Spoilers Do you wish SPOILER had lived? (S2E1 Brother)

[Jayson1]

I agree. Being blunt can come off as being smug. I think that is a issue that sometimes comes from SMG , not because it's written that way but because Nimoy is a way better actor at showing a more playful nature I guess you could say to his personality. I really hope they start giving her more jokes. You know what she really needs is a foe on the level of McCoy. Someone to sort of spar with who is more emotional but also gets annoyed with her yet still cares about her. I actually see some potential in that with her and Pike so it will be fun to watch and see what happens.

Jason

 

[Noname Given]

Yeah, Kirk got a memorial service in "The Tholian Web", but Crewman Noname got nothing!

What, I didn't die in "The Tholian Web".

 

[Agony_Boothb]

My Bad. Maybe "condescending" is not the right word. And I'm talking about the character in general, not just in "New Eden".

I was thinking about the walk-and-talk scene between Burnham, Pike, Connelly, and Nhan when the latter three first beamed aboard. Burnham got a few sarcastic digs into Connelly, belittling him a bit and pointing out that she was more on top of the situation than he thought. However, I think she was just defending herself from his smug attitude. You're right -- that wasn't exactly being condescending.

Having said that, Burnham's demeanor can be seen to some as being condescending -- especially when she is being blunt and direct, but that is intentionally done by the writers as a function of being raised on Vulcan. Spock in TOS could occasionally sound condescending as well, as did Sarek in "Journey to Babel".

In fairness, Connolly who is a Lieutenant didn't even call Burnham by her rank ever, pretty sure that is insubordination. Connolly deserved all the sass and belittlement from Burnham that he got.

I see where you're coming from in your second point. I think the problem is that the writers often use Burnham as an exposition dump. She often says information that the crew and by extension, die-hard trekkies would already know or have surmised from years of watching trek, for example WW3. This coupled with Burnham's 'Vulcaness' has the unintended side-effect of making Burnham look like a douchey, condescending, know-it-all to some people.

 

[Blue Squadron]

There’s a lot of argument about the attribution of intent concerning the apparent arrogance and condescending behaviour of several characters in this episode. I get the general irritation this causes — but this is ALL about the writing:

Connolly was written as a dick on many levels. Burnham (and a few of the others) are used intermittently as blatant exposition conduits for the viewers, sometimes in a way which makes very little sense when considered from an in-universe point-of-view — and can therefore make them come across as arrogant or condescending to other characters.

We can speculate on why and these were my initial reactions to the episode...

Connolly was just not a well-written character. He was largely inconsequential and simply served a (cheap) dramatic purpose.

Killing him off was a bit over-the-top and probably unnecessary (humble him, make him aware of his hubris, extract home from his wrecked pod, send him back to Enterprise at the end of the episode, whatever...) but it’s hardly that much of a big deal in the overall arc of the show.

His interaction with a Burnham is odd; she may be “just” another science officer but she quite clearly outranks him by two grades — yet his interactions go well beyond the legitimate consideration and discussion of alternative theories and interpretation; he’s downright antagonistic at times. Again, this is a choice by the writers.

We, the viewers, also know that she has previously been a senior command officer; she had worked her way up to being an established first officer and was regarded as being ready for her own independent command. She is, by that standard, a far more senior officer than Connolly. But we also know that there was, ahem, a bit of a blip in her career, even if she was subsequently fully restored to her substantive rank (albeit in a different role). Is Connolly supposed to be having an issue with “Burnham-the-mutineer”...? It’s not addressed. Is it implied? Is he just written as generally being a dick?

Pike, so far, has shown a very inclusive and collegiate leadership style; he’s suggested he’s less interested in rank than in the quality of the information and advice coming to him from around the bridge. In-universe, he’s trying to win over the Discovery’s officers and the writers are bluntly telling the casual viewers that he’s not Lorca. Nevertheless, it still seems to be stretching the point for Pike to let Connolly to get away with being such an ass — and you can’t imagine Pike accepting that behaviour on his own ship, let alone on Disco when he’s still not finished trying to win over the crew. It’s cheap writing to set up some (ultimately irrelevant) dramatic conflict.

Yes, it amused me that the Blue Shirt was clearly the redshirt. I don’t mind the irony, even if the execution was a little unsubtle.

I get what they were trying to do and, in the grand scheme of things, I really, really just don’t care about Connolly but I guess the failure on the part of the script was that it was sufficiently noticeable that it elicited all of the above reactions whilst I was watching the episode.

