuitive from an in-universe perspective. Wesley gave a heroic speech in the one where he leaves with the traveller. Just before he resigns from Starfleet. That made sense for the character and in the context of the episode. Michael’s speech did not make sense to me in the context of everything she’d done up to that point. She was not a hero. I (again, respectfully) suggest that you may have been indoctrinated to think that the main character is always the hero. That’s not always the case.

She very much was the hero. Not only did she refuse to follow through with Starfleet's plan to destroy Qu'nos, she talked Starfleet into abandoning this plan and going with a less severe way of ending the war. Then she went back to the caves and ensured that Georgiou, who wanted to go through with Starfleet's original plan, wouldn't go rogue and destroy Qu'onos anyway.

Sounds like the in-universe hero to me.

Agreed. We should perhaps not hold it to the same standards as other Trek shows. Maybe we should have higher expectations for DSC given the wider context of its production. This comment refers back to my erroneously named “strawman” argument from earlier.

(sigh) Once again, my comment about holding DSC to unfair and unrealistic standards had nothing to do with what you write about above. It is a straw man or perhaps, a separate topic you'd like to discuss.

You seem to be "interpreting" some of the things I've written in this thread in ways that may be easier for you to argue against. I wish you wouldn't do that, it's a disingenuous way to argue.

 

[Refuge]

Strange choice of complaint for a show that has more character development than any other Trek first season by virtue of not using an episodic reset format.

I disagree that Discovery has more character development than any other Trek or that it didn't use versions of reset for its characters. We didn't get to fully invest in character development of several characters because they were killed off. Georgiou, Landry, Culber, Lorca, not to mention Klingon main characters. However some of these characters had a mirror reset, like that was supposed to keep a connection. It was simply weird that Emperor Georgiou popped back to the original universe and slotted in. When Discovery wasn't killing off a character and giving us a mirror replacement we got a hybrid one with Tyloc some messed up Tyler/Voq monstrosity.

I found it really hard to see much development. With the characters that didn't change, it was hit and miss if they did at all. Burnham didn't one iota. Still the same speech making bore threatening mutiny. Yet Saru did develop. Gained confidence and presence.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

Tilly, Saru and perhaps Stamets were the only characters I noticed character development for. I'm excited to see where things go for them. I would also like to learn more about the Discovery bridge officers. Burnham and her angst did nothing for me to be honest. She's still as unlikable to me as she was in the pilot.

 

[Refuge]

Tilly, Saru and perhaps Stamets were the only characters I noticed character development for. I'm excited to see where things go for them. I would also like to learn more about the Discovery bridge officers. Burnham and her angst did nothing for me to be honest. She's still as unlikable to me as she was in the pilot.

I think a little stability in the cast might help me invest more as a viewer. I was watching an Original Series repeat the other day and early on the dynamic between Kirk and Spock and then Bones, is key. Maybe it's less character development and more relationship development, but it's what makes it likeable. There are hints of it with Tilly and Michael, Tilly/Stamets and even Saru and his crew. It could do with more of the old school 'charm'.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Well actually, you did. My statement re: holding DSC to a higher standard had nothing to do with "holding DSC to a higher quality standard given the current state of televisual entertainment". That is something you brought up after misinterpreting what my statement meant. That was the strawman you created and then argued against.

Well firstly allow me to apologise for misinterpreting your point. It was not intentional.

Secondly, my question was intended to further the discussion here not to refute (I.e. disprove, prove to be false) your point about higher standards. So even though I misinterpreted what you said, I wasn’t trying to disprove a point I thought you’d made. Therefore no strawman argument was put forward. I’m sorry to labour this point but you actually acknowledge this below. Maybe categorising something as a strawman has the effect of trivialising it, I don’t know - I don’t want to get into personal comments regarding people’s state of mind when they post things. But my question was not a strawman

I think DSC's first season was amazing, and from the standpoint of consistency, better than all of the other spinoffs' first seasons.

