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

[Marynator]

Azetbur is continuing her father's legacy and presumably had big shoes to fill. Gorkon took the first steps toward reaching out to the Federation but she had to carry it out.

I don't feel you say nearly enough about Azetbur, she firmly took control of her empire in its biggest crisis and reigned in her radical military. I love how she tells it to her generals how things are going to be, and she even casually brushes off Chang's little threat to her, right? And she totally has enough courage to lead her people into a new era, and she isn't pushed around by anyone.

Oh and of course, "Kirk ... Kirk will pay for my father's death."

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm glad my one-liner about Martok sparked such interesting discussion!

 

[fireproof78]

I don't feel you say nearly enough about Azetbur, she firmly took control of her empire in its biggest crisis and reigned in her radical military. I love how she tells it to her generals how things are going to be, and she even casually brushes off Chang's little threat to her, right? And she totally has enough courage to lead her people into a new era, and she isn't pushed around by anyone.

Oh and of course, "Kirk ... Kirk will pay for my father's death."

The novel expands upon this and her different relationships with the leaders further. Really enjoyable to see her handling of the crisis and something that I felt TNG really squashed any future handling of.

 

[BillJ]

The novel expands upon this and her different relationships with the leaders further. Really enjoyable to see her handling of the crisis and something that I felt TNG really squashed any future handling of.

Doesn't she end up getting murdered in one of The Lost Era novels?

 

[Lord Garth]

Doesn't she end up getting murdered in one of The Lost Era novels?

I think so. Then some asshole takes over. Someone who I could see following T'Kuvma if he were in Discovery.

 

[BillJ]

I think so. Then some asshole takes over. Someone who I could see following T'Kuvma if he were in Discovery.

I think it was "The Art of the Impossible".

 

[Lord Garth]

I think it was "The Art of the Impossible".

The book I'm thinking of is "Serpents Among the Ruins". The one before "The Art of the Impossible".

I bought it with a birthday gift card back in 2005, after my brother was being super-super-super-pushy about trying to get me to read the novels. I can't stand when people are too pushy. When they're that pushy, it reflexively makes me want to go in the other direction. He wanted me to buy a Relaunch book but I was more interested in post Star Trek VI and "Serpents Among the Ruins" fit the bill. I enjoyed it.

 

[BillJ]

The book I'm thinking of is "Serpents Among the Ruins". The one before "The Art of the Impossible".

Right you are!

 

[Discofan]

What was wrong with Gorkon?

I forgot about him, sorry. So that's two adequate and two very bad then...

 

[Discofan]

Gorkon was awful? That's a first

Forgot about him, sorry.

 

[gblews]

The problem is that the character beneath her outer appereance isn't that well defined, and basically overstuffed with too many and widely different backstories. IMO they should have focused on writing compelling dialogue first, and then introduce her backstorie(s) later on, when they knew how to writer her. Instead we got a biiiiig infodump in the beginning (which, honestly, actually did nothing for me), and then during the run of the season - when she actually was actually allowed to make her own decision and choices - the character became more clearly defined. Sadly in concurrence with the season arc delving into utter schlock...

So you wanted Burnham, the show's main protagonist, to be introduced with no backstory but with "clever dialogue"?

What do you mean by "too many backstories" with regard to Burnham?

And further, you think Burnham became more of a defined character as season 1 progressed. That sounds like it just might have been one of the producer's main goal's. The alternative would have been completely defining her in the first episodes of the season, and you let us know above, that that isnt't what you wanted

 

[jaime]

So you wanted Burnham, the show's main protagonist, to be introduced with no backstory but with "clever dialogue"?

What do you mean by "too many backstories" with regard to Burnham?

And further, you think Burnham became more of a defined character as season 1 progressed. That sounds like it just might have been one of the producer's main goal's. The alternative would have been completely defining her in the first episodes of the season, and you let us know above, that that isnt't what you wanted

She is spocks adopted sister, Sareks daughter.
She’s Georgious protege.
She’s the survivor of a Klingon ‘terrorist’ attack.
She’s the first human graduate of the VSA.
She’s first officer of the shenxhou.

By the end of the pilots, she’s first contact with Klingons in x hundred years, started a war, killed two religious figures, got part of sareks soul, on a vengeance trip after being orphaned from Georgiou, mutinied, and helped commit a war crime.

She has all th back story’s. All of them. She’s just short a prophecy, and that’s probably a cut scene. No wonder no one else has any back story, there’s no room. They don’t get onscreen names....

I like the show, but Burnham is a backstory French Bread Pizza layered four inches thick on its way out the kitchen, and I am not sure that’s a good thing.

 

[Discofan]

She is spocks adopted sister, Sareks daughter.
She’s Georgious protege.
She’s the survivor of a Klingon ‘terrorist’ attack.
She’s the first human graduate of the VSA.
She’s first officer of the shenxhou.

By the end of the pilots, she’s first contact with Klingons in x hundred years, started a war, killed two religious figures, got part of sareks soul, on a vengeance trip after being orphaned from Georgiou, mutinied, and helped commit a war crime.

She has all th back story’s. All of them. She’s just short a prophecy, and that’s probably a cut scene. No wonder no one else has any back story, there’s no room. They don’t get onscreen names....

I like the show, but Burnham is a backstory French Bread Pizza layered four inches thick on its way out the kitchen, and I am not sure that’s a good thing.

The best of shows can seem awful when presented a certain way. I made it a sport for a time to describe a show under the worst possible light and that sounds very much like something I would have come up with for this show.

