News Discovery Season 2 Extended to 14 episodes (originally 13)

[Lord Garth]

IMO - It's just plain BAD!

They have Johnathan Harris "Dr. Smith", in bad green pancake makeup as a living stick of celery:

And here's the main 'evil' vegetable (remarkable costuming here) :

It's said when Johnathan Harris looked at the script, he approached the writer to say: "Really, this is what we're filming?"
And the writer (Peter Packer) replied: "Sorry, I just don't have any ideas left in my head."

Holy Shit. Zoobilee Zoo looks more realistic. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, don't ask.

You know what else this reminds me of? A time where I did a gig for an agency one day where they sent me to Sprint to dress up like an apple and hand out fliers. Nothing like the costumes I'll wear sometimes. This one just sucked. But that's not the worst part. I was working with someone else and we had to share the same costume meaning they wore it for a few hours... and then I had to wear it. Yay. And this was the end of summer. As soon as I got home, I took a shower.

 

[Vger23]

She’s not always right.

Her being wrong started a war for gods sake.

How dare you. People are trying to rationalize. Please respect that.

 

[Tuskin38]

Leave the Enterprise bridge to our imagination. That would be the best approach.

Too late.

 

[Rahul]

She’s not always right.

Her being wrong started a war for gods sake.

How dare you. People are trying to rationalize. Please respect that.

The show pretty much went out of it's way to make sure everyone watching it understands it wasn't her that started the war (the Klingons started firing essentially at the exact moment of her mutiny, and Georgiou even followed her plan to stop the war as soon as possible again). And that her way (the "Vulcan hello") would have been the only "correct" way to approach this specific situation.

So yeah, so far she was always right. She just didn't succeed the first time - because of the failure of others (Georgiou letting herself get killed).

I just find it weird that these "Mary Sue"-coplains only ever hit when it's women depicted. Tom Paris (whom Burnham is unashamedly based on) was also hyper-competent and almost always right (or at least the POV-character wen he did something "wrong" - like in 30 days). Yet I have never seen him called "a Mary Sue".

 

[Tuskin38]

The show pretty much went out of it's way to make sure everyone watching it understands it wasn't her that started the war (the Klingons started firing essentially at the exact moment of her mutiny, and Georgiou even followed her plan to stop the war as soon as possible again). And that her way (the "Vulcan hello") would have been the only "correct" way to approach this specific situation.

No it didn’t.

T’Kuvma wanted a war, he was trying to start one. If Burnham has destroyed the beacon he would have found another way. He probably would have used the excuse of her destroying the sacred beacon as a casus belli anyways.

 

[fireproof78]

The show pretty much went out of it's way to make sure everyone watching it understands it wasn't her that started the war (the Klingons started firing essentially at the exact moment of her mutiny, and Georgiou even followed her plan to stop the war as soon as possible again). And that her way (the "Vulcan hello") would have been the only "correct" way to approach this specific situation.

So yeah, so far she was always right. She just didn't succeed the first time - because of the failure of others (Georgiou letting herself get killed).

I just find it weird that these "Mary Sue"-coplains only ever hit when it's women depicted. Tom Paris (whom Burnham is unashamedly based on) was also hyper-competent and almost always right (or at least the POV-character wen he did something "wrong" - like in 30 days). Yet I have never seen him called "a Mary Sue".

Yes indeed. The show has also taken a bit of a Cassandra vibe from Greek mythology with her, the one who sees a possible problem yet few people listen to at first, until after disaster strikes.

Now, that connection is loose, at best, but it was the vibe I got from Burnham, and what adds to her self-doubt at times.

 

[Ovation]

IMO - It's just plain BAD!

They have Johnathan Harris "Dr. Smith", in bad green pancake makeup as a living stick of celery:

And here's the main 'evil' vegetable (remarkable costuming here) :

It's said when Johnathan Harris looked at the script, he approached the writer to say: "Really, this is what we're filming?"
And the writer (Peter Packer) replied: "Sorry, I just don't have any ideas left in my head."

This is what happened when Cyrano Jones got early release from tribble clean-up and started hawking a veggie juice product from shady Pakled suppliers.

And you all thought the LiS/Trek crossover of the late sixties was just a rumour.

 

[Lord Garth]

And that her way (the "Vulcan hello") would have been the only "correct" way to approach this specific situation.

