Better series lead. Ed Mercer from "Orville" vs Burnham from "Discovery?"

[CaptainMurdock]

I do tend to think that Star Trek has fallen into the trap of having to save the universe/Federation with every story.

True but I think it would have better established Burnham and tried to make her likable at first and letting us get to know how she thinks and acts. Having her mutiny in the first episode with her personality buried her character for the worse I'm afraid.

 

[BillJ]

True but I think it would have better established Burnham and tried to make her likable at first and letting us get to know how she thinks and acts. Having her mutiny in the first episode with her personality buried her character for the worse I'm afraid.

I totally agree. They had no interest in trying to sell us on the character, just that she was a badass.

 

[Mudd]

Why? No one else on this message board. Why do I have to? Because I had hinted the possibility of racism and sexism within the Trek fandom?

Because among other things you have a tendency to go to putting words in other posters mouths and suggesting, on the basis of no evidence in the posts of the people you address, that their dislike for STD is based in race and gender bias.

You should stop that.

 

[DarKush]

I thought there were glimmers of Burnham's personality in even the first episode, in her bantering with Georgiou (we get glimpses of the mother-daughter bond between them) and even in her rivalry with Saru. That one little move where she bumps him out of the way at the science station to get a better reading of the Klingon beacon and then he reasserts his position, I think that non-verbally spoke to their relationship. I do think it can be argued that they didn't show enough of Burnham before she mutinied, but they did show a little. I have to wonder if the writers were just assuming that the audience would empathize with Burnham since most of us would 'know' that the Klingons are the bad guys.

Unfortunately since they changed the Klingon aesthetic so much I think we didn't know what exactly we were getting with their take on the Klingons, that looked a lot different than what came before. Also it wasn't the best thing to assume of your audience. Though to be fair, the first episode did establish that Michael's parents were killed by the Klingons, so that did provide some reasoning for her reaction. While writing this, it makes me think about how DS9 handled their Klingon War and how they took time introducing Worf on the show, acclimating him and the audience to his presence and importance. And "The Way of the Warrior" had a big battle but the war didn't officially start, if I recall, until later in the fourth season. (And I also felt TNG took time building up to the Klingon Civil War, over a course of several episodes over years, whereas Discovery just threw it at the audience).

Discovery was just moving quickly, perhaps too quickly, though I can understand the desire to hit the throttle because they would want to wow viewers and keep their attention. Perhaps that focus on action and spectacle came at the expense of story, though I don't think it really did that much. It wasn't story that suffered so much as some character development. After watching the season I could appreciate that Burnham had an arc, she grew, and I was okay for the most part with her arc over the course of the season. Though her mutiny did appear jarring and left field, but perhaps was a victim of the kind of hyped up emotionalism, drama, and action of contemporary entertainment. Discovery really fits more stylistically/temperamentally in the Kelvinverse.

 

[DarKush]

Even though Burnham has been reinstated do you think her mutiny has been forgotten? That would make it difficult for her to get a command.

In the Star Trek universe I would say no. I was looking at some of "The Tholian Web" the other day and they said-Spock if I recall-that the Defiant mutiny was the only mutiny in Starfleet history (not sure what they would consider Garth, but oh well), so the Shenzhou incident was already wiped from the records (I know, I know), but they did say in the Discovery finale that Burnham's record had been expunged, so legally there might not be a bar to her becoming a captain or commanding a vessel. Further, looking at how quickly Saru granted limited privileges to Ash Tyler and then how some of the Discovery officers sat with him and were getting along like his murdering Dr. Culber hadn't happened, perhaps people are just very forgiving in the 23rd century.

Though I don't know if Burnham will ever become a captain (or perhaps a starship captain). I don't think that's what the original plan of the show was; it was about a junior officer. They teased the captain future and then took her so far off track that it made it seem impossible. Plus being a captain was more of Georgiou's plan for her, IMO, than Burnham's. And Burnham is on a journey of self-discovery. And that could lead her away from command and even out of Starfleet. I don't see them killing her off necessarily by the end of the series, but perhaps just having her leave Starfleet, which neatly removes her from necessarily being a topic of conversation for Spock going forward. Having Tilly have a similar desire to be captain is likely another thing put in place to veer Burnham off that path. Burnham is mentoring Tilly (though Michael might come to see she needs to walk a different path), and I could see Tilly as a captain by the end of the series, in a flash forward (a la Harry Kim).

 

[Owain Taggart]

Anyone could play Burnham and I wouldn't have liked the character anymore or less.

