Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x06 - "Scavengers"

[jackoverfull]

I still don't get why anyone would sign a treaty that would authorize your opponent to use a weapon and forbid it to you. That seems insane.

well, right now you have countries that are totally developing nuclear weapons and others that signed treaties that forbid them to do so...

Interestingly, that second set of countries were either losers una big war or far less powerful than the first...perhaps this tells us something about the federation and the Romulan empire (or perhaps not)?

Plus the Romulans are sneaky bastards who tried to blow up the Enterprise D AFTER its crew had saved them from blowing up themselves! Talk about ingrates! Plus they also almost destroyed DS9 (in fact they did it in an alternate timeline).

and the federation assassinated a prominent Romulan to get them involved in a war...

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Reno outranks stamets?! I thought she was a noncom!

She has full commander pips.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Kirk did it all the time.

Ya but this is the DIS thread so we are talking about Burnham.

The whataboutery is getting real annoying

 

[Tim Thomason]

Reno outranks stamets?! I thought she was a noncom!

Yeah, but she's not officially Discovery. She was presumably the Chief Engineer on the Hiawatha, and just kind of stuck around on Discovery last season after they rescued her.

 

[Discofan]

....

and the federation assassinated a prominent Romulan to get them involved in a war...

To be fair it was Garak and he didn't ask for permission. Had he done so they would most likely have said no. Remember that at first Siko punched him in the face... TWICE!

Anyway, that's a very far cry from blowing up a ship with a thousand plus people on it and a space station both with children. Romulans are ruthless assholes. I wouldn't trust them with anything, definitely not with the exclusive use of the cloaking device.

 

[jackoverfull]

Yeah, but she's not officially Discovery. She was presumably the Chief Engineer on the Hiawatha, and just kind of stuck around on Discovery last season after they rescued her.

right, forgot about that

 

[plynch]

Ya but this is the DIS thread so we are talking about Burnham.

The whataboutery is getting real annoying

And, Kirk-Rebel has been debunked again and again, I THOUGHT upstream in this same thread. Maybe it was a different one. Amok Time and TSFS are the two main instances. Plus he was a captain of a cruiser, a somewhat autonomous entity.

(Though stealing a cruiser in TSFS is a bit much, but that's why it's such a big deal and worthy of a film.)

I too am tired of whattabouting. "Sisko cried too." Yup, occasionally, and it made him a great, human character. He also did belly laughs. But neither was repeated show after show as a stereotyped behavior. By that I do not mean racial, btw, but one behavior that becomes the central "thing" to the character, sort of like rebellion also is, for Burnham. Dickens resorted to this a lot in his later work, one behavior or phrase a character uses over and over. (It loses its funny after the 27th iteration.)

"Writing has been inconsistent in all shows." Doesn't make it a good thing. People want this show to be better. It's the golden age of TV, right?

Oh, and "Anyone who dislikes Burnham is sexist." That's one of the classic logic fallacies but I can't think of which one. Ad hominem? Attack the person instead of their reasoning?

 

[Jinn]

"Sisko cried too."

Wait, people are complaining that Burnham cries too much?

 

[Lord Garth]

Wait, people are complaining that Burnham cries too much?

They have to come up with something.

Luckily, if that's the best they can do, we're in pretty good shape.

 

[jackoverfull]

Wait, people are complaining that Burnham cries too much?

well, she’s been crying almost every episode for 20 episodes in a row or so...

 

[PiotrB]

well, she’s been crying almost every episode for 20 episodes in a row or so...

It all depends on how you define crying. A single tear when you say goodbye to a colleague or after a difficult conversation when you realise you are guilty is a normal human reaction. So are tears of joy.

 

[eschaton]

It all depends on how you define crying. A single tear when you say goodbye to a colleague or after a difficult conversation when you realise you are guilty is a normal human reaction. So are tears of joy.

I dunno. I'd say most people do not cry every day by the time they're in their mid 30s - even if they suffer from clinical depression or something.

Of course, we don't see every day in Michael's life. We don't focus on the boring times/reactions, because it's lousy drama.

On the other hand, an audience gets desensitized to something if you do it too many times. A stoic character having an emotional breakdown is a lot more impactful than a character who is well-known for getting weepy.

 

[jackoverfull]

I dunno. I'd say most people do not cry every day by the time they're in their mid 30s - even if they suffer from clinical depression or something.

Of course, we don't see every day in Michael's life. We don't focus on the boring times/reactions, because it's lousy drama.

On the other hand, an audience gets desensitized to something if you do it too many times. A stoic character having an emotional breakdown is a lot more impactful than a character who is well-known for getting weepy.

Exactly. Basically all stat trek lead characters had emotional intense moments...two three times per series, not every other episode.

 

[jackoverfull]

It’s the same as with “colorful metaphors” and big battles: it they happen very occasionally they can be special moments, if they happen every other week it just gets tiresome.

 

[PiotrB]

I dunno. I'd say most people do not cry every day by the time they're in their mid 30s - even if they suffer from clinical depression or something.

Of course, we don't see every day in Michael's life. We don't focus on the boring times/reactions, because it's lousy drama.

On the other hand, an audience gets desensitized to something if you do it too many times. A stoic character having an emotional breakdown is a lot more impactful than a character who is well-known for getting weepy.

An emotional breakdown? Is this some strange American or British definition? There really was no Burnham emotional breakdown in any episode of season 3. There was maybe only one episode in all three series. Besides, where does the idea that a tear as a sign of anger, joy or sadness should be impactful?

 

[tomalak301]

I rewatched the episode last night and I was the one who was talking about the editing of this episode. I was imagining things because the editing was much better (Or I was just more awake) on the second viewing. There were many things I missed, like the fight actually being on the ship itself, they did show Burnham and crew actually traveling back to Discovery, and things actually just flowed better. I ended up giving this episode a 6 originally and I think I will keep it that way. The character stuff was really good, but the happenings on the planet and those characters I could take or leave. One thing I really liked on the second time around was the Stamets/Adira (And Culber) story. I really like what they are doing with Stamets this season, and I do think he's my second favorite character behind Suru.

 

[XCV330]

I gave this one a 7. it was good. it was not outstanding or anything, but workable. I did like seeing a competant admiral having a meeting with captains actually doing starfleety stuff.

Burnham should have been at the least knocked down a rank. that was a court marshal office.

 

[SJGardner]

One would have to really squint to think crying is the one defining characteristic of Burnham's entire personality. Simply based on some of the comments here, one could be forgiven for thinking she bursts into deafening wails of ugly-crying every single time she appears in a scene, complete with snot bubbles, puffy red eyes and unintelligible blabbering. Then you put the actual episode on, and you basically see that ad with the crying Italian pretending to be a Native American from the 70s.

 

[jackoverfull]

Never said it’s the defining characteristic, but it’s something that stands out and it’s getting annoying.

 

[Jadeb]

On the other hand, an audience gets desensitized to something if you do it too many times.

For example, blowing up Enterprises.