I don't see why her death couldn't just be ignored (as in not talked about), for anyone who hasn't seen Rebels?
Why the hate for Disco?
- Thread starter David Hanley
- Start date
- Status
It's possible it won't be mentioned going forward, but the fact of the matter is that time travel is still a huge part of how one of Star Wars' most prominent characters survived (and honestly as much as I like Ahsoka, she really should've been killed off way before the original films).
So it's a part of it, it's firmly canonical, but it's still outside of what most "movie" audiences experience as being SW. I think they could swing just not mentioning that it happened.
I am now even more curious to catch up on my CW/Rebels.
She now has been in more shows than a lot of other characters and has her own show.
Honestly, there was no actual "time travel" involved. There was travel to the World Between Worlds, a realm separate from the future, past and present as we know it. Ezra entered from his point the timeline and pulled in Ahsoka from her point in the timeline, but in the end, both characters returned to point in the timeline from where they left. Who knows if the World Between Worlds would have even allowed them to travel to different times?
(spoilers for Star Wars)
Back on Trek, time travel is not the reason for Disco's story problems, just a symptom. The red angel plot was just incoherent. Time travel done right can make for great Trek, like First Contact.
Ezra from circa 0 BBY met an Ahsoka circa 2 BBY. If that isn't time travel, I don't know what is. He then went back to 0 BBY.
Look, I get people like Canon Star Wars and feel it's "serious" and don't want to accept that outright cartoonish things happen in it. I still remember how a bunch of Canon Star Wars fans insisted that the EU was so childish to bring Palpatine back to life, and that Canon would never resort to that. They all went silent once Rise of Skywalker premiered. But it just baffles me how anyone can say what happened in Rebels isn't time travel. If this provably happened in real life any scientist in our world would say that time travel happened and get excited.
Look, I get people like Canon Star Wars and feel it's "serious" and don't want to accept that outright cartoonish things happen in it. I still remember how a bunch of Canon Star Wars fans insisted that the EU was so childish to bring Palpatine back to life, and that Canon would never resort to that. They all went silent once Rise of Skywalker premiered. But it just baffles me how anyone can say what happened in Rebels isn't time travel. If this provably happened in real life any scientist in our world would say that time travel happened and get excited.
Back on Trek, time travel is not the reason for Disco's story problems, just a symptom. The red angel plot was just incoherent. Time travel done right can make for great Trek, like First Contact.
Last edited:
They would also be excited by hyperspace, lightsabers and aliens.
Henry Alonso Myers.
I'd also note that Picard's next season has Terry Matlas as the showrunner. While I have not seen it, he was the creator/showrunner of Syfy's 12 Monkeys series, which was also critically acclaimed (after a dodgy first season). So Kurtzman may be finding decent talent to helm these projects now.
My pet theory involving why Season 2 went so bad is the shitcanning of the showrunners (Berg and Harberts) played a major role. IIRC they were fired right after the fifth episode was filmed - at which point they took a "production hiatus" of two weeks. After that, the season went a completely different way, with the "science vs. faith" aspect of the plot vanishing, along with the "woo" more generally. And all of the sudden Control popped up - along with all the time travel shit. The Red Angel pretty quickly pivoted from some sort of mysterious being to just a "future suit." It didn't even look the same as what we saw in the first episode! And way too much of back half is an attempt to weld together two halves of a story that don't fit.
I think what happened is there was a coherent planned arc, but it was constructed by the fired showrunners, and Kurtzman didn't want to have to give them story credit for the remainder of the season. So they tore everything they had planned up and rejiggered things on the fly, bringing in the "Control" antagonist from a well-known Trek book.
That's been Discovery's biggest struggles. The BTS drama is painful.
No there isn't a rational or good reason....
Here is a hint:
12 minutes into S1E01 Burnham, with a straight face, lied to Gereogui and disobeyed her order. That's before Burnham assaulted her and mutinied.
This isn't even the biggest problem.
Michael Burnham is written from the start as an arrogant character. Every time the writers want to show how awesome she is, they do that at the expense of other characters. 10 minutes into S1E01 they showed how awesome Burnham is by making Saru incompetent.
Look at her smirking face. They emphasized her arrogance.
Totally likeable, right? How can this rub a lot of people the wrong way?
From someone else:
If she were a male the term would be confident.