Good - I’m hoping many other people feel the same way as you. I don’t agree personally, but I’m glad to be in the minority since it ensures the longevity of the series and franchise if people thought DSC was good. The comparison to the other series is fine here, but we should be careful in letting DSC off in s1 just because the other series (except DS9) were relatively poor in s1. TV is a different animal in this day and age. The standards of evaluation are different.

Sounds like the in-universe hero to me.

Well I think we may have to agree to disagree on that one

I thought the point of Michael’s character arc was that she wasn’t a hero... but I’m not trying to convince anyone otherwise.

It is a straw man or perhaps, a separate topic you'd like to discuss.

This is what I meant above. My question was intended to further the discussion, not to disprove what you said. FWIW I also think it’s unfair to compare DSC to s3 of TOS. My point (i.e. separate topic yet related to what you said - and intended in a sincere way I should point out) was that since TV has evolved shouldn’t DSC be held to a higher standard as it has to contend with other shows clamouring for viewers in an environment where shows aren’t given the leeway to develop slowly (like TOS and TNG etc.). So, to relate my question to your argument: since TOS was allowed to develop slowly and it was given a chance to grow and evolve - because that was acceptable on TV at the time - and since DSC doesn’t exist in the same era of TV meaning that it won’t get the same chance to develop into something like TOS did by s3, isn’t it acceptable or logical to suggest that DSC be held to the same standard as TOS s3 or later seasons of other Trek shows since we now *expect* shows to hit the ground running?

If anything I was trying to expand on your argument not disprove my flawed interpretion of it (since that’s what a strawman would be...)

You seem to be "interpreting" some of the things I've written in this thread in ways that may be easier for you to argue against. I wish you wouldn't do that, it's a disingenuous way to argue.

See above for my feelings on personal comments about posters’ motivations and mindset when posting

 

[eschaton]

There is nothing shown on screen that confirms Burnham suffered any repressed trauma or PTSD while serving on the Shenzhou. This is fanon.

I would have agreed with you up until the last episode. I didn't really see the PTSD angle which was discussed here. But the framing of the issue in the season means we can't ignore it.

1. Why make her parents being killed by Klingons part of the story at all? I understand there was a narrative reason for her to be raised by Sarek. But her birth parents could have died in a raid by the Orions, due to an accident, due to illness, etc. They chose to give her a backstory with Klingon family trauma. Why do this and not use it?

2. Why is her birth parents being killed by Klingons one of the first things established about her character via flashback - when we see her quizzed about a Klingon attack in the Vulcan learning center and she freezes?

3. Why does SMG play the following scene - waking up in Sickbay, and then rushing to the bridge - as if she is absolutely terrified?

4. Several people in the pilot episode - notably Georgiou and Sarek - made reference to her "history" with the Klingons.

There was no implied racism by Burnham against the Klingons. There is nothing shown on screen that suggests Burnham wanted to fire on T'Kuvma's ship for any other reason than her belief that it would save the Shenzhou and stop a war. The reason you didn't see any more of "Burnham 's racism or hatred toward Klingons" is because it didn't exist within the show's canon for season 1.

I dunno. Burnham saying "Admiral, if I may. The ideal outcome for any Klingon interaction is battle. They're relentlessly hostile, sir. It's in their nature." certainly sounds racist to me. Put "blacks' or "Arabs" in there and read it again.

What she brought up to Ash was that the Klingons who were playing that game reminded her of a really unpleasant memory; that of hiding in the cupboard listening to the Klingons who would eventually kill her parents. Once she walked away from that scene and centered herself, she was fine.

The reason Burnham was able to work with L'Rell and fight Kol with a certain amount of detachment was because she didn't harbor any racist feeling toward Klingons. Acting on racist feelings requires irrational behavior. Burnham was anything but irrational.

Hate to say it but, what you and others have concluded was this huge plot hole or amnesia by the writers is simply an illusion created by a belief (by some fans) that they were seeing a storyline which did not exist on screen.

If that discussion with Ash about hiding in the closet while her family was murdered had no real narrative importance - either to her character or the plot - why include it at all?