Yeah, it was the character's direction. It was the material she was given and how they chose to direct that story. Personally, having her be the catalyst to the war didn't at all work for me. Then you have her be an unstable character prone to highly aggressive bouts of tantrums, the kind of character that shouldn't be on the front lines, let alone on the bridge. Her psych evaluation must be a horror story. And somehow all of that is OK because of her connection to Spock, yet it's the very kind of thing that I'm sure Spock we know from TOS would be against.

 

[fireproof78]

The more I read this thread the more I realize I watch very different shows set in very different universes and never the twain shall meet.

 

[BillJ]

The more I read this thread the more I realize I watch very different shows set in very different universes and never the twain shall meet.

I don't need them to meet. I love The Orville for what it is. I love the original Star Trek for what it is. Unfortunately, Discovery just doesn't feel like the same universe as the original, not even remotely. There's no feeling of a weird and wild universe with "big damn heroes", to steal a line from another sci-fi series.

There is simply nothing about Discovery that gives me butterflies like the below:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[fireproof78]

I don't need them to meet. I love The Orville for what it is. I love the original Star Trek for what it is. Unfortunately, Discovery just doesn't feel like the same universe as the original, not even remotely. There's no feeling of a weird and wild universe with "big damn heroes", to steal a line from another sci-fi series.

There is simply nothing about Discovery that gives me butterflies like the below:

I mean the two that meet are my experiences of these shows and everyone else's. I don't want Orville and Discovery to meet, I don't want butterflies in my stomach from a show. I just want to watch it and be entertained.

 

[JD]

I don't need them to meet. I love The Orville for what it is. I love the original Star Trek for what it is. Unfortunately, Discovery just doesn't feel like the same universe as the original, not even remotely. There's no feeling of a weird and wild universe with "big damn heroes", to steal a line from another sci-fi series.

There is simply nothing about Discovery that gives me butterflies like the below:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

While I did enjoy Discovery, it didn't really start to feel like Star Trek until the last handful of episode. Luckily the trailers for Season 2 look like it'll have that feeling a lot more.

 

[BillJ]

...I don't want butterflies in my stomach from a show.

I don't understand? I want a show to reach me on an emotional level, whether it being appalled at the cruelty of humanity (The Handmaid's Tale), or cheering at what we can accomplish when "Risk is our business". Out of all the genres, futuristic sci-fi should be the one that illicits an emotional reaction from us. It should push our buttons.

Which one of the problems with Discovery for me. I don't hate it, I'd love to be able to muster up an emotional reaction to it. I don't like it either. It is just kinda there. The embodiment of a soul-less corporate product.

The big moral statement of the show seems to be "genocide is bad". Which is something we can all agree to (most of us figured this out in junior high, if not earlier). But it is done in the most emotionally flat way possible.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't understand? I want a show to reach me on an emotional level, whether it being appalled at the cruelty of humanity (The Handmaid's Tale), or cheering at what we can accomplish when "Risk is our business". Out of all the genres, futuristic sci-fi should be the one that illicits an emotional reaction from us. It should push our buttons.

Which one of the problems with Discovery for me. I don't hate it, I'd love to be able to muster up an emotional reaction to it. I don't like it either. It is just kinda there. The embodiment of a soul-less corporate product.

The big moral statement of the show seems to be "genocide is bad". Which is something we can all agree to (most of us figured this out in junior high, if not earlier). But it is done in the most emotionally flat way possible.

Occasionally is fine, but I don't need to the deep moral lessons from shows for me to feel something. And I can derive meaning from a lot of things, and don't need a show to do so.

 

[BillJ]

I think the biggest problem with Discovery was it was trying to do the BIG universe shaking story right off the bat. Watching "The Best of Both Worlds" right now, and the reason why so much of it works is because we've come to know the characters. It is the same with the Klingon arc, starting with "Sins of the Father", the character relationships that had developed up to that point sell the story. Neither would have been anywhere near as interesting (or likely any good) if they had been plopped down as the very first episodes of the series.

The Orville didn't have a big universe shaking story. Its first season was a series of smaller stories that focused on the characters. That is huge to me, I've gotten to know and like these people.

Sometimes, less is more. And someone should communicate that to the Discovery production team.

 

[fireproof78]

Sometimes, less is more. And someone should communicate that to the Discovery production team.

Someone should communicate that to Hollywood.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Unfortunately since they changed the Klingon aesthetic so much I think we didn't know what exactly we were getting with their take on the Klingons, that looked a lot different than what came before. Also it wasn't the best thing to assume of your audience.

Yeah, that is another thing I disliked. We were supposed to get an emotional reaction out of the Klingons and at least understand their point of view, yet I feel they sabotaged that by making the Klingons a hollowed existence of previous versions. Because of that, I wasn't feeling engaged in their story. This goes for anything, but If you're making major antagonists that we'll be spending lots of time watching, please make them interesting!

