"Burnham’s choice...affects Starfleet, affects the Federation; it affects the entire universe..."

WILMA!

 

Agreed. It's the universe part I find most vexing. Quadrant? Sure. Galaxy? Eh, maybe. Universe? What did she do?!

 

Firstly, its canon, deal with it. Also the martyr situation is super obvious to anyone, how could it not? Especially since you...it turned out being right.

 

He hasn't said otherwise.

 

One thing that remains canon is that the Klingons are very delicate despite being great warriors wearing armor and having redundant organs. Burnham killing the Torchbearer by accident totally reminded me of Quark "killing" that Klingon in "Looking for Par Mach...." What was the point of that getup he was wearing. His bat'leth went right through him.

 

Why would I have to "deal with it?" I don't give a fuck about canon. If it's bad, it's bad. If it's good, it's good.

Super obvious to everyone except everyone else in the show.

Uh, that doesn't parse. Again?

God, that's true isn't it? The Federation admirals should pray to their gods that the Klingons have a whole lot of warriors like the crew of the sarcophagus ship.

 

I think, that they think, had she fired first there would have been NO armed conflict at all. I think, that they think, this is supposed to be obvious.

I think, that it was poorly executed.

 

Nah, there's every reason to think that Burnham's idea about firing first was a bad idea. She didn't see what was happening in the sarcophagus ship, which was that they were spoiling for a fight.

Also, your interpretation has it that the turning point is not Burnham's choice at all, but the fact that she's prevented from acting on it.

Someone pointed this out to me yesterday - it looks almost as if the script underwent a late, hasty rewrite and that the climax of Part I had originally been:

1. Burnham mutinies and successfully fires on the Klingons; leading to
2. The lighting of the beacon to call the 24 houses to war against the Federation aggressors.

That would also, of course, have strengthened the whole "Burnham started this war" story thread that seems so important to some of the characters in the show. That strangely improvised-looking and static "court room scene" pasted onto the end of the show also suggests some papering over of the cracks: it's necessary to spell out and underline Burnham's culpability and all the justifications for sentencing her to life imprisonment, since the enormity of her fuck-up was not as clear in the final version as it would have been had she fired on the ship.

 

And if I were T'Kumva I'd say this loser fell on his own sword and died without honor. But then again if I were a TNG klingon I'd cover up the whole disgrace and blame it on the humans anyway.

 

That's what I was thinking.

And frankly, I like this a lot more than the nonsense Midnight's Edge claimed. This is heated emotion triggering political ramifications. This is my cup of Earl Grey.

 

What did they claim, just out of morbid curiosity?

Acting out of emotional impulse doesn't exactly fit the dramatic requirements of "the most difficult choice a person can make." A moment's rage does not require an hour and a half of narrative set-up.

 

Something about her learning there's a big multiverse and a bunch of Sareks and her choice impacts all the universes.

Or something.

 

That's certainly a possibility. I think it's also possible that most of Starfleet blames her for the war starting without knowing the whole story (not that they're entirely wrong).

 

That makes so much more sense than what we got. As it stands the motivations for various characters to do certain things, as well as the cause and effect therein is really muddled.

If there was such a rewrite I imagine it was done in the service of making Michael more likable, but since the aired version of her isn't likable anyway, all it did was undercut whatever her character arc was supposed to be.

 

I think we're already in store for a shit load of flashbacks in this show as it is.

 

Interesting. That would indeed make much more sense as to Michael's actions. I did find her likeable though.

 

They just wanted to give her an over the top dramatic/traumatic background to enhance her angsty anti-hero persona.
Part of this "strategy" was the ridiculous court-martial scene, where some villains/shadows sentenced her to life.

 

Ugh, that court-martial. I liked the one in Star Trek (reboot) better, despite the unnecessary audience in that one.

 

That at least made sense in the context of it being the Academy and this would be classified as a learning experience, I think.


It's really funny though. Go to all the trouble to restart Trek on TV, and then immediately trip over the door frame and face plant with some really really silly cinematagrophy. Unless, as Trekyards briefly theorized, maybe there's something they're purposely trying to hide about that group that will be revealed later on? Still, you'd think that would raise some eye brows. "Uh, why can't I see you? Hello? Why is is this place lit like an Illuminati fan club? Hello?"