The solution was by no means "perfect" and fell far short of a peaceful, negotiated cease fire, however, it was made quite clear in the finale that the Klingons would not negotiate and would stop at nothing short of total annihilation of the Federation. Remember?

So even though Burnham's solution didn't fit into the parameters of what Starfleet would have wanted in a perfect world, the point was, that it was a heck of a lot better than initiating genocide against an entire race of people.

They discovered the spore drive is a literal fucking time machine. There was a much more simple way they could have solved all of this. Even if they didn't want to jump back in time to the BOTBS and fix things there, they could have jumped back to right after they initially left. Seeing the earth destroyed even after Qonos was blown up would have been great from a narrative standpoint anyway, because it would have shown that Starfleet's stupid last-ditch plan was - well - stupid.

 

[gblews]

The comparison to the other series is fine here, but we should be careful in letting DSC off in s1 just because the other series (except DS9) were relatively poor in s1. TV is a different animal in this day and age. The standards of evaluation are different.

So, it seems like you're saying that the other shows got to have poor first seasons, but escape being thought of as "poor" (compared to DSC's first season) because of the times in which those shows ran. And if DSC might have had a better first season, DSC doesn't get credit for having a better first season, because of the times in which DSC runs. This sounds like the "Kobyashi Maru" of evaluation standards; the no-win scenario -- for DSC, that is.

FWIW I also think it’s unfair to compare DSC to s3 of TOS. My point (i.e. separate topic yet related to what you said - and intended in a sincere way I should point out) was that since TV has evolved shouldn’t DSC be held to a higher standard as it has to contend with other shows clamouring for viewers in an environment where shows aren’t given the leeway to develop slowly (like TOS and TNG etc.). So, to relate my question to your argument: since TOS was allowed to develop slowly and it was given a chance to grow and evolve - because that was acceptable on TV at the time - and since DSC doesn’t exist in the same era of TV meaning that it won’t get the same chance to develop into something like TOS did by s3, isn’t it acceptable or logical to suggest that DSC be held to the same standard as TOS s3 or later seasons of other Trek shows since we now *expect* shows to hit the ground running?

No. Expecting to know as much about the characters after the first 15 episodes of DSC, as we knew about TOS characters after nearly 80 episodes simply because TOS ran in the 60's, and DSC is running in 2018, makes no sense. It certainly is not logical because TOS gets the benefit of many more episodes than DSC has had in which to establish it's characters.

However, for the people who don't like DSC, it no doubt, is acceptable.

 

[gblews]

1. Why make her parents being killed by Klingons part of the story at all? I understand there was a narrative reason for her to be raised by Sarek. But her birth parents could have died in a raid by the Orions, due to an accident, due to illness, etc. They chose to give her a backstory with Klingon family trauma. Why do this and not use it?

They did use it. Burnham's history with the Klingons gave her current relationship with them more gravitas. It was especially poignant in her relationship with Ash/Voq.

It was used when Sarek suggested that her history might be impacting her current feelings about how to deal wiht the Klingons at the shrine. It was also used when Burnham was reminded of by the Klingons on Qu'onos and had to leave the area.

It was her history with Klingons that made her decision to talk Starfleet into abandoning their plan to annihilate Qu'onos all the more poignant.

2. Why is her birth parents being killed by Klingons one of the first things established about her character via flashback - when we see her quizzed about a Klingon attack in the Vulcan learning center and she freezes?

Again, for the purposes of adding gravitas and to establish who Burnham is as a person. As a child, Burnham was affected by the Klingon attack and it showed in this scene. However, that scene was a one off in terms of her reaction to Klingons. We don't ever see her freeze up again.

3. Why does SMG play the following scene - waking up in Sickbay, and then rushing to the bridge - as if she is absolutely terrified?

She wasn't terrified. She rushed to the bridge to tell the captain that she had encountered Klingons in the shrine. I think this is where the fanon associated with Burnham having PTSD started.