I still think Burnham's way would've been the wrong way. For reasons I've explained ad-nauseam. The short version: The Klingons wanted war anyway. If Georgiou listened to Burnham, the Klingons wouldn't have backed down, they would've retaliated. The situation with the Vulcans wasn't the same and Burnham couldn't recognize that the situation was different. The Klingon Empire (which was still whole) didn't want a war with Vulcan. They were just picking on them. T'Kuvma's faction of the Klingons wanted a war with the Federation to unite the Empire no matter what and the justification for it didn't matter. Either everything the Federation said was lies or they fired first. Whatever worked for them, T'Kuvma could spin it to his crowd like Red Meat.

Yes, I side with Georgiou in this argument. So sue me.

 

[Rahul]

I still think Burnham's way would've been the wrong way. For reasons I've explained ad-nauseam. The short version: The Klingons wanted war anyway. [Highlight mine] If Georgiou listened to Burnham, the Klingons wouldn't have backed down, they would've retaliated. The situation with the Vulcans wasn't the same and Burnham couldn't recognize that the situation was different. The Klingon Empire (which was still whole) didn't want a war with Vulcan. They were just picking on them. T'Kuvma's faction of the Klingons wanted a war with the Federation to unite the Empire no matter what and the justification for it didn't matter. Either everything the Federation said was lies or they fired first. Whatever worked for them, T'Kuvma could spin it to his crowd like Red Meat.

Yes, I side with Georgiou in this argument. So sue me.

To counter: "The Klingons" didn't want war. T'Kuvma wanted war, to unite the Empire. The rest of the Klingon house leaders were happy fighting each other for dominance, with no need to swear allegiance to a higher authority than themselves. T'Kuvma's plan hinged on shining the signal to get back-up, to involve all major Klingon factions in a fight with the Federation. A plan that wouldn't have worked, if the Shenzhou simply had blasted T'Kuvma's ship until either side had to retreat. The show pretty much makes it clear Burnham was right all alone, just no one listened to her.

Now I personally rather agree with you: The "Vulcan hello" would have been the wrong approach. Not just because the reason it would have had worked are purely incidental, but simply from a morality standpoint. As long as there's no open war, firing first is not "the Starfleet way". Sadly the show was rather murky about it.

 

[Noname Given]

To counter: "The Klingons" didn't want war. T'Kuvma wanted war, to unite the Empire. The rest of the Klingon house leaders were happy fighting each other for dominance, with no need to swear allegiance to a higher authority than themselves. T'Kuvma's plan hinged on shining the signal to get back-up, to involve all major Klingon factions in a fight with the Federation. A plan that wouldn't have worked, if the Shenzhou simply had blasted T'Kuvma's ship until either side had to retreat. The show pretty much makes it clear Burnham was right all alone, just no one listened to her.

Now I personally rather agree with you: The "Vulcan hello" would have been the wrong approach. Not just because the reason it would have had worked are purely incidental, but simply from a morality standpoint. As long as there's no open war, firing first is not "the Starfleet way". Sadly the show was rather murky about it.

No, Burnham's "Vulcan Hello" wouldn't have worked in THIS situation. You are` right in that T'Kuvma WANTED a war; and no matter what happened, had he lived, he would have gotten it (the fact he agreed to a cease fire and then IMMEDIATELY destroyed the Admiral's ship in an open aggresive act shows he was going to get his war no matter what) and unified most (not all - as there was one Klingon house leader didn't want to follow T'Kuvma; and probably would have stirred up internal trouble during the war.

Burnham WAS right in that had they captured T'Kuvma - they would have had a bargaining chip to end the war quickly - but when she killed him, that did make him a Martyr, gave Kor the opportunity to increase his claim to leaad the Empire; and gave the Klingons (as an Empire) a 'wrong' to avenge.

But as to the initial siituation - NO ONE on the Federation's side was 'right' in that Diplomacy wouldn't work, nor would giving the Klingon's a 'Bloody Nose' - T'Kuvma manipulated everything to GET a war because he saw that as a way to consolidated power and unite the fragmented Klingon Empire under ONE Emperor - Himself.

Burnham's actions didn't cause the war at all - (we the audience know that as we saw exactly what both sides were up to); BUT, she believed she did, and WORSE, those actions directly lead to her Captain's (and surrogate mother's death) - and she again felt responsible for a parent's death the way she did when she was younger (because she asked her parents to delay the vacation so she could see a phenomena and if she hadn't they wouldn't have been present for the Klingon Raid that they died in.)

 

[Rahul]

No, Burnham's "Vulcan Hello" wouldn't have worked in THIS situation. You are` right in that T'Kuvma WANTED a war; and no matter what happened, had he lived, he would have gotten it (the fact he agreed to a cease fire and then IMMEDIATELY destroyed the Admiral's ship in an open aggresive act shows he was going to get his war no matter what) and unified most (not all - as there was one Klingon house leader didn't want to follow T'Kuvma; and probably would have stirred up internal trouble during the war.

