Disco characters...

[Rahul]

You really think so? I would argue that Picard and Data (or more precisely, the actors who played them) were the only things that made the show work. Get rid of them, and TNG would have been a hollow shell of itself. (Riker in particular I always found to be an intolerably annoying character. But then every Trek series after TOS seems to have at least one of those...)

Yes, I think so. Picard and Data were the very obvious fan favourites, of course. Much like Spock was on the original series. But like Phase II could have had existed without Spock and a replacement instead, TNG could have had existed without them. Cmdr. Shelby was even introduced as Rikers "Nr. 1", to replace the Picard-Riker relationship.

Of course the show would have massively suffered for it - Picard was one of the biggest strengths of the show, and replacing him could have proven very difficult, and probably audience figures would have dropped. It would be like on Stargate SG-1 after Richard Dean Anderson left. It'd be harmful to the show. But the show could have survived that. OTOH a show called "Buck Rogers in the 25th century" coudln't survive the actor playing Buck rogers leaving. Or Adam West leaving Batman '66, or Tom Sellek leaving Magnum, Veronica Mars leaving... Veronica Mars.

Those shows have a clear main character they are completely centered around. Star Trek always was more an ensemble piece - with the Captains and the fan favourite characters taking center stage, but the show not being entirely dependant upon them. DS9 and DIS are somewhere in the middle between these two extremes - they have a more clear "main" character. DS9 is especially interesting, as Sisko's screen-time share isn't that big compared to all the others on the show, it's just the role he plays for the various storylines - every aspect of the show is centered around him as the main presence: The station he commands, his family, his role as a spiritual leader of an alien species. Take him away, and ALL those storylines suffer. The "space station" storyline could survive - DS9 simply get's a new Captain - but the "Sisko's family"-storylines and the religious Emissary-storylines (which are also central to the show) would crash down burning.

 

[lawman]

Okay, I take your point: conceptually, TNG could have survived as a show without Picard and Data. I maintain, however, that as a practical matter it would have been a crippling weakness for the show. Kinda sounds like you agree. (Speaking for myself, for instance, I literally couldn't have stood to watch a show in which Riker was the captain, even if everything else in the show were the same.)

By way of analogy, M*A*S*H was a genuine ensemble show, and a very good one. It successfully weathered the loss and replacement of no less than four major characters over the years. But the one it simply couldn't have done without was Hawkeye. Take him away, and you could theoretically have kept the show going, but you'd have been better off to just cancel it.

DS9, though, I think could actually have done just fine without Sisko. (But maybe that's because I think the "Sisko's family" storylines and especially the "religious Emmissary" storyline were weaknesses of the show in the first place, not strengths.)

As for DSC, I think it would be just fine without Burnham. The writers have obviously labored mightily to make her the central character of the show — including by overloading her with backstory, as discussed upthread. It just hasn't worked. She's not that interesting. Lorca was far more charismatic when he was around. Moreover, the character arc set up for her in S1 has for all intents and purposes been completely resolved. Put her on a bus, reformat the show to be more of an ensemble piece (or plug in a new central character who actually has screen presence), and IMHO the show would probably be improved.

 

[jaime]

Okay, I take your point: conceptually, TNG could have survived as a show without Picard and Data. I maintain, however, that as a practical matter it would have been a crippling weakness for the show. Kinda sounds like you agree. (Speaking for myself, for instance, I literally couldn't have stood to watch a show in which Riker was the captain, even if everything else in the show were the same.)

By way of analogy, M*A*S*H was a genuine ensemble show, and a very good one. It successfully weathered the loss and replacement of no less than four major characters over the years. But the one it simply couldn't have done without was Hawkeye. Take him away, and you could theoretically have kept the show going, but you'd have been better off to just cancel it.

DS9, though, I think could actually have done just fine without Sisko. (But maybe that's because I think the "Sisko's family" storylines and especially the "religious Emmissary" storyline were weaknesses of the show in the first place, not strengths.)

As for DSC, I think it would be just fine without Burnham. The writers have obviously labored mightily to make her the central character of the show — including by overloading her with backstory, as discussed upthread. It just hasn't worked. She's not that interesting. Lorca was far more charismatic when he was around. Moreover, the character arc set up for her in S1 has for all intents and purposes been completely resolved. Put her on a bus, reformat the show to be more of an ensemble piece (or plug in a new central character who actually has screen presence), and IMHO the show would probably be improved.

I do disagree with your assesment of DS9...though the novels do fine to all intents without Sisko. They just aren’t as good.

