Does Michael even want the position back? She was first officer on the Shenzhou, and her command ambitions only seemed to stem from wanting to emulate her mentor. But that's all gone now.I feel people are missing the obvious.
The new second in command will probably be someone assigned by Starfleet. Who will very likely be a foil or otherwise minor villain for the rest of the crew that Michael can overcome to get her position back.
ENSIGN Harry KimHarry Kim is rolling over in his grave on Earth.
That's the best they can do showing us stuff, sadly:Can anyone grab a screenshot of that 24th Century phaser they find?
DS9 was centuries ago.Promotion advantages for Trills didn't work that way even in DS9.
I missed the 1031-A first time round. That’s not how a retrofit works. It’s still the same ship. This isn’t the first time they made that mistake.
Also, The Burn. This happened, what, 100+ years ago? What's the rush, Michael? It's obviously a very big deal, but the urgency they're attaching to figuring it out doesn't really gel with me.
Except we have absolutely no reason to suspect it was a deliberate attack, rather than some accidental thing that just happened (with or without input from sentient beings).
Most of the ships destroyed in The Burn were Federation. No one knew if it was an attack and, if so, whether it would happen again. Having Federation headquarters on Earth made it a potential target.
Which is funny, given how there are so many overblown bits of dialogue from her about what Starfleet is or what the Federation is, but yet she doesn't demonstrate it at all.
And reading these, "Oh, but Kirk would have done that, blah blah blah..." Um, no. Kirk didn't plunge Starfleet into a full scale war (in fact, prevented it in some cases) or endanger his ship and crew unnecessarily. Kirk bent rules when there was shortsightedness in the orders or mission, but I don't remember him running off like Burnham has done over the series.
Admiral Vance: Mr. Booker, you're the infamous scoundrel who corrupted Commander Burnham so much. Somehow I thought you'd be taller.assuming anti human augment laws are still in force
The NCC-1701 and 1701-A are the very same ship, it's how a retrofit works or can work in ST.
It looks... melted?That's the best they can do showing us stuff, sadly:
![]()
God Michael is such a terrible character. Saru should have sent her to 20 years of hard labour on Rura Penthe. Maybe then she would learn her place.Was that Lauren Tom as one of the Starfleet captains? We’ve got our first Futurama actor.
![]()
No she isn't. Section 31 is supposed to be discreet and in the shadows.Michael is better suited to lead Section 31 than be #1.
Indeed, yes. So much is placed at Burnham's feet but she isn't responsible for the war. Lorca used that sense of guilt to motivate her.The Klingons plunge Starfleet into a war, Burnham's (Sarek's) plan actually may have prevented it but not without breaking the "Starfleet doesn't fire first" principle.
No, they're not. The 1701 was refit (TMP/TWOK/TSFS), then Kirk self-destructed it over Genesis.
They then were given the newly rechristened NCC-1701-A (formerly the Yorktown).
The refit did not up the letter suffix.
The NCC-1701 and 1701-A are the very same ship, it's how a retrofit works or can work in ST.
It isn't. In books like Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise and some online sources say that it was originally to be the Yorktown or Ti-Ho. That wasn't in the movie.My bad. Where did you get that part about the Yorktown? Doesn't appear to be canon.
It was the emperor who waved her badge in front of everyone XDNo she isn't. Section 31 is supposed to be discreet and in the shadows.
Michael Burnham would have vaporized a dozen people and shouted "Section 31 was here!" complete with singing the Section 31 war chant. Luther Sloan would roll over in his grave.
its just old and damaged.It looks... melted?![]()
Yes it is.This isn’t the first time they made that mistake.
Tilly: Captain, if you don't report Burnham's absence to Admiral Vance, he'll take away our new holodeck!!!Crew behaving like kid on Christmas
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.