And then there are the folks who simply recognize that these people are clumsy, bumbling writers. Period, full stop.
Danai Gurira as Burnham, instead of Sonequa...
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
And then there are the folks who simply recognize that these people are clumsy, bumbling writers. Period, full stop.
Again, all you have actually said is you opinion differs from mine and presented it with an arrogance that is outright offensive.
Whether a singer hits a note is an objectively verifiable and measurable fact. Whether they deliver it with emotional impact is subjective. You may have read her performance very differently but that's what subjective means, it's value is in the interpretation of the viewer. I haven't said she was terrible, but that I disagree with you does not require you to be outright patronising.
I have no idea what your background is but speaking down to perfectly intelligent people who understand full well the difference between that which is objective and that which is not does not encourage the perfectly civil discussion I was hoping to have with you. I'm sure you didn't intend to be offensive or condescending but look back over your own posts and consider just why you may be perceived in that light by someone who typically does not come here looking to make enemies.
I agree with you the problem is more the writing than the actor.
However several cast members have had similarly terrible lines to belt out over the course of the season, such as Jason Isaacs, Anthony Rapp, and Doug Jones. Their characters came across as better not because they were better written, but because the actors brought elan into the role which carried all of them above the lackluster dialogue and shallow characterization. SMG is a fine actress, but she's not in the same caliber as any of those men.
It's not the end of the world in a Trek series if the lead isn't the strongest actor. Arguably TNG is the only case where the lead was by far the best actor. On TOS, Shatner was not as good of an actor as Nimoy. On DS9, Avery Brooks was usually serviceable, but probably the second-weakest actor out of a (admittedly stellar) cast. On VOY, Kate Mulgrew generally didn't put in as good of a performance as Jeri Ryan or Bob Picardo (although my opinion of her acting has risen with seeing her in more recent projects - I think she suffered due to the writers, and by extension her, not knowing her character). On ENT...shit, I dunno, everyone was kind of blah, but Scott Bakula didn't truly dominate the show by any means.
Regardless, it's fine if SMG isn't the best actor in the cast, as long as they tweak the show a bit so that she isn't always the plot fulcrum. But if they attempt to make her as central to the second season as the first, I anticipate righting the ship will be difficult.
You made a baseless assessment of quality that is demonstrably wrong, and now you're offended that someone called you on your bullshit?
Sorry. I can't really help you with that.
Elaborate on this. What part of "the writing" is problematic for Burnham specifically? You seem to be implying the problem is with the dialog she's given, which is an interesting thing to look at... what, specifically, is wrong with Burnham's dialog?
You made a baseless assessment of quality that is demonstrably wrong, and now you're offended that someone called you on your bullshit?
Sorry. I can't really help you with that.
I made a subjective assessment of a subjective question, one that many people seem to agree with. I had hoped for a discussion with someone whose opinion I was actually interested in.
That, however, is besides the point, all interest in your opinion dissipated when you became wilfully obnoxious to a stranger simply because their opinion differed to yours. If you really can't see what in your posts have been patronising, smug and offensive then I respectfully suggest you take a constructive look at the way you present yourself to others.
Good day.
Nope, she's not awful by any stretch, they could have done worse but she hardly oozes screen presence either.
Agreed.
She's passable but not series lead material. The writing for Burnham does nothing to endear either.
Ouch. I agree there's definite room for improvement with the show's writing, and it might very well be one of the worst written shows currently on television. But that was just harsh.
SM-G is great. I have zero complaints about her acting.
I think the 'issue' with her is two-fold: She's the lead in the most lead-driven series to date; she had to play against a once in a generation talent who was conspicuously not the lead.
It was really an unfair juxtaposition.
ETA:
I think the 'issue' with her is two-fold: She's the lead in the most lead-driven series to date; she had to play against a once in a generation talent who was conspicuously not the lead.
It was really an unfair juxtaposition.