Burnham...I do t want to ship her out of Walford in a Black Cab, but the show could stand to lose so tight a focus on a character that is not exactly strong enough to take the strain, and is over abounded with sheer Stuff, when everyone else is short. Burnham is the fiver percenter of character traits.

 

[lawman]

Whoa, gettin' out there with the Brit lingo! I have no idea what "Walford" is, nor a "five percenter"! I can kinda infer what you mean from context, but I've literally never heard either phrase before...

 

[gblews]

You really didn't get it, did you?

No, I don't agree with you.

All CHARACTERS have the same relationship to Burnham - initial mistrust, grudgingly learning respect for her abilities, and in the end for her herself.

No they don't. Neither Tilly nor Tyler mistrust Burnham from their initial meeting with her. Lorca, because he is from the MU, has no trust for anyone on the ship, but has no particular mistrust for Burnham. In fact, it is likely Lorca mistrusts Burnham less than anyone else simply because he knows her MU self.

Then you gave the example of "Detmer". Sadly, she isn't a "character" on the show, she's a thinly veiled extra without personality or on-screen history or story.

Oh but Detmer most certainly is a "character" on the show. We saw her in most of the episodes and she has a name. She just isn't one of the main characters and as such "is without personality or on-screen history or story" at least in season 1. Maybe we'll get more of her in season 2, and maybe not.

Lit, and maybe noterally everybody that has any meaningful dialogue on the show beyond background status reports during bridge scenes has the exact same relationship to Burnham.

Already addressed, twice.

You cited a relationship that simply doesn't exist on the show (Burnhams relationship to Detmer) as a counter-example. There exists only this ONE(!) scene with her where they interact.

The two characters obviously had a relationship in the past. You can tell that by Burnham's familiar tone with Detmer when they meet in the mess hall. There is also the friendly interaction we see on the Shenzhou bridge which implies that all of the bridge officers, including Detmer, had at least a cordial relationship.

What the mess hall scene made clear was that whatever relationship Burnham and Detmer had, was severely damaged by Burnham's actions at the "Binary Stars". The two DO have a relationship, it is just filled with animosity and likely mistrust. To some, that may look like "no relationship", but you just have to watch with a bit more discernment and lieele more of an open mind.

Everything else (them hanging out at the party, Detmer being friendly to Tyler after the Tyler reveal and Burnham-Tyler relationship has ben made open) indicate a change. But it simply was not shown. They could have had the same development the Burnham-Saru relationship had - he was shocked first seeing her on this ship as well.

Well yes, perhaps this will be addressed in sea-- wait, have I written this before? Seems like I have.

Although I've pointed out that Burnham's relationships with Lorca, Tilly, and Tyler were different from her other relationships, considering that most of the crew only knew Burnham from her sordid reputation, it is a surprise that the aforementioned (except Lorca) didn't mistrust Burnham from the beginning. She was a convicted mutineer, it would make perfect sense for everyone to mistrust Burnham and even more sense that she would have to earn respect and trust from the whole crew. The write staff chose not to go that route with the entire crew, but itl would have made sens if they had.

Further, if Burnham's relationships with all of the crew had remained the same throughout season 1, it is likely you would have been complaining about that and it actually have made sense. Burnham was a super competent officer who, despite a momentary lapse, had tons of integrity, so why wouldn't the crewmen who initially mistrusted her evolve to trusting and respecting her?

Now, if your complaint was that Burnham's journey to gaining the crew's respect, trust, and affection came too fast, I might agree. That makes some sense. But your complaint that all of Burnham's relationships were the same and they all evolved the same way just sounds like the usual nit picking under the guise of "in depth analysis".

 

[jaime]

Whoa, gettin' out there with the Brit lingo! I have no idea what "Walford" is, nor a "five percenter"! I can kinda infer what you mean from context, but I've literally never heard either phrase before...

I was being daft. Walford is from a popular soap opera...when characters leave, they tended to get into a black cab (like New York’s yellow taxis. But with more character.)
Five percent is just a general thing...how all the richest people make up about five percent of a population but have something like ninety percent of the wealth. XD

 

[lawman]

Huh. Here in the US, we routinely talk about "the one percent" in reference to income inequality. Including the entire top five percent makes the upper crust much less crusty!...

 

[jaime]

Huh. Here in the US, we routinely talk about "the one percent" in reference to income inequality. Including the entire top five percent makes the upper crust much less crusty!...

It’s probably one percent here when you get down to it xD