And Black Widow? Because it's not only Cap doing it. I just watched Shang Chi and the most quippy person was the best friend.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 4x01 - "Kobayashi Maru"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Yeah, I'm starting to come around to her as the series lead. Putting her in the captains chair helped to more naturally center the show around her and has the added benefit of getting others more involved since they take orders from her now (instead of her just going rogue and doing things by herself). It also results in more bridge action which has a better Star Trek feel to me. And SMG is a good actress, she just needs to find the balance between showing emotion without overdoing it. It's only been one episode but I like what I see so far.
Rillak: Burnham, why can't you be a less reckless captain and more like Picard? You put the whole ship at risk!
Burnham: So one day, Data has been kidnapped by the renegade Borg. When the Enterprise D traces him to a planet that the sensors can't search, Picard orders most of the crew to beam down and search for him. For one crew member. He leaves Dr. Crusher in charge of the ship with an inexperienced skeleton crew that doesn't even trust her. While a Borg ship is around and could attack any time!
Rillak:
This is why I have a problem with the Black Widow movie....
Fair enough, but even I'm being inaccurate with calling this a Marvel problem. This pretty much started with action heroes from the 80s and persist from there. Not saying it can't be annoying but I can't lay it on Kelvin Trek either.
I see your point, but in regards to Star Trek I think the Kelvin movies started the trend within the Star Trek Universe. But you're probably right, even if we hadn't got the Kevin movies things might have shifted in this direction. If different people were in charge then maybe things would be different.
I don't. I think it was always there in Trek, but in smaller doses, or more quippy in video games and books. I do agree that it was inevitable, largely because the framework of Trek is action/adventure from the getgo, so that is going to be a reference point.
Star Trek has been mimicking other franchises since the late 1970s. The entire Star Trek film series was created as a response to Star Wars. Marvel has been bringing in a lot of money recently so it was only a matter of time before Trek started channeling their approach too, and this would have happened even if the Kelvin timeline was never invented.
Michael and crew fought in the Klingon War, battled a rogue AI space fleet, lost everything and everyone they knew by crossing a thousand years of space-time, and solved the mystery of the Burn. I'm sure cargo-hauling is risky but comparing those bases of experience would be, let's just say, a chancy business at the best of times. I certainly wouldn't be accepting any lectures about leadership in Burnham's place, though I still see the point the President is making.
Essentially she is Denis Reynolds
Didn't last season establish Detmer as the best pilot in the galaxy? How come Burnham's most qualified to pilot the rescue shuttle?
Detmer is busy piloting the actual Discovery at that point as it's being buffeted by debris. What Burnham says is that she's logged more EVA hours than anyone else on the crew, not that she's the best pilot.
Because Detmer is too important to risk
Whaat? In the 32nd century they cannot create transporter duplicates at will? Thomas Riker and William Boimler are rolling over in their graves.
For that matter, I'm surprised that experience and knowledge aren't just directly streamed into people's brains in the 32nd century. Universal translators are mostly obsolete because everyone now knows all languages.
All languages? Yeah, even for Star Trek that strikes me as impossible.
I think it’s pretty clear the scripts/production are going for big emotions and big, big tears, even if I’m not a fan of that approach. She’s giving the performance demanded of her.
I would have liked to have seen star trek finally indulge a bit of post-humanism (human being a relative term in this case).
Over and over again Star Trek's science advances have shown no real effect on quality of life that we can see. Yes you can take a pill and grow a new kidney, but the human life span does not seem to be THAT much longer than it is now. Decades longer, not factors of magnitude.
You can make a replicator that can LITERALLY make anything out of literal shit, but the best recipes are restricted to higher ranking people. Is good food some extra downloadable content you have to pay for with the money that may or may not exist?
People don't appear to have increased brain capacity judging by some of the stupid decisions that get made, nor do they seem to learn from previous past lessons when they keep doing the same things all over again.
We're made to believe, except in the rare instance of Dr. Bashir, and the counter-opinions of the Denobulons that tampering with genomes is a very bad idea and leads to villains and dictators.
After over a millennia of being able to build full holographic and virtual worlds, why don't entire populations just live in them?
I know, star trek never makes a lot of sense, but they do keep missing the chance to actually put some science in science fiction. Let the 32nd century finally be a different place.
I agree. I don’t think it was SMGs fault, it was either the writing or directing.
She wasn't exactly subtle and stiff in The Walking Dead, either. Sonequa is an emoter.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll