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

[DarKush]

Burnham was hampered by not being a Captain, it was like we are told she is the show's lead but it's kind of like you are watching the understudy. Then layer on her messed up characterisation that is wannabe Vulcan alumni and mutinous Starfleet and we end up with a mishmash second rate officer/specialist only part interesting because of her family ties and perverse connections from a mirror universe. She ends up championing more mutiny and threats of mass destruction. But hey, if the Federation does it then that's different, bring on the medal and tedious speech. That is unlikeable.

Least Ed Mercer looked the part, acted the part and made you care.

I do think you might be on to something about Burnham being restricted in a sense since she wasn't the captain. But she's far from a 'second rate' officer. That was established not only in dialogue but by the character's actions throughout the first season. And by the end Burnham was not championing mass destruction. Her intervention stopped a potential genocide of the Klingons, a major change in the character from our introduction in "The Vulcan Hello." The Burnham character wasn't perfect-she wasn't designed to be-but she was interesting to watch than Mercer.

I like Mercer. He is a noble, idealistic, seems like he would be a cool enough captain. I particularly liked the episode where they were trapped on the enemy alien ship and he didn't want to destroy it because there were kids there. That was my favorite show and to me Mercer's finest hour. However, Mercer isn't that interesting from a character standpoint. He's likable but there isn't much change from the beginning of the season to the last. I will give him that he's a little more confident in command, but he hasn't had to lose it all yet, he hasn't hit that wall, and every Trek captain hit the wall, so we'll see if McFarlane puts Mercer through a crucible and how he comes out of it.

 

[DarKush]

I haven't seen the entirety of season one yet, so I can't answer this question without some help: were there any black relationships on Discovery?

From what I remember, there weren't. But something could've changed after I tuned out.

There were not any black relationships (in terms of intraracial relationships) on Discovery so far, though both Burnham and Dr. Culber have interracial romantic relationships. But before we go down this rabbit hole let's remember why I bought up the doctor in the first place. It was to point out that the doctor and Lamar are supporting characters, side characters, and being such might not trigger animus in the way that Burnham as the lead character would.

 

[BillJ]

There were not any black relationships (in terms of intraracial relationships) on Discovery so far, though both Burnham and Dr. Culber have interracial romantic relationships. But before we go down this rabbit hole let's remember why I bought up the doctor in the first place. It was to point out that the doctor and Lamar are supporting characters, side characters, and being such might not trigger animus in the way that Burnham as the lead character would.

If someone is a racist/misogynist/homophobe or has any other hatred, I'm not sure they are going to make a distinction between lead and supporting characters.

There were times during my viewings of Discovery that I wondered if the writers knew who the main character was.

 

[mos6507]

Least Ed Mercer looked the part, acted the part and made you care.

This is the most important factor. No character is entitled to be liked by the audience. They have to earn it. The problem with these dumpster fires is when the audience is accused of not warming up to a character due to bigotry. There are diverse characters that have broad appeal even among those in the "toxic fandom" contingent. Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman and Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther are the most recent examples. It would be best to understand the real reason some characters have appeal and others don't rather than just reaching for epithets as a cheap get-out-of-criticism-free card.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If it works for you, then okay. It remains to be seen for me. I haven't seen much evidence of black relationships on Orville yet to be as certain.

So, you didn't see "Into the Fold"?

 

[Refuge]

This is the most important factor. No character is entitled to be liked by the audience. They have to earn it. The problem with these dumpster fires is when the audience is accused of not warming up to a character due to bigotry. There are diverse characters that have broad appeal even among those in the "toxic fandom" contingent. Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman and Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther are the most recent examples. It would be best to understand the real reason some characters have appeal and others don't rather than just reaching for epithets as a cheap get-out-of-criticism-free card.

I was thinking back to a scene where I did have a 'care' reaction for the characters/aliens from Discovery. I cared when I felt sorry for Ripper. That's kind of an animal thing, I like critters. I also cared and I don't know why, for Saru in the end. He was being given a hard time by Emperor Georgiou about scared Kelpiens being tough to eat. He turned it around and said he was now very tough, as in stronger. It was like he showed a little growth. I was thinking "Yeah, Saru!". The caring doesn't have to be heavy handed or forced upon you by having a character related to Star Trek icons or featured in every scene or even the bestest fighter out there. You just have to relate and I had trouble relating to Michael.

Just on a note I enjoyed Black Panther so much. T'Challa and Shuri were a highlight. Reminded me of my brother with me being like Shuri. I like that kind of stuff.

 

[DarKush]

If someone is a racist/misogynist/homophobe or has any other hatred, I'm not sure they are going to make a distinction between lead and supporting characters.

There were times during my viewings of Discovery that I wondered if the writers knew who the main character was.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, like most people are. I mean you can like certain celebrities, music, or whatever and still hold negative views about the groups those celebrities belong to or the music they produce. This goes even into relationships, dating or marriage. It's a complex thing.

