Disco characters...
- Thread starter jaime
- Start date
How many people got to be the ship's captain, even in the Mirror Universe?
Meh. Pretending to be someone else is fake.
You mean like when Sisko pretended to be Mirror Sisko and slept with Mirror Jadzia under that pretense?
Comparing Michael Sue Burnham to Tom Paris is insulting to Tom Paris. She wishes she was even a tenth as likeable as Tom.
A character like Paris is what STD is missing.
A character like Paris is what STD is missing.
The absolute LAST thing DSC needs is a "Tom Paris"-like character.
I was afraid she was just going to be used to draw in viewers and then be off the payroll after the 2nd episode. how wrong i was. She's a tremendous actress AND stage fighter. I agree with you.
Yuck. Don't remind me.
The only character I thought had good chemistry with the rest of the cast was Tyler and he's gone. The rest are meh for me.
I think Burnham's resemblance to Tom Paris was accidental. However, I think they purposefully made her bicultural (human, yet raised by Vulcans) to call back to fan favorites:
Spock - Vulcan, but with human ancestry - conflicted outsider
Data - An emotionless android, but wants to feel emotion like humans - conflicted outsider
Worf - A Klingon largely raised by humans. An outsider in both cultures - conflicted outsider
The Doctor - A hologram, but desires to become more than that - conflicted outsider
Seven of Nine - Raised Borg, but needs to adapt to Federation ways - conflicted outsider
I don't list DS9 because it didn't really have "breakout" characters since it was such an ensemble piece. But several characters fit this to various levels, including Odo, Sisko, and Garak.
If you want to create a breakout Trek character, you need to have a source of internal conflict, and someone who doesn't approach things from the "generic human" standpoint, but sees things from a slightly different perspective. I absolutely believe that Burnham being raised by Vulcans was a thing for that reason.
Spock - Vulcan, but with human ancestry - conflicted outsider
Data - An emotionless android, but wants to feel emotion like humans - conflicted outsider
Worf - A Klingon largely raised by humans. An outsider in both cultures - conflicted outsider
The Doctor - A hologram, but desires to become more than that - conflicted outsider
Seven of Nine - Raised Borg, but needs to adapt to Federation ways - conflicted outsider
I don't list DS9 because it didn't really have "breakout" characters since it was such an ensemble piece. But several characters fit this to various levels, including Odo, Sisko, and Garak.
If you want to create a breakout Trek character, you need to have a source of internal conflict, and someone who doesn't approach things from the "generic human" standpoint, but sees things from a slightly different perspective. I absolutely believe that Burnham being raised by Vulcans was a thing for that reason.
And ironically that’s why Lorca was so taken to by fans...and he turns out to be a ‘baddie from the baddie universe’ like some kind of malevolent Odo.
Maybe but do you think fans want another clone of Spock/Data/the doctor/ 7 of 9/Odo just to name a few. How does this make Burnham a breakout character? It's certainly not unique. Every star trek show has had a character like this.
Actually, there was a malevolent Odo. He was vaporized by Bashir.
What about a "Nick Locarno"-like character?
Dude. I love Tom "Max Sue" Paris as much as the next guy, he's one of my absolute favourites. But he's also an expert in the field of everything - from espionage, to medical training, piloting (of curse), everything history. Besides that, he's a lady's man, know-it-all kind of rogue-ish perfect boyfriend for Harry Kim... What I'm saying is...he's perfect.
You just didn't noticed, because the series wasn't set around him as a main character - he was just one of an ensemble.
I very much like Burnham, and I think a lot of it has to do that she is in fact so similar to Tom Paris. I think one of the majow problems with Burnham in turns of "likeability" is that we don't see her act so much, as we see lots and LOTS of serious voice-overs from her with her making her "serious"-face.
I put this problem on the writing. I usually like her when she talks to someone. I hate it when she holds speeches (she's a great Duncan McNeil - but she ain't no Patrick Steward). But sadly, the writers chose to give almost all exposition to her in long, serious voice-over speeches. That's annoying.
But if SMG is given actually workable material, she's IMO quite good. The main problem is that she isn't part of an ensemble, but the main focus. Im sure if Tom Paris would have been the focal point of every early Voyager episode, we'd probably gettin' very fed up with him equally fast.
SFdebris made a point of comparing her to Seven of Nine - a human woman, grown up on an alien society with logic at her core, now learning to cope with emotions and having a strong mother-figure Captain. But IMO even that is not THAT unique in Star Trek. I think the Tom Paris connection is closer. She's basically just every interesting Star Trek backstory we ever had thrown together in a blender.
The problem I see with her is that she isn't given one backstory, but ALL of them. Her connection to Sarek, Georgiou, the mutiny, the klingons - it's too much for one person. When we see her act, I like her. As soon as we start hearing about one of her backstories, I'm kind of tuning out. That stuff isn't that interesting most of the time. They should have spread that out over the multiple characters of the main cast, or later seasons.