 

[jaime]

The best of shows can seem awful when presented a certain way. I made it a sport for a time to describe a show under the worst possible light and that sounds very much like something I would have come up with for this show.

Yet it’s not what I am doing. Apart from the humour of the French bread pizza, this all just matter of fact. I am not even mentioning the copy of Alice in Wonderland, and the thematic stuff there. Burnham was loaded with backstory, the others get almost none in comparison. The closest to that we have seen in a Trek pilot before is Ben Sisko (single father, lost his wife at wolf 359, engineer, thinking about quitting, by the end of the pilot he is a religious figure....) and it’s not even close. Especially not when other characters in those shows also got their backstory in out the gate too.
You may see it as negative, but as I have said, I like the show. It took some coming round to, but I never came round to enterprise at all.
They are just facts. That they paint a negative picture is because it’s a flaw in DSC. French bread pizza, a couple of brushetta, but a whole lot of breadsticks on that bridge. Some of them don’t even have names without reading tie in books.

 

[Mudd]

The best of shows can seem awful when presented a certain way.

Orson Scott Card would agree.

He's the most certain source I can find for the formulation "no text can survive a hostile reading" - there must be earlier versions, but I haven't turned them up.

That having been said, the assertion is a red herring here because we are not discussing the best of shows but an expensive waste of time.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Gorkon was awful? That's a first

 

[Rahul]

So you wanted Burnham, the show's main protagonist, to be introduced with no backstory but with "clever dialogue"?

What do you mean by "too many backstories" with regard to Burnham?

And further, you think Burnham became more of a defined character as season 1 progressed. That sounds like it just might have been one of the producer's main goal's. The alternative would have been completely defining her in the first episodes of the season, and you let us know above, that that isnt't what you wanted

The problem is not "a" backstory. The problem is nothing but backstory.
When she was introduced, she had the backstory of Tom Paris, Seven of Nine and Worf all combined. And SMG had (justifiably) absolutely no idea how to play that - she tried the Vulcan-like emotional distant outsider, that also is completely in emotional turmoil and doing completely unhinged gut-decisions (logically!). That shaky beginning is where a lot of fan complains of people not liking her originates.
The writing for her was a mess. The flashback scene where she was introduced to the Shenzhou in that Vulcan haircut the first time felt like some of the worst fan films out there.

What happened during the run of season 1 was that the creators simply dropped half of her backstory - her acting like a Vulcan - gone, her being traumatized by the klingon attack - almost gone (except for that horrible reappereance in the finale). It was when the writers (and thus SMG) focused on one or two things - her kinda' redemption arc, and her relationship to her mentors - that the character was allowed to breath for the first time.

It's not that during the season we got to know her character better. It's that they needed the entire season for her to actually become a character in the first place.

With the disadvantage that NONE of the other characters were allowed to have any backstories themselves (or episodes focusing on them for that matter), which is why, after an entire season, we still don't know jack-shit about most characters except for their job is.

 

[Jadeb]

What happened during the run of season 1 was that the creators simply dropped half of her backstory - her acting like a Vulcan - gone, her being traumatized by the klingon attack - almost gone (except for that horrible reappereance in the finale). It was when the writers (and thus SMG) focused on one or two things - her kinda' redemption arc, and her relationship to her mentors - that the character was allowed to breath for the first time.

It's not that during the season we got to know her character better. It's that they needed the entire season for her to actually become a character in the first place.

The worst part is that after an entire season, I have no clue if they made a decision to jettison the backstory or if they just dropped that ball too.

 

[CorporalClegg]

This would be accurate if the measure of good writing was perpetually strict prefabricated characters.

 

[gblews]

The problem is not "a" backstory. The problem is nothing but backstory.

Explain what you mean by "nothing but backstory".

When she was introduced, she had the backstory of Tom Paris, Seven of Nine and Worf all combined.

Ah in other words, Burnham was the show's main protagonist. Yeah, in Trek shows and others, that sometimes means that character gets most of the attention. I think this is once again, a case of forgetting that in DSC, the captain isn't the main character.

So perhaps seeing what would usually be a secondary character (the ship's first officer), get most of the backstory, the kind of diverse background usually reserved for the captain character, makes it seem like it's too many backstories. I'm going to start calling this "Lord Garth Syndrome", since he was the first to diagnose it. BTW, you didn't explain why "too many" backstories is a problem.

What happened during the run of season 1 was that the creators simply dropped half of her backstory - her acting like a Vulcan - gone, her being traumatized by the klingon attack - almost gone (except for that horrible reappereance in the finale)

They dropped NONE of Burnham's backstory. Which parts do you think were dropped?

Burnham's "trauma" from the Klingon attacks had been resolved at some point prior to her joining the Disco crew. It was not a factor during the season. Also, I think she acted as Vulcan-like at the end of the season as she did from when we see her and Georgiou together at the start of the pilot. However, spending so much time with humans (again), no doubt had an affect on her as we've seen it have on half Vulcans and full Vulcans like, Spock, T'Pol, and Tuvok.

It's not that during the season we got to know her character better. It's that they needed the entire season for her to actually become a character in the first place.

Well, IMO, as to when Burnham became a fully fleshed out, fully realized character, I would only disagree with you as to when it happened. I saw the character this way by the end of the third episode. That it didn't happen for you until season's end is not that big a deal. At least it happened in the first season. Some shows take much longer to get even their main character to this point.