I don't disagree with you about Discovery when it comes to the main character. I think the series was first billed as a show about Michael Burnham but as the season went on, it became more of an ensemble show. That being said they did tie Burnham's arc right back into the season finale, keeping her at the center of things. And next season, though Pike will be big, and likely Spock to, the relationship between Spock and Burnham will likely play a very large role in the season and could serve to also further explore Burnham's character.

 

[DarKush]

So, you didn't see "Into the Fold"?

I don't remember the episode titles. What happened in that episode?

 

[fireproof78]

Burnham was hampered by not being a Captain, it was like we are told she is the show's lead but it's kind of like you are watching the understudy. Then layer on her messed up characterisation that is wannabe Vulcan alumni and mutinous Starfleet and we end up with a mishmash second rate officer/specialist only part interesting because of her family ties and perverse connections from a mirror universe. She ends up championing more mutiny and threats of mass destruction. But hey, if the Federation does it then that's different, bring on the medal and tedious speech. That is unlikeable.

Least Ed Mercer looked the part, acted the part and made you care.

I'll grant Mercer looks the part. But, I like Burnham a whole lot, do not consider her second rate. However, your point regarding her being the second officer stands, as I think that was a change to the Trek format that is most noticeable and not working as well. This is a series of shows that have presented the captain as the lead, and struggles with a lead in another role.

Also, I don't agree that Burnham is interesting because of her family ties, any more than Mercer is interesting because of his ex-wife.

 

[Refuge]

I'll grant Mercer looks the part. But, I like Burnham a whole lot, do not consider her second rate. However, your point regarding her being the second officer stands, as I think that was a change to the Trek format that is most noticeable and not working as well. This is a series of shows that have presented the captain as the lead, and struggles with a lead in another role.

Also, I don't agree that Burnham is interesting because of her family ties, any more than Mercer is interesting because of his ex-wife.

Might be because I'm an Army brat or was. Military and rank do resonate in so many ways that it's a challenge to the reflection of fairness and equality - even abuse of power. I remember when we lived in camp seeing the three colonels houses. Much bigger with nicer grounds. I also remember being aware of one of the colonel's kids about my age. We treated her differently we saw her differently.

Perhaps that whole concept of status and value would have been a good one to explore in Discovery but I would've preferred if Michael had been the Captain first up or an Admiral. Perhaps then lost it or gone under cover and then got it all back. I actually think the actress was short-changed. However I'm willing to admit that I didn't embrace change myself by having our lead not at the helm.

 

[gblews]

People standing around talking about how great Burnham is, people sitting around talking about how awful she is.

You didin't see Burnham figure out how to communicate with the Tartigrade which led to their ability to use the spore drive? You didn't see Burnham form an alliance with the Emperor which helped her defeat lorca and send the Disco back to the PU? You didn't see Burnham persuade Starfleet brass to abandon their plan to destroy Qu'onos? And these are only the major things she did. There were many other smaller things that we actually did see on screen.

You didn't see all this? BTW, in what episodes did you see people "standing around talking about how great burnham was"?

And the damnedest thing? She was the one who was right all along. Georgiou was wrong, Admiral Dickhead was wrong, the secret Starfleet court martial was wrong. And we all knew it right from the beginning. It was all telegraphed where this was going to go. A big red reset button on the character, complete with a bad speech and a medal. They did the worst thing possible with a character in an arc show, they laid all their cards on the table right at the beginning.

And thus the nature of heroism in the Trekverse. This point cannot be reiterated enough; Burnham was season 1's main protagonist. Burnham was the designated hero character that is usually the captain. What, you thought in the end the hero would turn out to be Saru? Or Tilly?

Nothing unusual happened in season 1. A Trek show's hero character saved the day and was...the hero.

 

[Mudd]

If it works for you, then okay..

He did refute your point pretty decisively.

 

[DarKush]

He did refute your point pretty decisively.

Actually he didn't. But that's not an issue for me with him, but since you felt he did, you can elaborate on this decisive refutation if you would like and if need be I can explain it to you if necessary.

The doctor and helmsman/engineer on Orville are variations on black characters we've seen before in Hollywood. Nothing against the actors. I like Penny Johnson-Jerald. Seeing her on Orville was one of the things that helped sell that show to me. I liked her a lot on DS9 and loved her on 24. I also don't think the actor playing the helmsman is bad, just underused until he had the episodes where he was about to be killed and then when he got promoted to engineer. But how many times have we seen black single-mothers on TV or films? How many times have we seen the black cool guy/jester on TV or films? This is not breaking molds, even if these characters are competent and good at what they do, or in the unambitious helmsman's case a 'genius', it's not breaking a mold because these are background characters for the most part, that conform to well-trod ground when depicting black characters. Doesn't mean they won't get some episodes, and depending on how McFarlane develops them, they might become more integral to the show, but if you removed either the doctor or the engineer does the show stop as much as if you remove Mercer or Grayson? Any show can go on, even without the lead (well Orville might be a special case here since McFarlane created the show and made himself the lead, but I digress), but losing the lead can fundamentally change a show, should change a show in major ways. Mercer leaving definitely changes the show in ways that if the doctor or the helsman/engineer left would not).