Burnham WAS right in that had they captured T'Kuvma - they would have had a bargaining chip to end the war quickly - but when she killed him, that did make him a Martyr, gave Kor the opportunity to increase his claim to leaad the Empire; and gave the Klingons (as an Empire) a 'wrong' to avenge.

But as to the initial siituation - NO ONE on the Federation's side was 'right' in that Diplomacy wouldn't work, nor would giving the Klingon's a 'Bloody Nose' - T'Kuvma manipulated everything to GET a war because he saw that as a way to consolidated power and unite the fragmented Klingon Empire under ONE Emperor - Himself.

Thing is: All of that wouldn't have worked had T'Kuvma not lit up the beacon before. Had the Federation just blasted them for approaching their space, the other Klingons wouldn't have been involved - they would have simply gotten the message not to cross the Federation border while doing their own little skirmishes - which would have been exactly the status quo. It was a weird stance the show took here, but it did. Kinda'.

Burnham's actions didn't cause the war at all.

Which was the main problem, becauser the show treated it as such, while at the same time being very adamant about Burnham never actrually having done something truly wrong, but still have a sort-of kinda' redemption arc for the season. Which never really played out anyway (she just did her job, until everything was forgiven).

 

[Noname Given]

Which was the main problem, becauser the show treated it as such, while at the same time being very adamant about Burnham never actrually having done something truly wrong, but still have a sort-of kinda' redemption arc for the season. Which never really played out anyway (she just did her job, until everything was forgiven).

If by the above, you're saying The Federation treated it as such - YES, the Federation didn't based on the facts it knew. (We the audience saw a fuller picture - but no, based on what the Federation knew about the incident, yes - they believed her actions caused the war. That's all part of Burnham's 'tragedy'.

As to the show stating Burnham 'hadn't done anything wrong' - no; I can't agree in that she DID wantonly disobey her Captain's lawful orders. <---- THat is WRONG no matter how you look at it. Usually when this has happened in past Star trek shows, it leads to one of two things:

- Said character was openly and unequivocally 'wrong' and as a result lives were lost (and such loss could have been avoided if they didn't disobey).

- Yes, the character was 'technically wrong' to do so; but was morally/objectively 'right' because he she was effectively countermanding a poor/bad decision and saved lives -- and further as a result, said offence is forgiven and/or forgotten.

Here for the FIRST TIME in Star Trek we saw an actual "No Win Scenario" (as far as the Federation goals are concerned) play out in that whether or not Burnham did what she did, the Fededration was going to have a war it didn't want. Further NEITHER of the two characters involved where making stupid/bad decisions in how they wanted to respond to the Klingon actions. Burham's decision to knock out the Captain so she could implement her decision was absolutely wrong only because in the end; the decision as to the ultimate type of response to make - WASN'T HER'S TO MAKE; and that's the only reason she was ultimately 'wrong' here.

In fact, had Burham followed the Captain's order, they probably still would have ended up in a similar situation (IE "Let's try to capture T'Kuvma...") and the rest of the events still could have played out as they did with Georgiou being killled; and on see ing this, Burnham succumbing to her emotional reaction and killing T'Kuvma.

But she wouldn't have been seen as: "The mutineer who took out her Captain at a critical moment; and as a result, started the war."

 

[Cyrus]

We the audience saw a fuller picture

Don't know if it was intended or not, but that is a good pun.

 

[Rahul]

Here for the FIRST TIME in Star Trek we saw an actual "No Win Scenario" (as far as the Federation goals are concerned) play out in that whether or not Burnham did what she did, the Fededration was going to have a war it didn't want. Further NEITHER of the two characters involved where making stupid/bad decisions in how they wanted to respond to the Klingon actions. Burham's decision to knock out the Captain so she could implement her decision was absolutely wrong only because in the end; the decision as to the ultimate type of response to make - WASN'T HER'S TO MAKE; and that's the only reason she was ultimately 'wrong' here.

In fact, had Burham followed the Captain's order, they probably still would have ended up in a similar situation (IE "Let's try to capture T'Kuvma...") and the rest of the events still could have played out as they did with Georgiou being killled; and on see ing this, Burnham succumbing to her emotional reaction and killing T'Kuvma.

But she wouldn't have been seen as: "The mutineer who took out her Captain at a critical moment; and as a result, started the war."