ETA:
Eh. Gotta disagree here. Up until recently, Kate was far and away the second-best actor to ever put on Star Trek pajamas - and I say this as someone who thinks Ryan was way, way, way underappreciated for her talent. Picardo, on the other hand, was never that great. He's an outstanding emoter but not a particularly strong actor. (There is a difference.)
Eddie, back off. I actually agree with you that SMG's acting ability is quite good, but you've completely lost the plot on what constitutes the subjective versus the objective, and you're being extremely smug and overbearing about it.
Sonequa never turns in less than a creditable performance. Is she the best actress on television? Well, no... not even close. She's no Viola Davis, but she is perfectly capable of crafting a fine performance from the relatively mediocre material she's been given so far.
Your one man crusade to prove that the majority of fans don't like Sonequa's performance is nothing but a house of cards. There is really nothing there behind the bluster. I could cherry pick forum threads and Youtube video to "prove" anything i wanted to prove about what fans thought of any aspect of any Trek series.
I'm sure some poster has mentioned that Sonequa wasn't the first choice for Burnham, according to reports. And even though I have really liked how Sonequa has progressed in the role, Rosario Dawson would have been great. In any case, Sonequa has grown into the role and I expect that growth to continue.
I love Danai (especialy in BP) and she would have made an excellent Burnham, but doesn't mean I want her to replace SMG.
Martin-Green had the unfortunate (for actors) unintended effect of being upstaged by Isaacs, and to some degree Yeoh. Isaacs may not have been intended to be the star of the show but he just delivers an amazing performance and he takes over any scene he's in. Acting wise he's only really on par, talent wise when he's acting one-on-one with Jayne Brook or Michelle Yeoh. There was just a LOT of talent and experience on the acting payroll this season.
She's a great talent, and I think they'll figure out how to write better for her, next season. She came into her own in the Mirror Universe episodes. They do need to stop giving her self-righteous speeches. My God, she even used the word righteous at one point in the final episode.
She's a great talent, and I think they'll figure out how to write better for her, next season. She came into her own in the Mirror Universe episodes. They do need to stop giving her self-righteous speeches. My God, she even used the word righteous at one point in the final episode.
This. A star should be the person your eye settles on, the person who commands your attention and fascinates you, not someone you keep having to be reminded is there. Amongst a lesser cast she might well have better showcased the talent she has, but it was like having (I dunno) Brian McFadden singing on stage with Freddie Mercury, Mariah Carey, Aretha Franklin and Axl Rose on backing vocals (replace the examples to suit your taste, the point still works). He's functional, capable, he can hold a tune, but he'd be upstaged by the much more commanding talents who are there to support him.
You know what another example of this is actually? The Expanse. It's a much, much better series than Discovery to date, particularly in the writing department. However, Steven Strait was horribly miscast as the lead role - not only because he lacks acting gravitas, but also because although he's around the right age for "book Holden" he doesn't come across as a grizzled ex-soldier, but someone who just stepped off of a teen drama. He's out-acted by half of the cast. In the strongest parallel to Discovery, once the initial arc for Thomas Jane's character ends early in the second season, his absence onscreen is palpable.
It's still a good show, but it would have been a so much better show with someone other than Strait in the lead role.
Last edited:
Completely agreed, I loved The Expanse but I struggle to think of Strait's Holden as being the lead, a major figure in interplanetary events whose actions influence millions of people. When I think of the show I think of Shoreh Aghdashloo and Thomas Jane who just commanded every scene they were in, I think of Dominique Tipper as the primary mover in our heroes and I think fondly of Wes Chatham's almost humorously placid portrayal of a pathologically violent man who just happens to be one of the good guys.
Unfortunately, if they stay true to the books, we're going to see a metric shit-ton of Jim Holden in the future. Holden is the one POV character across the entire seven (and presumably eventually nine) books.
Of course, even if the show lasts long enough to develop all of the books, considering they take place over a 30+ year period, they'd have to alter the timeline significantly (or start putting aging makeup on the characters) to ever develop the later parts of the series.