What's so great about Pike?
- Thread starter Succubint
- Start date
He's not a drag or a nuisance to watch, which means he stands out in this group.
To me, a show is only as strong as its cast, particularly its lead. And while it may be the writing/direction, SMG has no charisma onscreen (but TONS off). I don't think it's wrong to say Anson Mount has more charisma than SMG. I don't think it's wrong to say Anthony Rapp, Doug Jones, or Mary Wiseman have more charisma than SMG. Every Star Trek lead has more charisma than SMG, EVEN SCOTT BAKULA (but that's a close one).
Burnham is the show's main problem. I can't help think what another actress could do with the role. That's not an insult, really. We all know how much outrageousness Billy Campbell brought to the role of Captain Thadiun Okona...but William Thomas Riker he was not.
Burnham is the show's main problem. I can't help think what another actress could do with the role. That's not an insult, really. We all know how much outrageousness Billy Campbell brought to the role of Captain Thadiun Okona...but William Thomas Riker he was not.
This is definitely a perception thing. I prefer SMG over Bakula by far.
Maybe like the Enterprise it was mostly one species. Though I guess Spock would have said "Captain, the Intrepid. It just died. And the four hundred Vulcans aboard, all dead. Oh and also five humans, two Andorians, a Tellerite and what might be a Saurian."
That was quite some time ago.She committed to four seasons of ENT, so I don't see why she wouldn't do so here.
Indeed. Even Spock probably hasn't memorised the complete crew manifest of every ship in the fleet, and he would have telepathically only felt the death of the Vulcans.
I would argue that in many strong casts the lead does not have to be your traditional charismatic character. Often amazing shows have leads that serve to ground the show, as its central journeyer, finding her way not as its charmer/patriarch who everyone is supposed to look up to. I agree SMG isn't the most charismatic character on the show and she doesn't have to be because that's not her role or purpose, she's more like us, not a 'role model' archtype. Of course, this is something that many fans have trouble handling as well. They expect a Kirk, a Sisko, a Picard as the lead, and instead they are getting something closer to a Spock, a Chakotey, a Ro, a Bashir, a complicated conflicted character at a stage in life where they are still figuring things out. Such characters have usually been put in the corner in past series, because Star Trek has been about providing answers more than it has asking questions. Great modern shows, like 12 Monkeys, The Man in the High Castle, Black Sails, Legion and others also have gone this route, and have been amazing shows as a result. Why? Because they aren't pandering to their audiences, not telling giving them answers on a silver platter, but instead challenging them. Are you up to being challenged by Star Trek?
Last edited:
I'm sorry but Bakula is the worst lead the Trek franchise has had, in my opinion. And I love him in Quantum Leap. He was just miscast as Archer. SMG is far more relatable to me. Michael is not perfect, but she's trying to come to terms with who she is, who she wants to be and what she believes in. She's not the captain, so she has a different skill-set and role to play in the narrative. Bakula had this weird cadence, where it seemed he was just reading the lines. There was no spark there. It wasn't a good fit for him. Then the writers gave him stupid situations where Archer came off as an asshole like in A Night in Sickbay. Also the episode where he hijacked that civilian ship and stole their ship part, thus stranding them for years possibly, because his mission was more important. 
So much for those Federation ideals.
So much for those Federation ideals.
Didn't Jolene express no interest in continuing acting?
I completely agree. I don't see SMG as a Kirk or Picard or some sort of idealization. I find her very relatable. and interesting to see what is going to happen to her.
Couldn't have said it better myself. One step further though, I didn't even consider him "ruined." I liked everything about him.
Same here. Very little of Star Trek or characters are ruined for me.
I actually thought how he turned out was both tragic and fitting. He couldn't change his nature. All that time spent in our universe surrounded by a better way of living, and he was still not able to break free of his most base instincts. Like Burnham said to him "if you would have asked, we would have helped you," but he never even considered it. It just wasn't part of his make-up to trust or to change
I wonder if MU Georgeau will fare better?
I agree that Bakula is the weakest lead of any Trek series. Nothing against him personally. I really liked Quantum Leap, but Archer left a lot to be desired. I did like his take on the character better when he went dark in Season 3 though. I don't fully blame Bakula for Archer; I mean, I can imagine studio interference resulted in a lackluster, too safe, character.
When it comes to Burnham, I feel that in previous shows she would've been the outsider character that potentially became the breakout or scene stealing character who can have unique insights into the human condition or allow for exploration of their unique non-human culture/lives (Spock, Data, Worf, Odo, Quark, Seven of Nine, The Doctor, T'Pol, etc.), but for Discovery, they've put her in the lead, and I don't think we are used to this kind of character also being the lead character in a show. Also I don't know if the writers have quite gotten a handle on how to make a Trek series based mostly on an individual character and not an ensemble show. Even TOS and ENT, the least ensemble-focused of the series, still weren't as focused on one character's journey like Discovery Season 1 has been. (I wonder if this approach will also apply to the Picard series as well).
I think in Season 1, the other characters were supporting characters and treated as such and that has caused some disquiet, as well as some nerd rage, in some corners of the fandom.
Considering what little I've seen of Pike (only the first episode so far), he's sort of in that outsider, side character lane (though more so for the curiosity factor about him due to his place in Trek history) and that frees up the writers perhaps, unlike with Burnham, who both has the outsider status but also the weight of carrying an entire series on a level that other Trek leads have not, because the ensemble concept spread the story/character development around. From what I've heard of Discovery Season 2 we are getting more of that this season with Tilly and Stamets-Culber, and so Discovery could end up being an ensemble series like the others during this season or by the end of its run.
When it comes to Burnham, I feel that in previous shows she would've been the outsider character that potentially became the breakout or scene stealing character who can have unique insights into the human condition or allow for exploration of their unique non-human culture/lives (Spock, Data, Worf, Odo, Quark, Seven of Nine, The Doctor, T'Pol, etc.), but for Discovery, they've put her in the lead, and I don't think we are used to this kind of character also being the lead character in a show. Also I don't know if the writers have quite gotten a handle on how to make a Trek series based mostly on an individual character and not an ensemble show. Even TOS and ENT, the least ensemble-focused of the series, still weren't as focused on one character's journey like Discovery Season 1 has been. (I wonder if this approach will also apply to the Picard series as well).
I think in Season 1, the other characters were supporting characters and treated as such and that has caused some disquiet, as well as some nerd rage, in some corners of the fandom.
Considering what little I've seen of Pike (only the first episode so far), he's sort of in that outsider, side character lane (though more so for the curiosity factor about him due to his place in Trek history) and that frees up the writers perhaps, unlike with Burnham, who both has the outsider status but also the weight of carrying an entire series on a level that other Trek leads have not, because the ensemble concept spread the story/character development around. From what I've heard of Discovery Season 2 we are getting more of that this season with Tilly and Stamets-Culber, and so Discovery could end up being an ensemble series like the others during this season or by the end of its run.
Aside from the season one premier her character has very little agency.
Yes. It tells you that a good writer coupled with a good performance can take a bland character and make them compelling. It also speaks to the psychology of certain members of the audience watching and how they want their nostalgia to be massaged.
Seriously? I guess the season one premier was the last episode you watched.
I'd like to see them switch to the yellow/red/blue Discoprise costumes. As for the original TOS outfits, that's never gonna happen.
Completely disagree. I haven't even kept up on the most recent season, aside episode 1 and 2, and can point towards her agency there.
Similar threads