 

[Mudd]

What was wrong with STD was the lame, lame writing.

 

[LJones41]

This is all bullshit to me. Someone earlier tried to deny that racism and sexism had no impact on the negative opinions about "Discovery". But after reading the above comments, I cannot help but disagree. Most of these complaints strike me as incredibly shallow and grasping. Apparently, "Discovery" should have had a great deal more of comedy and less angst. It was supposed to be a second-rate "The Orville", which is basically a second-rate "Next Generation" with humor.

I suspect that deep down, many Trek fans cannot stand the idea of a black woman as the lead in a Trek show. Hell, they cannot even tolerate a white woman as a lead, considering the ongoing amount of negative bullshit thrown at "Voyager" over the years.

Trek, like Star Wars has been overtaken by bigoted fans and no one wants to admit it.

 

[JRoss]

This is all bullshit to me. Someone earlier tried to deny that racism and sexism had no impact on the negative opinions about "Discovery". But after reading the above comments, I cannot help but disagree. Most of these complaints strike me as incredibly shallow and grasping. Apparently, "Discovery" should have had a great deal more of comedy and less angst. It was supposed to be a second-rate "The Orville", which is basically a second-rate "Next Generation" with humor.

I suspect that deep down, many Trek fans cannot stand the idea of a black woman as the lead in a Trek show. Hell, they cannot even tolerate a white woman as a lead, considering the ongoing amount of negative bullshit thrown at "Voyager" over the years.

Trek, like Star Wars has been overtaken by bigoted fans and no one wants to admit it.

Broham, where are you getting this? It can't be from me. I never said that Discovery should be funny. It should just be better. My favorite Trek series is DS9, the least optimistic of them all. DS9 managed to balance everything well.

My favorite film in the Star Wars canon is Last Jedi. I'm a cheerleader for Rose, Poe, Finn, Rey, all that. Side note, it's disingenuous to act like diversity was only introduced to Star Wars with the new movies. You ever seethe prequels? Take a look at all those fighter pilots on Naboo and their royal guards. Lucas was kind of locked in to using white actors for the leads because this was a prequel and Palpatine, Obi-Wan, Anakin and Padme were already "locked in". Lucas cast a lot of of POC in those films.

I hate, hate, hate, virtue signalling or tooting one's horn as far as diversity goes. But something tells me you won't be satisfied with anything less. Here goes. I moonlight in the creative fields, specifically publishing. Whenever I have an opportunity to hire someone, I make sure to consider them on their merits, and have never discriminated against ANYONE. I've hired black, gay, transgender, Native American, Filipino Chinese, men, women, whatever.

You wanna know what I think about diversity in Star Trek? I'm all for it. I think everything with just white men in all the roles is boring and false to the human experience.

You know what? I'm a (very very, very minor) writer for the Star Trek franchise. Whenever I have a chance to introduce a human character, I usually make them a POC. If they're in command (and competent) they're at least 50% likely to be a woman. So yeah, I love diversity. Yea me.

That said. Burnham's just not fun.

ETA: My issues with Janeway in Voyager have nothing to do with her beeing a woman. She's written with a wild degree of inconsistency and it's jarring. In one episode she's this brilliant tacticianand skilled diplomat. IN most ways the best version of the Starfleet ideal. In the next she's completely different.

Also, I love having a black woman as the face of a franchise. Zoe Saldana in NuTrek is the standout of that series.

 

[Jayson1]

This is all bullshit to me. Someone earlier tried to deny that racism and sexism had no impact on the negative opinions about "Discovery". But after reading the above comments, I cannot help but disagree. Most of these complaints strike me as incredibly shallow and grasping. Apparently, "Discovery" should have had a great deal more of comedy and less angst. It was supposed to be a second-rate "The Orville", which is basically a second-rate "Next Generation" with humor.

I suspect that deep down, many Trek fans cannot stand the idea of a black woman as the lead in a Trek show. Hell, they cannot even tolerate a white woman as a lead, considering the ongoing amount of negative bullshit thrown at "Voyager" over the years.

Trek, like Star Wars has been overtaken by bigoted fans and no one wants to admit it.

Nobody has ever said their isn't racist. But not everyone is racist just because you want them to be. Also grasping at straws use to be called nitpicking and it's kind of what we do. I mean we are Trek fans. We get angry when the ships warp speed doesn't make sense from one episode to the next. People will die someday still angry over what happened to poor Tuvix. Also in case you haven't noticed for many people their favorite Trek show is "DS9" and it's led by Captain Sisko. Don't let the bad apples trigger you into generalizations.

Jason

 

[Mudd]

Someone earlier tried to deny that racism and sexism had no impact on the negative opinions about "Discovery".

Not here.

You're standing up straw men to argue against. It's not working.