The writers never wrote Burnham as having PTSD and we know they had a certain way of conveying that a character had this condition from the way Ash Tyler was written. We saw him display classic symptoms of PTSD first on L'Rell's ship, then art various times following his rescue.

On L'Rell's ship, we see Tyler "freeze", unable to implement his Starfleet training. We see him wracked by paralyzing fear and indecision. He has night and day dreams he cannot control. Granted, part of this is probably brought on by the grafting of Voq onto his body, but a very significant part of his post trauma symptoms are due directly to the horrific physical and mental ordeal he went through.

Had the writers been intending to convey to us that Burnham was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, they would have shown us Burnham going through some of what we saw Ash/Voq going through.

4. Several people in the pilot episode - notably Georgiou and Sarek - made reference to her "history" with the Klingons.

Simply making reference to Burnham's history with Klingons is no indication that she suffered some ongoing mental illness because of that history.

I dunno. Burnham saying "Admiral, if I may. The ideal outcome for any Klingon interaction is battle. They're relentlessly hostile, sir. It's in their nature." certainly sounds racist to me. Put "blacks' or "Arabs" in there and read it again.

This was a simple statement of fact and certainly is no confirmation of racism. She didn't say "blacks" or "arabs", which would have made her statement a lie. She said Klingons, who do have a violent nature. If you think it is an indication of racism, please explain why.

If that discussion with Ash about hiding in the closet while her family was murdered had no real narrative importance - either to her character or the plot - why include it at all?

I didn't say it had "no narrative importance", it just didn't have the narrative function of informing the audience that she was suffering from PTSD. If you think it does, please explain why.

 

[Lord Garth]

I wonder what opinions of Michael Burnham will be if she becomes Captain?

If she was Captain from the start, there'd be no conflict with Georgiou, she would likely have more common sense than to try a Vulcan Hello, there'd be no Lorca, and no Emperor Georgiou. Just a regular Captain fighting a Klingon War. Or just a regular Captain discovering planets of the week. It would be a fundamentally different series.

The entire foundation of the series is based on Burnham not being a Captain and her having to deal with other Captains. A traditional Captain who she disagreed with wrongly, a nontraditional Captain who Saru disagreed with rightly but who Burnham wrongly didn't have a problem with until it was too late, and a tyrant who she finally rightly stood up to at the end of the season along with the rest of the crew, not just her.

Her progression is her finally being on the right side of how to handle Bigger Picture questions. The types that she'd have to eventually face on a regular basis if she ever were to become Captain.

Saru was ahead of her when it came to his suspicions about Lorca. So was Cornwell. Burnham was blinded too much by someone having faith in her, someone agreeing with her, that person being the one who sprung her out of jail.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

So, it seems like you're saying that the other shows got to have poor first seasons, but escape being thought of as "poor" (compared to DSC's first season) because of the times in which those shows ran.

Not exactly, no. I meant that the other shows had time to develop over multiple seasons as that seemed to be more of an expectation at the time. We don’t seem to have that expectation today - so there was more pressure on DSC to be amazing right out of the gate, and it had the benefit of 50 years of history (and examples of what not to do Trek-wise) to draw on. I guess I’m talking more about the fact that expectations regarding TV shows have changed since the Berman era in light of Netflix, etc.

And if DSC might have had a better first season, DSC doesn't get credit for having a better first season, because of the times in which DSC runs. This sounds like the "Kobyashi Maru" of evaluation standards; the no-win scenario -- for DSC, that is.

On that I agree - DSC was in Kobayashi Maru territory from the moment it was conceived

No. Expecting to know as much about the characters after the first 15 episodes of DSC, as we knew about TOS characters after nearly 80 episodes simply because TOS ran in the 60's, and DSC is running in 2018, makes no sense. It certainly is not logical because TOS gets the benefit of many more episodes than DSC has had in which to establish it's characters.

