“Jean-Luc Picard is back”: will new Picard show eclipse Discovery?

[Rahul]

I just watched that VOY episode and a few that follow it about a month ago.

Difference is that, aside from the actual episode he gets demoted in, nothing material happens as a result. It's just business as usual except they now call him "Ensign" instead of "Lieutenant. ". This was VOY's well-known weakness. Everything resets the following episode.

Not same the same about Burnham.

So, no, I can't agree with thus.

The only real difference for Burnham was that she wasn't bridge crew anymore.
Apart from that, she did the same thing as any other Starfleet officer as well, ever. She even had her own quarter and stuff, nobody was watching over her. The only difference was her rank. And since this was actually the first season - she wasn't even permanently transferred from her "usual" position. That was the position the "status quo" put her in. Saying her demotion "changed" her status quo is like saying Tom Paris "changed" his status quo when he got enlisted from his penal colony in the VOY pilot.

There was really no difference. Everything about Burnham reseted the following episode. The only real change happened at the end of the season, when she got "promoted" to bridge crew. Before that - was all the same status quo for the character. At least regarding her supposed "demotion" story.

I really see no significant difference in how DIS treated Burnham to how Paris was depicted on VOY. It's all window dressing, but beneath it is the same conservative approach to an intriguing idea.

 

[Vger23]

The only real difference for Burnham was that she wasn't bridge crew anymore.
Apart from that, she did the same thing as any other Starfleet officer as well, ever. She even had her own quarter and stuff, nobody was watching over her. The only difference was her rank. And since this was actually the first season - she wasn't even permanently transferred from her "usual" position. That was the position the "status quo" put her in. Saying her demotion "changed" her status quo is like saying Tom Paris "changed" his status quo when he got enlisted from his penal colony in the VOY pilot.

There was really no difference. Everything about Burnham reseted the following episode. The only real change happened at the end of the season, when she got "promoted" to bridge crew. Before that - was all the same status quo for the character. At least regarding her supposed "demotion" story.

I really see no significant difference in how DIS treated Burnham to how Paris was depicted on VOY. It's all window dressing, but beneath it is the same conservative approach to an intriguing idea.

Well...honestly... if you don't see a difference between the two, then any response that I type to you was probably just a waste of time.

Almost everything Burnham did, every one of her motivations, was built around her emotion and her guilt over what she had done in the pilot episodes. It was a theme that ran clear through the remaining 13 episodes of the series! Her relationships with Tilly and Saru are completely built around the incident at BotBS. Her rescue of the emperor from the mirror universe is also completely tied to her character arc.

Totally different than how VOY handled "Ensign" Paris.

 

[Rahul]

Well...honestly... if you don't see a difference between the two, then any response that I type to you was probably just a waste of time.

Almost everything Burnham did, every one of her motivations, was built around her emotion and her guilt over what she had done in the pilot episodes. It was a theme that ran clear through the remaining 13 episodes of the series! Her relationships with Tilly and Saru are completely built around the incident at BotBS. Her rescue of the emperor from the mirror universe is also completely tied to her character arc.

Totally different than how VOY handled "Ensign" Paris.

Dude. There are a TON of differences between the characters Michael Burnham and Tom Paris. As much as there are differences between Michael Burnham and Seven of Nine.

What's really, really friggin' similar is how the show approached and tackled two thematic very similar storylines: In a very similar way. Not there's a reason fot the similarity: It's a really good concept. But DIS didn't actually manage to got a whole lot more out of it than VOY did back in the day. For all this "new type of ST"-marketing speak, DIS has a very traditional approach to handle things. Put the gore and cannibalism away - and this show really could have aired as a contemporary to ENT.

 

[fireproof78]

Well...honestly... if you don't see a difference between the two, then any response that I type to you was probably just a waste of time.

Almost everything Burnham did, every one of her motivations, was built around her emotion and her guilt over what she had done in the pilot episodes. It was a theme that ran clear through the remaining 13 episodes of the series! Her relationships with Tilly and Saru are completely built around the incident at BotBS. Her rescue of the emperor from the mirror universe is also completely tied to her character arc.

Totally different than how VOY handled "Ensign" Paris.

Agreed. There was actually a strain between her and the rest of her crew that require mending.

 

[Vger23]

Dude. There are a TON of differences between the characters Michael Burnham and Tom Paris. As much as there are differences between Michael Burnham and Seven of Nine.

What's really, really friggin' similar is how the show approached and tackled two thematic very similar storylines: In a very similar way. Not there's a reason fot the similarity: It's a really good concept. But DIS didn't actually manage to got a whole lot more out of it than VOY did back in the day. For all this "new type of ST"-marketing speak, DIS has a very traditional approach to handle things. Put the gore and cannibalism away - and this show really could have aired as a contemporary to ENT.

I don't agree. Like I said (not mad or frustrated or anything)...but if you really don't see differences in the way these two series were handled wrt character arcs, discussion/debate is an absolute drain of time.

