It's less the ship and more the general culture. In the case of Relatively, I don't think it would be quite as pronounced... those are a crew specially trained to deal with time travel scenarios and would certainly have experience dealing with people from various time periods.
Discovery's Final Season: What Do You Hope to See?
- Thread starter DarKush
- Start date
It's less the ship and more the general culture. In the case of Relatively, I don't think it would be quite as pronounced... those are a crew specially trained to deal with time travel scenarios and would certainly have experience dealing with people from various time periods.
It seemed that Janeway and Seven adapted just fine.
I just watched an episode of TNG where Riker immediately knows how to work a civilian ship's interface which is from an alien culture that he has no knowledge of.
Star Trek often really homogenizes these situations and makes huge cultural and technological differences a non-issue.
I actually buy that programmable matter on a future Starfleet ship is easier to adapt to than such examples!
I'll always appreciate how Search for Spock and The Voyage Home have scenes showing our Federation crew having a helluva time trying to understand how to use a Klingon vessel.
Reading Klingon, that's hard!
My complaints on that are two-fold. One, if it traumatized these people so much, why did every single person on the ship agree to go? In less than a year Burnham connected so deeply with every single person on that ship that they unanimously agreed to leave their whole families behind?
Especially after SNW, it infuriated me that Spock was willing to jump into the future and leave behind his family and HIS FIANCEE just to keep his estranged foster sister company.
The continuing trauma of the crew really just highlighted the ridiculousness of that conceit.
But... with that in mind...yes, go ahead and show them struggling, but goodness gracious they at least had Picard going back to duty after being assimilated in one episode. Star Trek has always demonstrated professionals who can still perform competently while dealing with trauma. It makes the Discovery crew look less than by comparison if they are incapable of performing their duties in the same way.
Picard going back to work was absurd.
Hollywood handles trauma like shit.
Hollywood handles trauma like shit.
Picard at least had "Family" where he broke down with his brother. And it was clear he carried that trauma with him afterward.
When Data got his emotion chip in Generations and was having trouble functioning over his guilt about Geordi, Picard verbally snapped him back into shape.
Kirk fell over with grief when his son was killed, but then composed himself and got the job done.
Pike allowed himself to wallow in his turmoil until April said he was needed to help Una, then he got his crap together and did the work.
In all of these cases, these characters still clearly were struggling, but they were professional and were able to put that aside and do what needed to be done in a crisis.
Which, for a lot of people, is part of what drew them to Star Trek. I've seen reviewer after reviewer comment on how they miss the sense of professionalism that the characters on Star Trek used to have. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging what the characters are going through, but when it starts to impact their ability to do their job, that's when a lot of viewers get turned off.
And committed a war crime.
Ok, well, that is completely unappealing to me.
Based on your "war crime" comment, I'd say yeah, maybe that aspect of it isn't appealing to you.
In which case, as I saw one reviewer say, Discovery isn't MY favorite Trek, but it is SOMEONE'S, and that's great.
The idea of "soldiering on" through trauma appeals to many but it doesn't work for all cases. While I appreciate what Pike can do, Picard and Kirk don't feel that great. Picard snapping at Data smacks of hypocrisy since Picard literally goes in to his ready room and breaks down without any explanation to his crew for his order. "Just do it!"
And I don't see the crew of the Discovery behave incompetently.
What war crime did Kirk commit?
The Klingons destroyed the Grissom and took David, Saavik, and young Spock hostage. If anyone was starting a war, it was Kruge, not Kirk.
Okay. But that was done after Kruge had a Federation citizen killed on purpose (David), took others hostage (one of them a Starfleet officer, Saavik), a Starfleet science ship destroyed, and was trying to steal everything possible regarding Genesis.
Kirk played the last card he had left to save his crew and stop a threat.
I don't fault him for it at all.
Kirk played the last card he had left to save his crew and stop a threat.
I don't fault him for it at all.
When facing an enemy that has already demonstrated a willingness to commit war crimes themselves, self-preservation through deceit is a viable strategy.
For instance, knowing how the Japanese treated their POW's, I wouldn't fault a military unit for using a similar booby trap tactic.
I don't fault him either.
Still a war crime.
See above. Still a crime, even if it's understandable.
So the alternative was, what? Allows the Klingons to capture Kirk and company who'll almost certainly be tortured for information and killed, have the Enterprise captured and taken to the Empire to be studied and stripped of all classified computer information, and potentially have the Klingons start destroying Federation worlds with their own Genesis devices?
As an officer, you protect the lives of those under your command and Federation citizens. Kruge was a clear threat to not just everyone there, but for the Federation. Kirk would have irresponsible if he didn't do what he did.
Just a little Day of the Dove situation reversal.
Again, I understand what Kirk did. That doesn't make it less of a crime. A greater crime would be to not protect the citizens, but again, and I will stress, it's still a crime.
To be explicit: I don't think Kirk was wrong, I don't think he had much choice (though I think he had some), and I don't think Kirk is a bad character for the choice. I am pointing out that the decision was a criminal one. That's it. No moral judgement here.
It doesn't really come across that way when you singled out that one example in the same post where you said that character trait was unappealing.
I said, as a positive, that Kirk moved on from his son's death to get the job done. You replied that in doing so he committed a war crime.
I would ask, if you don't think Kirk was wrong, why even make mention of it?
Similar threads