Discovery's first two episodes are a total mess as well. I really think - similar to Season 2 - there were major issues which were caused by Bryan Fuller being fired and a number of hasty rewrites. Many aspects of the two-parter really seem to have been pasted in later (like all of Michael's interactions with Sarek). But my impression in general is that Fuller wanted Michael to have a much, much more explicit fall from grace - like maybe that she was going to explicitly fire on the Klingon ship and start the war - but CBS got scared of showing such a flawed protagonist in the first episode, and they soft-pedaled it by making it so that she was blamed, but ultimately kinda right as well. Which was the worst of both worlds, and the same tension (between wanting to show her as flawed and wanting to show her as a badass protagonist) hurt Discovery all the way through the first season.
The complaints about Burnham can be made about Kelvin Timeline Kirk and Picard in the Picard show. It seems that starting with the Kelvin Timeline movies, the Trek producers felt the need to turn their protagonists into jerks. Kelvin Kirk only became somewhat likable and sympathetic in Star Trek Beyond--the previous movies he was an outright jerk who just happened to be correct because everyone else was written as morons or evil (like Admiral Marcus).
It seems to be the trend these days to turn characters into jerks now, as substitute for actual character development of a protagonist who is a decent hearted person. In regards to the other star franchise again, note the change of Poe Dameron from all around decent guy in movie 7 to a mutineering jerk in 8 who somehow gets rewarded for being a jerk into movie 9.
It seems to be the trend these days to turn characters into jerks now, as substitute for actual character development of a protagonist who is a decent hearted person. In regards to the other star franchise again, note the change of Poe Dameron from all around decent guy in movie 7 to a mutineering jerk in 8 who somehow gets rewarded for being a jerk into movie 9.
STD sucks because the show is run by hacks who know nothing about Star Trek, and don’t care to.
It has nothing to do with racism, misogyny, or any other garbage excuse braindead simpletons parrot out every time someone criticizes a show they pretend to watch.
STD couldn’t even beat Nick at Nite reruns when it ran on CBS for free during a global pandemic where people were locked in their houses and starving for new television content.
It has nothing to do with racism, misogyny, or any other garbage excuse braindead simpletons parrot out every time someone criticizes a show they pretend to watch.
STD couldn’t even beat Nick at Nite reruns when it ran on CBS for free during a global pandemic where people were locked in their houses and starving for new television content.
I don't have any problems with the character of Burnham. I'm just not a fan of where they've taken her. To me, it was clear that originally, the arc she had in the first season was probably going to be her arc across the series had Fuller been able to do the series he envisioned. As I recall, there was a point early in the development process where Michael's actual name wasn't even going to be revealed and she would just have been referred to as "Number One."
In season two, the focus on Michael was now about her relationship with Spock, which, I found interesting. Then there was a point in the back half of that season where they were just putting Michael through the ringer, emotionally, at nearly every turn and I needed a break. It became too much and I was truly exhausted. It was almost as if the writers just felt that the only way to make the character interesting was to put her through emotional torment.
I've really struggled with her in season three because her arc just felt so inconsistent. One minute she has a place. The next she feels she doesn't. She's torn between loyalties. I always felt like I was missing episodes or something.
But I'm looking forward to where they take her next season.
In season two, the focus on Michael was now about her relationship with Spock, which, I found interesting. Then there was a point in the back half of that season where they were just putting Michael through the ringer, emotionally, at nearly every turn and I needed a break. It became too much and I was truly exhausted. It was almost as if the writers just felt that the only way to make the character interesting was to put her through emotional torment.
I've really struggled with her in season three because her arc just felt so inconsistent. One minute she has a place. The next she feels she doesn't. She's torn between loyalties. I always felt like I was missing episodes or something.
But I'm looking forward to where they take her next season.
Do you know this for a fact or is that just you shitting on Discovery because you hate it so much?
There is an in-universe reason for Burnham's bizarre emotional outbursts though. She's a human who was raised as a Vulcan to repress emotions, which is completely unhealthy for a human. Once the trauma trigger of a Klingon attack hit in the series premiere along with the death of her mother figure Georgiou, Burnham completely lost control of emotions and has been processing them as someone basically a decade or so behind every other human.
It's like Anakin and Dooku in the Star Wars prequels. By forcing them into a non-emotional non-attachment state, they go over the edge once they are faced with heavy emotions and can't control them, and it's because of the repressed environment they were raised in, not unlike Burnham.
It's like Anakin and Dooku in the Star Wars prequels. By forcing them into a non-emotional non-attachment state, they go over the edge once they are faced with heavy emotions and can't control them, and it's because of the repressed environment they were raised in, not unlike Burnham.
I think you're lost. The YouTube Comments Section is back that way.
I don't know, I expect more observant and thought-out posts from someone who claims to be a professor. But, hey, if you're off the clock, you're off the clock.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