But, honestly, it’s just a TV show — so I really can’t get that worked up about it...!

 

[Noname Given]

But, honestly, it’s just a TV show — so I really can’t get that worked up about it...!

...Looks at the above 10 paragraph post...

 

[DaveyNY]

If I were really bored, I could probably make a list of other Trek characters that have fallen (been written) in the same way over the last 50+ years.
But I'm not THAT bored, so let's just say that it would most likely be quite a long list.

 

[Rahul]

I got to say his [Connelly's] death might be the funniest in Trek history. Dying during mid complaining is a pretty fun way to take out a smug know it all. Still I think would be fun for the show to actually have a smug know it all on the show. Especially if they soften Stamets this year. The actor was pretty good and he at least had a distinct personality. The lady in red with the stuff on her face didn't really make much of a impression on me but he did.

Jason

To be honest: I don't really care wether he lived or died. The problem is, they kind of dropped the ball on is death:

• Connely was made out to be the asshole who should have get it coming
• He did some mind-boggingly stupid stuff
• And then died because of that

There simply was no excitement around his death. At all. The characters themselves didn't even react to it - which they should, it was Pikes first loss on his new command! And a guy he knew, nonetheless!
Overall, I think a little bit of surpsirse wouldn't have hurt: Give the asshole character a heroic death. Give the nice character a surprising, undeserved death. But make us feel something!

Or at least, make it more meaningfull. I think it wasn't clever to have his death and Pike's danger both on the flight to the asteroid. It would have been much more impactfull, if he died at the moment later, when they wanted to save everybody and beam them up to DIS - where only Burnham got left behind. Imagine him there, with her, and then being crushed! That would have made Burnham feel much more isolated.

His raft getting blown to smithereens was a nice special effect though.

 

[Campe]

There simply was no excitement around his death. At all.

Uh, pretty sure Burnham reacted. A "NO!" scream, if I recall correctly.

And Pike mentioned it a few moments later as something he didn't want to repeat to risk others saving his own life.

EDIT: They just didn't have time to dwell on it. They were in the middle of a rescue mission.

 

[Rahul]

Uh, pretty sure Burnham reacted. A "NO!" scream, if I recall correctly.

And Pike mentioned it a few moments later as something he didn't want to repeat to risk others saving his own life.

This is still not ow to react to the death of a character. In "Man of Steel" Superman also "screamed" after he killed Zod - yet no one would accuse this scene of handling emotions well either.

I mean, in the 60s you could have gotten away with something like that. Especially in an episode where terror strikes, and already a few other crew-members have bitten the dust.

But this was a rescue-mission during peace-time, without the actual knowledge if there are even people to rescue still alive, and the first new mission with a new Captain. The death of an officer in this situation is simply something completely different than the death of a soldier during a war. And a modern-day television show - especially one so much focused on characterisation and long character arcs - really should have handled this better.

It wasn't so much bad, as simply people din't really care for it. A mere plot point, that would have been made more effective after one or another script revision - which a television series simply doesn't have. So don't think I think of it as a "failure" of the episode or something - just something that didn't turn out the way it was intended to be.

 

[Campe]

This is still not ow to react to the death of a character. In "Man of Steel" Superman also "screamed" after he killed Zod - yet no one would accuse this scene of handling emotions well either.

I mean, in the 60s you could have gotten away with something like that. Especially in an episode where terror strikes, and already a few other crew-members have bitten the dust.

But this was a rescue-mission during peace-time, without the actual knowledge if there are even people to rescue still alive, and the first new mission with a new Captain. The death of an officer in this situation is simply something completely different than the death of a soldier during a war. And a modern-day television show - especially one so much focused on characterisation and long character arcs - really should have handled this better.

It wasn't so much bad, as simply people din't really care for it. A mere plot point, that would have been made more effective after one or another script revision - which a television series simply doesn't have. So don't think I think of it as a "failure" of the episode or something - just something that didn't turn out the way it was intended to be.

As I edited, they didn't have time to dwell on the situation. They were in the middle of a rescue mission and were on a clock. You're right. They didn't know if anyone had survived. But they had to see if they had and try to save them. And they only had a limited amount of time to finish their mission. We didn't know what happened after the episode ended. But my guess would be, even though he was kinda a piece of shit, they likely had a memorial for him. Just kinda how Starfleet seems to roll. But for the audience, Connolly just wasn't an important enough character to give that attention to.

