Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x02 - "New Eden"

[fireproof78]

Whether intentional or not, it's more humorous than Joe Piscopo. Then again, what isn't?

I've seen road signs that are more funny, and unintentionally so.

 

[Succubint]

Isn't subjective taste fun?

 

[fireproof78]

Isn't subjective taste fun?

 

[Succubint]

That's hilarious considering that I'm rewatching M*A*S*H* at the moment. Great segue. Connolly is like Frank Burns. People found it funny every time he assholed himself into bad situations, too. Doesn't mean the writers were needlessly meanspirited. They intended for him to be the butt of jokes because he was clearly a foil to Hawkeye and Trapper and later BJ.

Yes, DISCO isn't primarily a comedy, but the point still stands. Audiences tend to root for bad guys to get a little karma. And in high stakes sci fi, that can mean a very pointed death. Still, the characters on the show did not chuckle, or chortle or smirk, they reacted accordingly. Some of us enjoyed a moment of schadenfreude. That doesn't mean we'd do same if the situation were real, not fiction. Some of us didn't enjoy the scene. That's okay too.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I find it odd that people are upset about it.

 

[fireproof78]

I find it odd that people think it was meant to be enjoyable.

What's the line between satisfaction at the comeuppance schadenfreude?

 

[Succubint]

Let's just agree to disagree and move on. As I said before this seems a circular argument. It's been explained countless times why it's amusing to some and gives a kind of macabre satisfaction which is often labelled schadenfreude. Connolly's death was an often used trope. If you, personally, can't understand that, okay cool. Acknowledged.

Why belabor it further?

 

[Alan Roi]

Audiences tend to root for bad guys to get a little karma..

Of course they do. But... It depends on who any particular portion of the audience thinks are the bad guys, doesn't it?

Heck, while I am loathe to bring up a certain knockoff, even the writers of the Orville recognize that truth by having a certain character state she considered Belloq was the hero of Raiders of the Lost Ark. For her, it wasn't the bad guy who got his comeuppance.

 

[Spectre Of The Fun]

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.

No this isn't true. At least it isn't true of me.

 

[Succubint]

This is true. We all choose our own bad guys and good guys. Which explains a lot, when you think about it. I think it's clear, though, who the writers intended us to root for and who they intended us to roll our collective eyes at. Connolly didn't just mansplain and monologue at Burnham, he also disobeyed Pike. He was clearly meant to be in the wrong and paid for his arrogance.

If he'd seen the error of his ways and apologized to Burnham later, it would have reinforced the cries of her being a know it all Mary Sue. The writers chose to lean in on the "arrogant douche gets his comeuppance." Since it's fiction, some of us are okay with that amusing karmic lesson.

 

[Noname Given]

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.

Good god, people are taking the show TOO SERIOUSLY. Hell, if fans analyzed EVERY Blue/Red Shirt death in TOS in this manner, you'd have people saying "Kirk loves to watch his crew die." OR "Man GR LOVES to kill characters on his show." It was a TOS style 'guest character' death. Nothing more.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Good god, people are taking the show TOO SERIOUSLY.

You new to this?

 

[fireproof78]

Let's just agree to disagree and move on. As I said before this seems a circular argument. It's been explained countless times why it's amusing to some and gives a kind of macabre satisfaction which is often labelled schadenfreude. Connolly's death was an often used trope. If you, personally, can't understand that, okay cool. Acknowledged.

Why belabor it further?

A, because this is interesting to me and a peek in to other poster's psyche. It's, as Spock would say, fascinating.

Secondly, it isn't that people find it funny, as I previously explained. It's the malice ascribed to the writers that I find both confusing and inexplicable. The fact that individuals keep saying, "Whelp, I can't explain it to you so just forget about it" is not helpful.

 

[Michael]

Fan speculation because he was explaining himself to Burnham in a condescending tone.

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.

What I meant was, who suggested this as a serious concept purposely put in by the writers?

 

[fireproof78]

What I meant was, who suggested this as a serious concept purposely put in by the writers?

That I haven't seen. Just accusations of malice on the part of the writers for how the character died and played it for laughs.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I’m not at all sure that the death was intended to be any kind of “message” to Michael detractors. Case in point, these same writers who some accuse of playing favorites with Burnham now seem to be placing her in jeopardy of being overshadowed by both Pike and Saru. She is quite dull by comparison. Which is a shame, IMO. Anyone who’s seen her in The Walking Dead knows she can act.

 

[Michael]

That I haven't seen.

Then why would you bring it up if no-one suggested it as a motive of the writers?

Just accusations of malice on the part of the writers for how the character died and played it for laughs.

“Malice”? How the hell are you ascribing “malice” to the writers for killing off this character in a slightly humorous way?

 

[cooleddie74]

He was an obnoxious mansplainer who got spattered on the side of an asteroid. He's not the first junior or senior officer with one-dimensional development that's gotten killed off in Trek and he probably won't be the last.

How are we still arguing about this? Funny or not, he got killed because he was expendable and obnoxious. Had Tig Notaro's character been the one killed this forum would be going up in an explosion bigger than the Tsar Bomba. Sheesh, I'm a hardcore fan who can pedant with the best of them but how is this still going on page after page?

 

[Awesome Possum]

I find it odd that people think it was meant to be enjoyable.

What's the line between satisfaction at the comeuppance schadenfreude?

I don’t think anyone really found it to be enjoyable, at least not in the sense that his death was satisfying. That’s really reading into people’s intentions and trying to make them into monsters.

To me he was an expendable and an arrogant jerk, I take no joy from his death but it also did bother me in the slightest. He’s like the asshole victim in a horror movie.

 

[fireproof78]

Then why would you bring it up if no-one suggested it as a motive of the writers?


“Malice”? How the hell are you ascribing “malice” to the writers for killing off this character in a slightly humorous way?

I'm just commenting on what I have read thus far and what is confusing me. I'm not ascribing malice. I'm seeing malice being ascribed.

I don’t think anyone really found it to be enjoyable, at least not in the sense that his death was satisfying. That’s really reading into people’s intentions and trying to make them into monsters.

To me he was an expendable and an arrogant jerk, I take no joy from him death but it also did bother me in the slightest.

I'm just responding to what I'm reading. I'm not trying to make people monsters-I'm trying to understand...apparently not very well.