Why wasn't it obvious the Klingons would have attacked anyway?

[JirinPanthosa]

Killing T'Kuvma was emotional, but her desire to fire first was very rational. She judged, based on her knowledge of the Klingons, this is what would lead to peace. I don't think it was inept so much as she didn't have enough time to pull it off more carefully.

I don't think it's so much that Starfleet needed a scapegoat, so much that Burnham was easy to blame as she violated Starfleet ethics. Firing first, disabling your Captain, is sacrilege to the Church of Federation Utopianism.

One thing I did like about the premiere was how T'Kuvma talked about 'We come in peace'. It had implications of what some would call American cultural imperialism. They didn't come for war, they came to create conformity, which to T'Kuvma is a form of aggression greater than war. Georgiu's big mistake was being so committed to the forementioned religion that she couldn't possibly conceive that their message of peace could possibly be construed that way.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

I had a much harder time late in the first season where the implied that the Klingons were having stunning military success against the Federation with all of the different houses just randomly attacking whatever the hell they wanted in an uncoordinated fashion. Worse, they directly said that the Klingons were doing better than they had been doing before Discovery vanished. It implied no one understood one thing about strategy, and logistics - because ultimately those are the things that result in winning a war, not battle-to-battle tactics.

I see it as a question of priorities and values. For the Vidiians, the development of medical tech was paramount, so theirs was very advanced. But they didn't have other technology like transporters.

For the Klingons, war was glorious and always a priority, and weapons tech like the cloaking device were a means of leverage and gaining loyalty, so they had even more incentives to develop it. And some of their methods were difficult to defend against, like when 1 ship blew itself up to destroy a starbase along with the ships docked there.

I don't think a Starfleet budget would've passed in peacetime that devoted the same amount of resources to weaponry as the Klingons did.

 

[fireproof78]

Killing T'Kuvma was emotional, but her desire to fire first was very rational. She judged, based on her knowledge of the Klingons, this is what would lead to peace. I don't think it was inept so much as she didn't have enough time to pull it off more carefully.

Her desire to fire first was rational. Her knocking her captain out and attempting to take over the ship was not. That's irrational.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Her desire to fire first was rational. Her knocking her captain out and attempting to take over the ship was not. That's irrational.

I'm not sure about that. Sure, it was a bad plan, but from her point of view at the time, with the options she had, the solution most likely to prevent loss of life.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not sure about that. Sure, it was a bad plan, but from her point of view at the time, with the options she had, the solution most likely to prevent loss of life.

That doesn't make it rational.

 

[eschaton]

Killing T'Kuvma was emotional, but her desire to fire first was very rational. She judged, based on her knowledge of the Klingons, this is what would lead to peace. I don't think it was inept so much as she didn't have enough time to pull it off more carefully.

I don't know if her desire to shoot first was rational or rationalizing. I felt like if the writers were saying anything coherent about Michael's character in the first season, it's that she's a deeply repressed person - someone who is actually more emotionally fragile and impulsive than the average human, but due to her Vulcan upbringing she manages to convince herself that she's acting with perfect logic when she's actually motivated in many cases by fear and hatred.

One thing I did like about the premiere was how T'Kuvma talked about 'We come in peace'. It had implications of what some would call American cultural imperialism. They didn't come for war, they came to create conformity, which to T'Kuvma is a form of aggression greater than war. Georgiu's big mistake was being so committed to the forementioned religion that she couldn't possibly conceive that their message of peace could possibly be construed that way.

I dunno. I sort of feel like the Klingon scenes dragged so much that it almost would have been better if they cut them all out of the prologue other than when T'Kuvma spoke over viewscreen. It would have added more mystery/menace to the situation.

I see it as a question of priorities and values. For the Vidiians, the development of medical tech was paramount, so theirs was very advanced. But they didn't have other technology like transporters.

For the Klingons, war was glorious and always a priority, and weapons tech like the cloaking device were a means of leverage and gaining loyalty, so they had even more incentives to develop it. And some of their methods were difficult to defend against, like when 1 ship blew itself up to destroy a starbase along with the ships docked there.

I don't think a Starfleet budget would've passed in peacetime that devoted the same amount of resources to weaponry as the Klingons did.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. A major part of winning a war isn't just destroying your enemies military equipment, but successfully occupying them and sending in supplies (food, ammunition, etc) to keep your troops alive and fighting. The way that things were presented in the series it seemed more like the Klingons were acting like raiders than an invading army, engaging in smash 'n grab. This makes sense with the Klingon MO - which is about finding "glory and honor in battle" - but it shouldn't have set the Federation back that much, unless you want us to think the Federation during this period is more late Imperial Rome than space America. And even in that case, it's notable that the "barbarians" that defeated Rome settled within its lands.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't know if her desire to shoot first was rational or rationalizing. I felt like if the writers were saying anything coherent about Michael's character in the first season, it's that she's a deeply repressed person - someone who is actually more emotionally fragile and impulsive than the average human, but due to her Vulcan upbringing she manages to convince herself that she's acting with perfect logic when she's actually motivated in many cases by fear and hatred.

On this point I agree and think you are quite on point regarding Michael's character.

 

[eschaton]

On this point I agree and think you are quite on point regarding Michael's character.

Yeah. She had a decent character arc too. Except they seemed to move away from "stoic Michael" early on in the first season (maybe because it didn't play to SMG's strengths) and what happened in the MU didn't really have much to do with her character arc at all - it was just a lot of random stuff (mostly emotional torture) happening to her.

 

[DaveyNY]

That doesn't make it rational.

She wasn't trying to be Rational, she was attempting to be Logical.
(and failing miserably)

 

[Lord Garth]

She wasn't trying to be Rational, she was attempting to be Logical.

