I'm not sure? I've watched TOS very recently, but I don't remember that particular instance. Either way, if so, the purposes and execution are very different.
Better series lead. Ed Mercer from "Orville" vs Burnham from "Discovery?"
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
I'm not sure? I've watched TOS very recently, but I don't remember that particular instance. Either way, if so, the purposes and execution are very different.
Considering that Michael's story is not yet finished, I guess we'll find out in Season 2. And considering that she had just prevented Starfleet and the Federation from committing genocide and basically wrecking their reputations throughout the galaxy, they should be kissing her ass.
Also, I'm sensing this attitude that Michael's story and character development was supposed to be complete by the end of Season 1. Why? Especially since that was only the first season.
Are all leading characters or female leading characters supposed to be "fun"? When was "Discovery" mainly supposed to be a comedy?
Stories can still be fun without being comedies.
Why do they have to be fun? This sounds like a superficial excuse to dislike Burnham. I enjoyed watching her struggle with social interaction in Season 1's seventh episode. But that doesn't mean I want her to be another Ed Mercer. Why does she have to be one? Is that the only way you can accept Burnham . . . if she was "fun" in nearly episode? White? Male?
First of all, please tone it down. The way you come off in your post is rather provocative and disagreeable. I'm not some boogie man here to rain on anyone's parade. I'm just a viewer with an opinion, just like you. I didn't say it had to be fun. I have my own reasons for not liking Burnham. I simply find her unlikable and I felt her being connected to Spock's family was unnecessary. I'm glad you liked her and her struggles. It's not my cup of tea, different strokes and all that. I don't want her to be Mercer either. She's not a Captain for one. And her being a Captain, Male or White wouldn't make a difference. I never once mentioned her gender or skin color anyway. Not sure why you did unless you were trying to vilify me or generalize because we happen to disagree.
Last edited:
Depends on how we define "Fun" You can have a fun character who is a complete asshole. Tony Soprano for one example. Or has a darkness to them like Walter White. I think the kind of fun people are talking about is whether or not the viewer is having fun while watching the character. Not if the character is cracking jokes and having a grand ole time.
Jason
"Fun" means entertaining to watch. The Burnham arc was just plain painful thanks to rather poor writing.
Now, there are shows that aren't "fun" but are still worthwhile to watch, things like The Handmaid's Tale and Westworld. Things that make us ask uncomfortable questions about who we are. Discovery and Burnham's arc simply never rose to that level.
You'll have to do better than this.
The more I read of your posts the clearer it becomes that Burnham is indeed one of the big problems with STD; your defense of the character is so dogged and yet lacking in substance. SMG is a fine actor doing her best to bring some nuance to the character - but honestly, how are they supposed to build a decent narrative on the foundation of a twentysomething moping in a sparkly jumpsuit on a goddamn spaceship? Certain kinds of interior stories are best grounded in the detail and close observation of the real world rather than in a broadly painted fantasy.
Last edited:
You assume a lot, bro. I like SMG. I love her as Rhonda in New Girl. That's fun. Orville is fun. Fun doesn't equal funny, but something that I feel entertained watching. I really, really, don't have to defend my preferences in entertainment to you.
What, out of anything that I've said, makes you think that I only like white male characters? You've got no Idea who I am, mate.
One recurring problem that I'm seeing is anyone who finds criticism of writing on Discovery tries to warp it into a rejection of diversity. For the record, Star Trek was doing diversity long before or Discovery. It's an insult to the artists who worked very, very hard on previous series to act like Discovery is breaking new ground that others were too narrow-minded, scared or whatever else to do.
Throwing up the "you're anti whatever" when someone states that they don't like something is lazy at best. If I was a bigot, I wouldn't be watching The Orville.
"Fun" means keeps me watching, week after week. In the case of "The Orville" it's presenting a universe that gets a lot of development. The Union is a local power, sure, but they're still discovering a lot of things, not the almighty local faction of TNG and later, but a growing and sometimes struggling state. Every week they find something new and interesting. The humor can occasionally be crude, but I'll tell you something. The least funny jokes in the entire season were the ones that they showed the previews of the sseries (those were also basically the only jokes in the whole first episode).