In general I agree. However, DSC isn’t a like for like comparison with TOS format-wise. DSC has the advantage of being serialised storytelling - something that TOS never had. I wonder whether that should give us the expectation that we might know the characters a little better since we’ve seen their lives develop episode to episode, rather than having self contained stories where we may learn individual things about the characters due to the circumstances of that individual episode.

I wonder what opinions of Michael Burnham will be if she becomes Captain?

If she was Captain from the start, there'd be no conflict with Georgiou,

Perhaps - unless they had a situation like they did with Janeway and Ransom, or Picard and Maxwell. There could still have been conflict with Georgiou there - maybe Burnham was recently promoted captain and she still felt that she should follow the lead of her old captain (Georgiou) when the rest of the fleet shows up to help with the Klingons.

Saru was ahead of her when it came to his suspicions about Lorca. So was Cornwell. Burnham was blinded too much by someone having faith in her, someone agreeing with her, that person being the one who sprung her out of jail.

Agreed. So it would really have made more sense in-universe (to me, anyway) to hear from either Saru or Cornwell at the end rather than Michael. Apart from her being the main character for *our* benefit, there was no logical reason to ask a former mutineer to give a speech. I would have thought Starfleet would have wanted to sweep her “mutiny” under the rug (so Spock wouldn’t be fibbing about mutinies later) not give her the limelight and expose her to more people across the entire space service / federation by giving a party conference speech...

 

[Lord Garth]

Perhaps - unless they had a situation like they did with Janeway and Ransom, or Picard and Maxwell. There could still have been conflict with Georgiou there - maybe Burnham was recently promoted captain and she still felt that she should follow the lead of her old captain (Georgiou) when the rest of the fleet shows up to help with the Klingons.

I have a hard time believing that someone who would be a Captain would make such a knuckle-headed decision to fire first, and not as a last resort. I like to think Burnham worked her way up through the ranks of the Shenzhou over a period of the seven years she served on it, and that Georgiou made her a First Officer too soon. Since Burnham was only a Lieutenant Commander, she was on the lower-end of First Officers and may have only recently been given her position. Though that's only speculation on my part. Clearly Burnham didn't learn as much from Georgiou as she would've hoped.

But, if we allowed that Burnham was a Captain that had such serious lapses in judgment -- since we've seen them before in other extenuating circumstances -- it could work that Burnham was part of a fleet where Georgiou was the senior-most in command.

Though that would still get Burnham court-martialed, she'd still be disgraced, and even if Lorca sprung her out, she wouldn't be the Captain on his ship... so we'd be back to Burnham not being the Captain. And she wouldn't be Captain at the end of the season either. Restoring her original rank -- which wasn't even Captain -- is one thing (though I'd argue she should've been given a lower rank). Making her a Captain, or restoring her original rank as Captain if she'd had it, would've been something else.

I'm operating under the assumption that Burnham will eventually become a Captain but a lot of stuff will have to have happened between where we're at now and where things end up before she actually does. So it will make sense by the time it happens... but it just wouldn't make any sense right now.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

I have a hard-time believing that someone who would be a Captain who make such a knuckle-headed decision

I know what you mean. Although I suppose Maxwell was equally knuckle headed in TNG, but he was motivated by revenge. Michael wasn’t really acting out of revenge I suppose - more from a misguided sense that Georgiou was her mother and she had to “save” her. She was trying to do the right thing in her own Burnhamesque way. But I tend to agree with your analysis of her history below —>

and that Georgiou made her a First Officer too soon

Clearly Burnham didn't learn as much from Georgiou as she would've hoped.

I think this is certainly true. She cane to the Shenzhou with all the trappings of the Vulcan science academy and the personal recommendation of the Vulcan ambassador to Earth. No wonder they thought she was amazing.

And in peace time, Michael probably was amazing - like the ubers of TNG - super clever, coming up with genius solutions to things, etc. She’d fit in better on the 1701D I think.

But she clearly had a lot to learn when it came to combat situations. Maybe Georgiou did as well - given how she handled the Klingon encounter.

Though that would still get Burnham court-martialed, she'd still be disgraced, and even if Lorca sprung her out, she wouldn't be the Captain on his ship... so we'd be back to Burnham not being the Captain.