1. This wasn't a "no win scenario". There was a clear and obvious way to win: Doing the "Vulcan Hello". That would have prevented the beacon being lit and the klingons fighting united. The only failure of the protagonist was not being able to convince her superiour to do it, and then trying to take matters in her own hand via mutiny.
   
2. And yes, the mutiny itself had absolutely no consequences - after they failed the "Vulcan Hello", Burnham and Georgiou went back to working together, and all events would have played out exactly the same way even if Burnham had stayed on the bridge and accepted Georgious command in the first place. This is bad screenwriting. It was only there to have the shocking "twist" of Burnham being punished at the end, to jump-start a redemption arc, without actually having ever done anything wrong that needed redemption (Clear contrast to Tom Paris, whith what he did had way less severe consequences, but was actually much more morally wrong)

 

[Tuskin38]

There was a clear and obvious way to win: Doing the "Vulcan Hello".

There is no proof of that, that's just conjecture.

T'Kuvma wanted a war, destroying the beacon (a sacred artifact to the Klingons BTW) would have still provoked him and the rest of the empire.

 

[Noname Given]

1. This wasn't a "no win scenario". There was a clear and obvious way to win: Doing the "Vulcan Hello". That would have prevented the beacon being lit and the klingons fighting united. The only failure of the protagonist was not being able to convince her superiour to do it, and then trying to take matters in her own hand via mutiny.
   
2. And yes, the mutiny itself had absolutely no consequences - after they failed the "Vulcan Hello", Burnham and Georgiou went back to working together, and all events would have played out exactly the same way even if Burnham had stayed on the bridge and accepted Georgious command in the first place. This is bad screenwriting. It was only there to have the shocking "twist" of Burnham being punished at the end, to jump-start a redemption arc, without actually having ever done anything wrong that needed redemption (Clear contrast to Tom Paris, whith what he did had way less severe consequences, but was actually much more morally wrong)

IMO - If they did do a "Vulcan Hello"; T'Kuvma would have pivoted and said - "Look, the Humans are openly challenging the Klingon Empire..." (This is why Sarek's caution of "You can't assume our response will work for this situation..." is prophetic.

 

[Rahul]

IMO - If they did do a "Vulcan Hello"; T'Kuvma would have pivoted and said - "Look, the Humans are openly challenging the Klingon Empire..." (This is why Sarek's caution of "You can't assume our response will work for this situation..." is prophetic.

Oh yeah, he definitely would have tried.
But there's no guarantee he would have been successfull in any way. Considering how all the other Klingons tried to ignore him in the first place, it took quite a LOT of luck on his part that all the puzzle pieces fell so perfectly together. Had the beacon not been lit before shots were fired, the other Klingons wouldn't have taken his side. That would probably have been the deciding factor.

There is no proof of that, that's just conjecture.

T'Kuvma wanted a war, destroying the beacon (a sacred artifact to the Klingons BTW) would have still provoked him and the rest of the empire.

Not talking about blowing up the beacon btw, but firing at the Klingon Dracula ship of T'Kuvma, after it was obvious the attack on the Federation satellite was a trap.

And yeah, this is purely speculation. We don't know what would have happened, because the writers needed quite a lot of coincidences to have the current outcome, they probably would have put enough in to get whatever outcome they wanted in any case. But the show DOES clearly make the suggestion that "The Vulcan Hello" would have been a viable alternative, and considering the current outcome was the worst possible one (but also a very unlikely one), it's not unreasonable to think that any other approach would have yielded a different, probably better outcome.

Note that this is a position the show took, not me. i think firing first would have been a stupid choice. But the show was clearly treated this as an acceptable option.

This is the main reason why Burnhams "redemption" didn't really work for me - Because the show portrayed her to be right (or at least not wrong), and everything she actually did (the mutiny) - while stupid - had no measurable effect on the actual outcome of the situation whatsoever, and was immediately forgotten by her Captain. It just felt very contrived.

 

[Tuskin38]

But the show was clearly considering this as an acceptable choice.

But it really doesn't. The end of the season even goes against this with Burnham coming to believe in starfleet's idea of 'Coming in peace'.

 

[Rahul]

But it really doesn't. The end of the season even goes against this with Burnham coming to believe in starfleet's 'Coming in peace'.

After they "won" by using the threat of total genocide, by blowing up the entire fucking klingon homeworld. Clearly the absolute opposite of "coming in peace". Yet the sole reason they actually saved the day in the end.

So yeah, the show was really, really confused about what it wanted to say, and on the other hand what was shown to actually work. Which is one of my main gripes with it - especially in the Burnham arc.

 

[Tuskin38]

Except Burnham stopped them from actually doing it.