Neither here nor there, but this sounds dead-on like a line that could've come from a TOS episode.

 

[fireproof78]

She wasn't trying to be Rational, she was attempting to be Logical.
(and failing miserably)

That's fair.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I had a much harder time late in the first season where the implied that the Klingons were having stunning military success against the Federation with all of the different houses just randomly attacking whatever the hell they wanted in an uncoordinated fashion. Worse, they directly said that the Klingons were doing better than they had been doing before Discovery vanished. It implied no one understood one thing about strategy, and logistics - because ultimately those are the things that result in winning a war, not battle-to-battle tactics.

I suppose you could put this down to Starfleet being more of an expeditionary group than a defense force during the early to mid 23rd century. The last war Starfleet participated in was against the Romulans 90 years prior. Just based on Ensign Connor's reaction to the battle it's possible there was massive shift in those 90 years towards teaching science, exploration and diplomacy at the academy which I think came at the expense of military training. Had Starfleet been more militaristic or had more battle experienced commanding officers, the Klingons random, free-for-all attacks probably would have failed.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

Yeah. She had a decent character arc too. Except they seemed to move away from "stoic Michael" early on in the first season (maybe because it didn't play to SMG's strengths) and what happened in the MU didn't really have much to do with her character arc at all - it was just a lot of random stuff (mostly emotional torture) happening to her.

Oh how dearly I wish that character arc existed in the show itself!

There are fragments, but only in the way that you can break down any story into pieces and make it sound like a different genre (describing Home Alone as a horror film, etc).

You can make it sound solid when you put it in words, but it takes a real deep squint to actually watch Home Alone and see A horror film, and that's exactly what people who "aren't confused" by the season one writing are doing.

It's not confusing, it's muddled, which isn't the same.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

You can make it sound solid when you put it in words, but it takes a real deep squint to actually watch Home Alone and see A horror film, and that's exactly what people who "aren't confused" by the season one writing are doing.

Or you know, people aren't confused by the writing. No need to be so dismissive and disparaging of people who enjoy the show.

 

[The Wormhole]

Georgiou gets killed in a fair fight

Getting a huge ass fucking sword swung through her back and out her chest by someone twice her size isn't exactly what I consider a "fair fight."

 

[Tim Thomason]

I suppose you could put this down to Starfleet being more of an expeditionary group than a defense force during the early to mid 23rd century. The last war Starfleet participated in was against the Romulans 90 years prior. Just based on Ensign Connor's reaction to the battle it's possible there was massive shift in those 90 years towards teaching science, exploration and diplomacy at the academy which I think came at the expense of military training. Had Starfleet been more militaristic or had more battle experienced commanding officers, the Klingons random, free-for-all attacks probably would have failed.

But, but the Sheliak...

Anyway, Michael committed mutiny by conspiring with Sarek over psychic projection. Sarek stayed out of trouble due to diplomatic immunity.

 

[eschaton]

Oh how dearly I wish that character arc existed in the show itself!

There are fragments, but only in the way that you can break down any story into pieces and make it sound like a different genre (describing Home Alone as a horror film, etc).

You can make it sound solid when you put it in words, but it takes a real deep squint to actually watch Home Alone and see A horror film, and that's exactly what people who "aren't confused" by the season one writing are doing.

It's not confusing, it's muddled, which isn't the same.

I think there was a pretty consistent character arc which was shown in Act 1 of Season 1. Michael hits bottom and slowly climbs back up out of her hole of self loathing. She earns the respect - and in some cases friendship - of the other main characters on the Discovery crew. By Into the Forest I Go she returns to the Ship of the Dead (the site where she failed Georgiou) faces down Kol in combat without freezing, destroys the ship that nearly destroyed her, and wins back her mentor's Starfleet badge. She's come full circle, and I remember at the end of the episode wondering what the hell they would do with her in Act 2.

The answer is not much. As I said, Act 2 was basically "let's torture Michael!" She finds out that her boyfriend is a Klingon sleeper agent who tries to kill her, her captain is a fraud who is creepily obsessed with her, and the face of the woman she most looked up to is worn by Hitlerina. This is all stuff which happens to her, but aside from the general theme that she must suffer - and the entire universe somehow revolves around her - it's hard to say what it's supposed to mean thematically. Then finally after they get back home they remember in the season finale they need to actually tie back to the prologue in some manner and she gets to tell Ash about her horrible childhood trauma. But basically all that wonderful development they had in the first half of the season gives way to a stagnant character who doesn't change much at all.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

Or you know, people aren't confused by the writing. No need to be so dismissive and disparaging of people who enjoy the show.

Nothing wrong with enjoying Home Alone as a horror movie! No dismissal or disparagement of people's enjoyment here!

But people's enjoyment doesn't make it true.

The only shade thrown is at the writers (or other aspects of production as so far as I know we don't really know where script intent ended versus what ended up on screen).

A lot of DSC is fantastic! But that main character arc was... solid on paper, at best.

 

[fireproof78]

Again, weird guy here. I liked her arc and felt her trials and tribulations were quite interesting if a bit long-suffering. She is still not fully healed by the end of Season 1, Her ability to talk about her past trauma, as well as own her mistake around Georgiou are about her letting go of the past and embracing Starfleet's ideals once again, rather than reacting out of fear. My biggest complaints is the resolution of the Klingon War arc, and the introduction of Lorca as a mirror guy, because I don't think the series benefited from going to the MU at that point. So, that didn't work as well.

But, I'm sure I'll be accused of imagining it or some such nonsense again.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think the Mirror Universe was a way to show Burnham how to think outside the box. There's more to what I think than that, but I'll save the good stuff for the next time this topic comes up. I give it a few months.