What about a "Nick Locarno"-like character?
Dude. I love Tom "Max Sue" Paris as much as the next guy, he's one of my absolute favourites. But he's also an expert in the field of everything - from espionage, to medical training, piloting (of curse), everything history. Besides that, he's a lady's man, know-it-all kind of rogue-ish perfect boyfriend for Harry Kim... What I'm saying is...he's perfect.
You just didn't noticed, because the series wasn't set around him as a main character - he was just one of an ensemble.
I very much like Burnham, and I think a lot of it has to do that she is in fact so similar to Tom Paris. I think one of the majow problems with Burnham in turns of "likeability" is that we don't see her act so much, as we see lots and LOTS of serious voice-overs from her with her making her "serious"-face.
I put this problem on the writing. I usually like her when she talks to someone. I hate it when she holds speeches (she's a great Duncan McNeil - but she ain't no Patrick Steward). But sadly, the writers chose to give almost all exposition to her in long, serious voice-over speeches. That's annoying.
But if SMG is given actually workable material, she's IMO quite good. The main problem is that she isn't part of an ensemble, but the main focus. Im sure if Tom Paris would have been the focal point of every early Voyager episode, we'd probably gettin' very fed up with him equally fast.
SFdebris made a point of comparing her to Seven of Nine - a human woman, grown up on an alien society with logic at her core, now learning to cope with emotions and having a strong mother-figure Captain. But IMO even that is not THAT unique in Star Trek. I think the Tom Paris connection is closer. She's basically just every interesting Star Trek backstory we ever had thrown together in a blender.
The problem I see with her is that she isn't given one backstory, but ALL of them. Her connection to Sarek, Georgiou, the mutiny, the klingons - it's too much for one person. When we see her act, I like her. As soon as we start hearing about one of her backstories, I'm kind of tuning out. That stuff isn't that interesting most of the time. They should have spread that out over the multiple characters of the main cast, or later seasons.
That last point is very astute...given the entire Shezhou crew is on the DSC anyway, they should have spread the points...have one be the mutineer, one the Vulcan, have them all be after that redemption for the start of the war, even if only one of their number was in the brig for it. Much more interesting, much more for all the characters, and stories about that one thing that basically write themselves. (Half the bridge sided with the mutineer, but only one went down, half hate the other half for what happened and are struggling to get past that, all blame themselves for the death of their captain and the loss of their ship...which is precisely why it’s easy for them to turn a blind eye to Lorca...they want redemption. And of course that’s part of why Lorca wants them, in addition to Captain Killys analogue. Now you have a story about Tilly trying to fit in with this existing crew dynamic, and how they are maybe a bit tarnished from the Starfleet ideal that she herself still embodies.)
It changes everything and nothing all at once, and is simply a better way. It even has analogues in Treks past (The Klingon crew Of has-beens, Voyager and it’s Maquis split, Chekhov or Saavik coming in to work with an established dynamic.)
You know what? That's a super interesting idea:
What if not one character, but one ship crew has to go on a redemption arc? Hell, they didn't even need the Shenzhou - Discovery transfer, they could have it set on the same ship! Have the ship entirely fuck up, start a war, kill their Captain. In this scenario, Lorca would simply have been the "new" Captain, who has to redeem a misjudged crew.
I'm not sure fans consciously want such a character. But on most shows there are one or two breakout characters who aren't the lead/captain, and if they exist, they are the conflicted outsider. Burnham was a conscious effort to recreate this.
Of course, my understanding is most, if not all, later-day Trek characters were essentially created via committee based upon presumptions of what the fans want (modified as needed to account for actors), so it's not like this level of cynicism is new to Trek.
Hrrm, you have a point. If you look at the rest of the crew, only Lorca and Tyler were given backstories, and that was because they were plot critical. In contrast, we could summarize what we know about the backstories of Saru, Stamets, and Tilly in 1-2 sentences.
Even better, give "Lorca" a background prior to command track as a psychologist, similar to Cornwell. His job isn't just to lead the ship, but to "heal it" after the traumatic experience.
Last edited:
I'm still not sure you can argue that Sisko's role on DS9 was the same as the captains on the other shows. I mean, it's weird, because in one sense his personal arc was integral to the show as a whole. On the other hand it seemed like over half of the episodes each season were led by other characters. Sometimes he just had a little three-minute scene at the opening and closing in his office, and was otherwise totally ignored.
Sure, but he was still the main character when for instance he left the station (for an unspecified period of time) that caused dismay and even distress among the rest of the crew. His baseball is an important plot point during the time Dukat occupies his office and Dukat hand it out to him as a symbol of surrender.
Similar threads
