Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x06 - "Scavengers"

It hasn't.

And, Kelvinwise, it never came up with Gaila either.

On a completely unrelated matter:

Anyone notice the TOS-style communicator among the items in the salvage yard?

 

Neither of those characters are villains. An Orion villain bent on defeating heroes would ensure that any defenses against pheromones were disabled by tampering with environmental controls or something.

 

Michael (and Gabriel) has been used for both genders in many languages for at least some 4000 years, I really don’t see the problem.

wow, would have said 10 or so. And now they say it was “justified”...how to totally miss the point.

cant think of a single one.

They'll definitely going to avoid this kind of thing like TNG avoided homosexual...Too dangerous.

 

Largely because we lack context with the video posted. I still don't have an issue with her crying though, regardless of frequency. Frequency doesn't equal a bad thing, otherwise the transporters should be written out of the show for not working

 

I'm good. Grew up watching Michael Learned as Olivia on the Waltons and had a bit of a crush on Michael Steel of the Bangles

 

major grin is part of the fandom menace so that pretty tells you everything you need to know about that

 

Ugh, should have looked at that first. That explains a lot. I shall wait for Lord Garth's analysis.

 

Michael Learned was a household name in 1972. This has been going on for a very long time.

Like Jamie. It's been used as both a male and female name for generations.

 

I feel like I need a disclaimer on posts where I have criticisms of Burnham because it has nothing to do with gender, race etc.

I am fine if they are going to have her be a Kirk-esque cowboy, doing the right thing even if it isn't in the best interests of the Federation or the Discovery crew. It fits in the in-universe history, even if in real life, Kirk was primarily that way because of how 1960's TV worked.

I feel that if she is going to do these kinds of things, especially to the point where she is going to leave Discovery or Starfleet and place them in danger from people seeking revenge on her, the eighty plus people on Discovery should be having more WTF comments about it. They followed her into the future, leaving all of their lives behind, into this dystopia and she's just running off doing whatever she thinks is best, consequences be damned. Saru's speech to her was a start, but I feel she should be getting far resistance from others. Take Detmer for example. Michael has literally put her through a super traumatic event twice within two or three years. At what point does she finally have enough of it?

 

Perhaps we shall find out.

Honestly, I feel this season is exposing how singularly focusely Burnham can be and showcase that it isn't always done in the best of ways. And, she might ultimately be proven right, but that is the nature of TV.

 

You missed the part where they invented a time machine and used it to change history. Not to do something useful like warn people about COVID or, idk, go back to 2016 to save Carrie Fisher or prevent certain other disasters that happened that year. No, they went back in time to change the script of Discovery, which was written and filmed while Lower Decks was still in production, and only aired afterwards because COVID caused post-production delays for Disco.

Seriously, I don't know why people make up these elaborate stories that blatantly contradict reality. It is impossible for Discovery S3 to have been influenced by Lower Decks the way you think, beyond 'people working on the franchise talk to each other'.

 

She took off her badge in the last episode. I think we might be seeing congruant storylines with Burnham and Book as one and what happens with Starfleet and Discovery as the other.

 

Ultimately, she's her own person. And in a chain of command, you can't be your own person. She's also a natural leader. But Starfleet isn't going to make her a Captain when they don't even think she should be First Officer. So it all adds up to her becoming a free agent who can work with Starfleet instead of for it.

 

My only issue with her name being Michael is that before the series started they said her name being Michael would become important but it never really did. We're in season 3 and so far there's nothing special about the name. Then again, those original showrunners did leave midway through season 1.

 

Which is a shame, because I really enjoyed his TNG Recut series from a few years ago, before Discovery started.

 

If tears aren't coming out of her eyes, it isn't crying. I shouldn't have to explain something this basic to you (or Major Grin), but apparently I do.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll come to my own conclusions.

 

Imagine if the song was Baby Shark. At least that would make more sense as to how it spread.

 

Blinky Bill.

When Trip wasn't affected, I thought Trek finally had a non-straight character.

His videos are great, though. The recuts are hilarious, and the comparisons fit.

 

As a Michael, I genuinely do not give a shit about a female character having the same name as me or it becoming 'non-gendered'. I also don't understand why anyone thinks I should care.

 

Dead Like Me featured a woman named George. Wonderfalls featured a woman named Jaye. Pushing Daisies featured a woman named Chuck. It's just something that Bryan Fuller does.

My name isn't Michael... but my name is Chuck and I can't imagine why anyone would object to their name being given to a character of a different gender.