That’s a fair point - although I’d sympathise with her more were she a captain trying to regain her former command. A bit like Lorca (sort of) was before we realised he was eeeeevil.

I'm operating under the assumption that Burnham will eventually become a Captain

Definitely. It might be a few years away but she will be a captain yet.

So it will make sense by the time it happens... but it just wouldn't make any sense right now.

Exactly hopefully she’ll have evolved as a character into someone who deserves the big chair and by extension deserves to give a speech before all of Starfleet by the time they make her captain.

It makes me wonder whether her apparent mutiny will ever be mentioned again, though. My guess is that it won’t. But humans don’t work like that. She only needs to come across someone who had a relative who died at the BoTBS for them to accuse her of causing the war (like she did in “context”). Maybe a senior officer could treat her this way? Just because her record is expunged doesn’t mean that everyone is honour bound to accept/trust her now...

 

[gblews]

Not exactly, no. I meant that the other shows had time to develop over multiple seasons as that seemed to be more of an expectation at the time. We don’t seem to have that expectation today - so there was more pressure on DSC to be amazing right out of the gate, and it had the benefit of 50 years of history (and examples of what not to do Trek-wise) to draw on. [/quote\
I think there are a fair number of fans who might fit into that "we" to which you refer, that is, people who weren't willing to give the show much opportunity to grow. This is especially problematic with Trek, since the spinoffs all seem to need 2 to 3 episodes to hit their stride.

How "50 years of Star Trek" fits into this debate is a mystery to me, but okay. If anything, that fact has been used by fans who don't like DSC, to bludgeon the show. So, it's a two edged sword.

On that I agree - DSC was in Kobayashi Maru territory from the moment it was conceived

Yep no shortage of fans with unrealistic expectations and who are predisposed to being over critical of the first season of a Trek series as I note above.
[quote[In general I agree. However, DSC isn’t a like for like comparison with TOS format-wise. DSC has the advantage of being serialised storytelling - something that TOS never had. I wonder whether that should give us the expectation that we might know the characters a little better since we’ve seen their lives develop episode to episode, rather than having self contained stories where we may learn individual things about the characters due to the circumstances of that individual episode.

I don't think serialization alone is a valid reason to expect better defined characters than those that are in mostly standalone series, but it certainly doesn't hurt a show's opportunities in this area. This is yet another reason why serialized shows are able to ramp up drama better than standalone shows.

However, expecting to know as much about characters in a show after only 15 episodes, as you know about another show's characters after 3 or 4 times the number of episodes, whether the shows are serialized or mostly standalone, is simply ridiculous.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

I don't think serialization alone is a valid reason to expect better defined characters than those that are in mostly standalone series, but it certainly doesn't hurt a show's opportunities in this area. This is yet another reason why serialized shows are able to ramp up drama better than standalone shows.

However, expecting to know as much about characters in a show after only 15 episodes, as you know about another show's characters after 3 or 4 times the number of episodes, whether the shows are serialized or mostly standalone, is simply ridiculous.

Well, my point about 50 years of Star Trek is that they have that vast canon to draw on.

They know what works, what doesn’t work, what’s been done to death, what’s left to explore, etc.

So based on that rich depth of data, I would have expected the story to have been more cohesive. But it’s early days. Maybe comparing it to a show like the flash or supergirl would be more like-for-like in the modern era: serialised stories based on a property with a long history and prior canon. And of course, both of those shows’ first seasons were very good.

As for expecting us to know as much about the characters in only 15 episodes compared to 70-odd, I would have thought that comes down to the writing as much as anything else. With a good writing team I don’t think that it’s impossible to expect parity with something like TOS - but there I go holding DSC up to a higher standard again

 

[Jadeb]

Can anyone watch 15 random episodes of TOS and feel like they don't know Kirk, Spock and McCoy? Sure, we learn more background about them over three seasons, but it's possible to get a sense of them in a single good episode.