When it comes to Burnham, I've never seen a black character quite like her on a sci-fi program. She's like a reverse Spock in a way, and while Discovery could also go on without her, as it stands right now, she is central to the show, and the heart of the show in ways that the black characters on Orville are not. With Burnham being the lead character, being so important, being a character that the audience potentially roots for or empathizes with changes the status quo in a way the Orville does not. Because at the end of the day a white male is still the main character on Orville, which isn't much different than much of Trek or many other sci-fi offerings, especially the ones I grew up with. So I can see why Orville would not upset anyone harboring anti-black views in a way that Discovery might. By this point, there are characters of color on most television shows so most people are just not revolted by the very sight of non-white characters. However, many of these characters are not the main characters of those shows/movies or they are not that developed. Burnham is the main character and potentially could become even more well-developed over time.

I don't believe that every criticism of Burnham is racially motivated. However, in light of our history and our present circumstances the idea that no racial animus could exist for any critique of Burnham is unbelievable. I don't believe that in one decade, and even not the full decade of the 1960s, somehow centuries of racist thinking just disappeared. Some did, but some went underground, or the bias was hidden behind other things.

And I support the right of anyone (else, myself included) to make that point. When Kerry Washington's show Scandal came out, only about a decade ago, that was the first black female lead of a American network TV drama in 40 years. Since then, there's been several others, but the idea is still new, perhaps even more so when it comes to genre works.

 

[fireproof78]

Nothing unusual happened in season 1. A Trek show's hero character saved the day and was...the hero.

No! Not that! A Trek hero can't be...the HERO O_o

/s

When it comes to Burnham, I've never seen a black character quite like her. She's like a reverse Spock in a way, and while Discovery could also go on without her, as it stands right now, she is central to the show, and the heart of the show in ways that the black characters on Orville are not.

I wanted to note this too as I revisited "The Vulcan Hello" and noting how people treat Burnham. Despite people acting like Burnham is the most important figure, she is not treated as that. She is instead rebuked by authority figures, and shunned by her peers. Her fall from grace isn't just the mutiny, but the fact that she has not lived up to Georgiou's and Sarek's expectations, among others. Burnham doesn't have suffer from her trauma but the burden of being lectured as a child, even as an adult.

 

[Mudd]

Actually he didn't.

He very much did. Re-read.

 

[DarKush]

He very much did. Re-read.

I suggest you re-read what I've written, or read it for the first time actually. And since you are so keen on telling me what to do, how about you enlighten me what I've 'missed'?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

More on the original question. I think it'd be really hard to effectively replace Burnham and have it be the same show. But you could replace Seth MacFarlane with any good comedy actor or actress and the show would improve.

Orville has good characters, but it doesn't have that strong a cast except for Penny Johnson. She's the only character I don't think could be significantly improved by different casting.

 

[fireproof78]

More on the original question. I think it'd be really hard to effectively replace Burnham and have it be the same show. But you could replace Seth MacFarlane with any good comedy actor or actress and the show would improve.

Orville has good characters, but it doesn't have that strong a cast except for Penny Johnson. She's the only character I don't think could be significantly improved by different casting.

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure who else I would cast as Burnham. Though on the Orville side, I don't think Adrianne Palicki is necessarily replaceable either.

 

[Jayson1]

I can't speak for LJones. But how people approach it is up to them. I don't know LJones but I think they have every right to be skeptical.

I also think that when a person makes a charge of racism, once the reaction to deny it and denounce the accuser it passes, perhaps some people, if they feel the charge was directed at them, can take some time for self-examination, to look at their likes and dislikes, where they came from and why. You (not you personally but I'm speaking in general) might do that and see there's nothing to see there, and move on, or you might start realizing their are some trouble spots and seek to fix them, or not. And maybe the person making the charge isn't crazy or angry, but is seeing something there that is ugly that a lot of people don't want to see or admit to.

I don't believe every critic of Star Trek Discovery is racist, though I do think racism infects our thinking in ways that we don't even realize, it's just 'the way things are', it's not frothing at the mouth, it's just not cross-burning or tiki-torch bearing, it's more assumptions or blindness to things or a lack of empathy, etc.

I agree everyone has the right to take a more cynical way at looking at criticism but I am just saying I wouldn't do it at least not to a individual and also not in a adversary kind of way. IMO I think it's emotionally more healthy to try and open with trust. I know when I get cynical about things it's never a good feeling. As for race being part of everyday thoughts I agree that stuff effects people but why would we assume people don't think about this stuff or anaylize their thoughts and feelings? Everyone has the same complex emotional reactions anyone else has and if they feel they aren't racist I am sure they have reasons they feel that way.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

More on the original question. I think it'd be really hard to effectively replace Burnham and have it be the same show. But you could replace Seth MacFarlane with any good comedy actor or actress and the show would improve.

Orville has good characters, but it doesn't have that strong a cast except for Penny Johnson. She's the only character I don't think could be significantly improved by different casting.

Actually I think you could replace both of them pretty easy but both shows would also change because of it. "Orville" less so because that show is built more around it's concept than it's individual characters IMO. Only issue is would McFarlande also leave with Mercer. That would be the bigger hit.

Jason