 

[Rahul]

Agreed. There was actually a strain between her and the rest of her crew that require mending.

Luckily she had her one, trusted, socially awkward friend that looks up to her, Harry Kim, that still stood by her through all of it even when everybody else was looking down on her.

 

[Discofan]

I don't think St shows eclipse one another, quite the contrary they advertise each other, especially if they are good!

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't think St shows eclipse one another, quite the contrary they advertise each other, especially if they are good!

Yep. A rising starship lifts all boats . . . or something like that.

 

[LJones41]

In fact, for me personally, the original sin of Tom Paris/Nich Locarno (being responsible for and covering up a fatal accident, then join the Maquis) actually feels like a much bigger gut-punch than Burnhams (mutineer and be responsible for an entire war). As they say - the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic.

What??

Why are so many people threatened by Michael Burnham? Why? I like Tom Paris. He's actually one of my favorite Trek characters. But to compare his actions against Michael's as more "tragic" or "interesting"? I'm not buying that. Not one bit.

Why is Michael Burnham so threatening to certain people that I keep encountering comments like the above?

 

[Tuskin38]

What??

Why are so many people threatened by Michael Burnham? Why? I like Tom Paris. He's actually one of my favorite Trek characters. But to compare his actions against Michael's as more "tragic" or "interesting"? I'm not buying that. Not one bit.

Why is Michael Burnham so threatening to certain people that I keep encountering comments like the above?

Nothing in that post suggested they are threatened by Michael.
You keep reading into things that don't exist.

 

[Longinus]

The funny thing to me is - a lot of ST: D detractors decry the use of the Spock and Sarek characters in the series, as well as the new Burnham's character's ties to them...and claim ST: D is relying too much on existing characters and lore...Star Trek always needs to be new/original...

YET - some of those same people hear "New show about Captain Picard..."

And many are all:

"Great this is EXACTLY what Star Trek should be...I can't wait for Riker, Data, Worf, Troi..et al to make an appearance on it; and I bet we'll get flashbacks of Picard in the Enterprise too! Yay! So much better than ST: D...."
^^^
Before a single script is written, promo shown...and then there's the other thing that they seem to love with regard to said Picard show, but dislike about ST: D.

It is completely different. It is Sir Patrick returning to the iconic role, continuing his work. It is not same as leeching on previous actor's work for name recognition. If they had recasted Vin Diesel as Picard I would be way less exited about this new show (and I even like Vin Diesel.)

 

[Tuskin38]

I don't see DSC's use of the characters as leeching, Leonard Nimoy is dead, and he would have been too old to play the character anyways even if he was alive.

 

[Discofan]

It is completely different. It is Sir Patrick returning to the iconic role, continuing his work. It is not same as leeching on previous actor's work for name recognition. If they had recasted Vin Diesel as Picard I would be way less exited about this new show (and I even like Vin Diesel.)

Yes, I really enjoy the idea of seeing Stewart reprise his role. I am sure it will be fun, even if it's not of the same quality as TNG.

 

[Longinus]

I don't see DSC's use of the characters as leeching, Leonard Nimoy is dead, and he would have been too old to play the character anyways even if he was alive.

Then don't use the character! How hard can it be? Disco already has bunch of interesting characters portrayed by talented actors (easily the best part in otherwise questionable affair,) trust them to deliver!

And regardless of how you feel about including Spock in Disco, it is not the same as the Picard thing, not the same at all.

 

[Discofan]

Then don't use the character! How hard can it be? Disco already has bunch of interesting characters portrayed by talented actors (easily the best part in otherwise questionable affair,) trust them to deliver!

And regardless of how you feel about including Spock in Disco, it is not the same as the Picard thing, not the same at all.

For one thing, I don't see how Picard could be played by someone else.

 

[Tuskin38]

it is not the same as the Picard thing, not the same at all.

I don't see the difference.

 

[Longinus]

I don't see the difference.

You really need to get your vision checked soon, you're seem to be practically blind.

But I try to help you, I hope the pictures are big enough for you:

THESE TWO ARE DIFFERENT!

THESE TWO ARE THE SAME!

 

[Tuskin38]

A different actor doesn't change the character. The writing does. That is what I'm getting at.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't see DSC's use of the characters as leeching, Leonard Nimoy is dead, and he would have been too old to play the character anyways even if he was alive.

Exactly. There's a reason Julie Andrews isn't starring in the new MARY POPPINS movie, even though it's apparently a direct sequel to the original movie and not a reboot.

No actor owns a role forever. Someday another actor will play Picard. That's just how it works.

 

[Longinus]

A different actor doesn't change the character. The writing does. That is what I'm getting at.

Just no. Actor absolutely has a massive impact on the character. Stewart was a big part of TNG becoming a huge hit, just like Nimoy was a huge part of TOS becoming a hit. Replacing them with other people is not the same.