It's not a sitcom. It's not perfect, and a couple of the later jokes fall a little flat, but it's among the finest of what's available for SF on TV now. Optimistic, never repetitive and unlike anything else that's out there.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of y'all who hate on the show haven't watched more than a single episode. The story "Pria" involves a character of the same name, played by Charlize Theron, coming across the crew. There's a lot more going on than is originally evident (natch), and it ends with Ed Mercer having his heart broken, but learning a lot about trusting his team. Very touching.
At the same time, it's also the funniest episode of the season. There's a bit where the alien android is trying to learn about humor. He obliviously goes around the ship after a crewmate sticks Mr. Potato Head pieces on his face. Takes the wrong lesson and then ends up amputating that same crewman's leg while he sleeps. It gets better from there. The crewman's regrown leg is awkward and gross, and his original leg makes an appearance at the end. Anyways, it's fun. Burnham is not.
I think many folks underestimate the value of simple optimism in modern entertainment. There are a lot of good sci-fi out there. There isn't much that is actually optimistic about who we are and where we are going, and that includes Discovery.
Why? No one else on this message board. Why do I have to? Because I had hinted the possibility of racism and sexism within the Trek fandom?
Season One had ended with Burnham preventing Starfleet and the Federation from committing genocide and reminding both organizations of what they're supposed to be about. How is that not optimistic? Because no jokes were told? Because the leading character wasn't portrayed by a comic actress?
Why do all stories in pop culture have to be optimistic? Because you can't deal with stories that reflect the true nature of our society?
Because a lot of these criticisms always seemed to come off being shallow to me. Like how "Discovery" is supposed to be more "optimistic". When I actually come across a criticism that doesn't seem shallow to me, chances are I'll stop being suspicious that some fans cannot deal with a black woman in the lead of a Trek show.
Jesus Christ, do you actually read your posts? No one said all stories have to be "optimistic" (I brought up two good shows that aren't optimistic), but that has been Trek's bread and butter for a really, really long time. It is a staple of Trek. And The Orville has stolen that thunder from them.
And government is, and will continue to be evil isn't optimistic storytelling. It is a lazy storytelling crutch. That the Federation and Starfleet are okay with genocide isn't optimistic. Neither is hiring Space Hitler to do your dirty work.
Um because I was being civil and trying to have a decent discussion on this topic. I don't know who else is being as confrontational as you but please stop. You don't need to be so obstinate.
Yep, exactly. Picard was a fun character, but the series wasn't a comedy. Comic at times, sure, but mostly dramatic.
Yeah, that's a bit what I was expecting. Seeing interviews before Discovery premiered had me very excited by the prospect of her character. Then I saw the stuff about her being Spock's foster sister and I got really worried. Then when it finally did premier, Burnham ended up being so different than what I had in mind and is unfortunately the worst character on Discovery for me. Which is a shame because I do like Sonequa Martin-Green. It's just Burnham I think is awful. Anyone could play Burnham and I wouldn't have liked the character any more or less.
Last edited:
I think there was a definite disconnect with the character that they never figured out at the conceptual level. She's supposed to be so great as she's ready for a starship command even though she never attended Starfleet Academy, but breaks down at the first sign of Klingons and goes running to Vulcan space daddy.
Every time I think about it, the more convinced that "The Vulcan Hello"/"Battle at the Binary Stars" assassinated the character before we even got to know her.
You can say that again. The pilot should have been like Operation: Annihilate, where Burnham had to figure out how to save a world that seemingly couldn't be saved. Everybody think's it's a lost cause but Burnham is so sure that the planet could be saved that against all odds figures out how. She find's that alternative and is seen as a hero.
I do tend to think that Star Trek has fallen into the trap of having to save the universe/Federation with every story.
Similar threads
