Thus far, it has not been obvious to me.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x02 - "New Eden"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I really can't help with that.
Obviously
Exactly.
Well, throughout the franchise we have seen the lead characters as competent star fleet officers who also effectively assess the level of competency of the people around them. They have also also regularly been challenged and the challengers are regularly shown the error of their way, sometimes by dying, because the shows lead has to be right most of the time, that is how the show works and work from the pilot to Enterprises final ep. In this way, Burnham is little different than her predecessors.
The difference here is the expansion of social media and the personal agendas with regard to the series chosen lead do to current cultural issues magnifies any perceived nascent wrongdoing on the part of the writing staff when they are most likely merely dropping Star Trek tropes into a Star Trek episode and just that.
Ex Astris Scientia/Bernd Schneider points out in his episode review that Burnham appeared younger in the Learning Center flashback than in the moving-in flashback, and ops to disregard the “New Eden” older-child Burnham.
Any ideas why the season 1 actress may not have been reused, other than availability?
Any ideas why the season 1 actress may not have been reused, other than availability?
Huh, where does the idea of him being an ”audience surrogate“ come from? I didn‘t get that at all from the episode.
It‘s the same actress in both seasons.
Fan speculation because he was explaining himself to Burnham in a condescending tone.
It really says something about fans interpreting Connolly that way.
"He challenged Burnham and then gets killed! That's the writers sending a message to critics of Burnham!!!"
It almost makes me wish Burnham expressed joy out of his death just to see more outraged reactions from that group of fans. Almost.
The idea comes from the audience members who don't like Burnham and especially those who don't want her as the shows main characrer and wish to see her put in a corner, at best, in favor of another, or any other character. He was their surrogate.
I find it amusing people are speculating on how S2 flashback Burnham looks older than S1 flashback Burnham. Well, duh, they liked the original actress and reused her, but sadly didn't have a time machine available to de-age her.
Different hair aside, I didn't really think she looked too much older than she did in S1. Eventually they will have to stop flashing back to that earlier point of time or recast with another young actress. It's a big reason why the character of Walt was written out of LOST.
I find it amusing people are speculating on how S2 flashback Burnham looks older than S1 flashback Burnham. Well, duh, they liked the original actress and reused her, but sadly didn't have a time machine available to de-age her.
Its 2019. People think you can Benjamin Button anyone. They forget when they are watching Discovery that even though it looks like a feature film every week, it doesn't really have that kind of budget.
Wouldn't be worth the outrage. You think people think the death was poorly handled now...
I don't think that Connolly was meant as some message that anti-Burnham fans deserve to die or anything. I do think that he was meant to be purposefully annoying - including mansplaining to Burnham. I also think the implication - that it's okay and even a bit funny that he died because he was an arrogant jerk - is pretty mean spirited. I might accept that from a jokey horror film or something, but I don't like it in Trek. It's even worse than just glossing over the death of an extra and acting like it's no big deal, IMHO.
That said, this is not an issue I care much about, quite honestly.
That said, this is not an issue I care much about, quite honestly.
Yes.
Which, in my opinion, Connolly's death wasn't glossed over. The humor seems to be read in to it, and doesn't strike me as intentional.
This sums up my feelings on the matter. But I'd add that I found Discovery to be an ugly show in season one, and I hope they steer away from that in season two. This particular red shirt death, on its own, may not be a big deal, but there's a cumulative effect to this sort of thing.
Besides that, as has been noted, this trope has been done to death elsewhere, and that alone is reason enough to avoid it.
Whether intentional or not, it's more humorous than Joe Piscopo. Then again, what isn't?
I disagree. I think the writers, the DP, special effects guys and editors all clearly intended for this be a "guy gets amusingly karma'd" moment. Do I think they intended for people to find it laugh out loud funny? No. Do I think they intended for those who've encountered frustrating mansplaining and egotistical douches in the workplace to get a fleeting satisfaction or amusement at a fictional asshole's comeuppance? Hell, yes.
Why is it important to argue whether it was or wasn't intentional. What difference does it make?
Why is it important to argue whether it was or wasn't intentional. What difference does it make?
I would say another obvious purpose in between those two was to be an annoyance. So it makes sense that the writers would embody him with characteristics they would find annoying, and/or imagine their intended audience would find so.
The entitled, the smug, naysayers, armchair critics, co-workers who believe themselves more qualified or competent than they actually are, general grumps and wet blankets, and so forth...we all know such people. (Some of us even are such people, and know it.) Those of us seeing a resemblance to one or more of them (or to ourselves) in Connolly may indeed be "reading in," yet whether it's "too far" to be a plausible and logical reading is debatable. Of course, only the writers themselves could tell us whether they had any particular association consciously in mind while writing the role, just as only the director and actor could say if they did while directing and acting it out. (But would they? And what if the association were unconscious, or subconscious?)
To draw connections (intended or otherwise) between a piece of writing and the circumstances surrounding its creation is not necessarily to impute an "ulterior motive" to anyone involved. For that, see those who seem to have taken it as some sort of statement that white men should all be treated like worthless disposables (as opposed to merely being no less expendable than anyone else) or whatever other nonsense.
-MMoM
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