I mean, this has happened multiple times on Star Trek where a character is unceremoniously killed after a few lines and no one really mourns him onscreen. I just don't understand why its such a big deal now.

 

[fireproof78]

I mean, this has happened multiple times on Star Trek where a character is unceremoniously killed after a few lines and no one really mourns him onscreen. I just don't understand why its such a big deal now.

Same here. I don't get this reaction to Connolley's death at all. It is consistent with Trek tropes, it wasn't played for laughs (sorry, that has yet to make sense in this specific instance) and both Pike and Burnham react to his death. But, they don't have time to stop and mourn.

I'm really not sure what is expected here...

 

[Campe]

Same here. I don't get this reaction to Connolley's death at all. It is consistent with Trek tropes, it wasn't played for laughs (sorry, that has yet to make sense in this specific instance) and both Pike and Burnham react to his death. But, they don't have time to stop and mourn.

I'm really not sure what is expected here...

Apparently, per some, they should rename Discovery to be called USS Connolly.

 

[Jayson1]

To be honest: I don't really care wether he lived or died. The problem is, they kind of dropped the ball on is death:

• Connely was made out to be the asshole who should have get it coming
• He did some mind-boggingly stupid stuff
• And then died because of that

There simply was no excitement around his death. At all. The characters themselves didn't even react to it - which they should, it was Pikes first loss on his new command! And a guy he knew, nonetheless!
Overall, I think a little bit of surpsirse wouldn't have hurt: Give the asshole character a heroic death. Give the nice character a surprising, undeserved death. But make us feel something!

Or at least, make it more meaningfull. I think it wasn't clever to have his death and Pike's danger both on the flight to the asteroid. It would have been much more impactfull, if he died at the moment later, when they wanted to save everybody and beam them up to DIS - where only Burnham got left behind. Imagine him there, with her, and then being crushed! That would have made Burnham feel much more isolated.

His raft getting blown to smithereens was a nice special effect though.

Trek has a long history of glossing over the death of secondary characters and extra's. In "Galilieo Seven" several people die on the planet yet at the end everyone is on bridge pratically doubled over in laughter because Spock made a funny. On DS9 in "The Magnificent Ferengi" the Ferengi accidently murder the Vorta in their care and this is done for comedy. Then they use devices to basically do a "Spock's Brain" thing with the dead body and it breaks down and the episode ends with them leaving the dead Vorta bumping into a wall constantly as they all leave and this is played as a happy ending.


Jason

 

[Rahul]

I mean, this has happened multiple times on Star Trek where a character is unceremoniously killed after a few lines and no one really mourns him onscreen. I just don't understand why its such a big deal now.

I think this is the other big difference: Connelly was kinda' propped up as a 'character'. Not a likeable one, but giving him this many lines and close-ups clearly set him up as "check this guy out, he's going to be important" for the viewer.

And then he died like any other redshirt that didn't even had a name, in the most trope-y way.

I think it should have been a similar "surprise" as Landry's death in season 1 was: There they played the same trick. Prop her up as a recurring character. Then unexpectedly kill her. It was just more impactfull than here.

I think why people got hung up on Connelly is simply because it felt kind of wasted - Landry's death was a genuine surprise, so it felt deliberate. Connelly's was so heavily telegraphed, as a viewer I was just left with the question of "What was that?". That was too much effort by the creators put in for a single redshirt. Only to have it turn out to be a random redshirt without follow-up anyway.

Again: This is not really serious criticism. I really liked the episode, and probably the explosion of the craft was the important visual the creators wanted, and they set this character up just to deliver that. But, in an otherwise very well and clever put together episode - this was the one thing that felt kinda' sloppy.

 

[fireproof78]

I must be a different level of stupid because I did not see it coming and the impact still startled me. I thought Connolley's death actually had a bit of an impact upon Pike and served even more as a driving force for him in the episode.

 

[Campe]

I think this is the other big difference: Connelly was kinda' propped up as a 'character'. Not a likeable one, but giving him this many lines and close-ups clearly set him up as "check this guy out, he's going to be important" for the viewer.

And then he died like any other redshirt that didn't even had a name, in the most trope-y way.

I think it should have been a similar "surprise" as Landry's death in season 1 was: There they played the same trick. Prop her up as a recurring character. Then unexpectedly kill her. It was just more impactfull than here.

I think why people got hung up on Connelly is simply because it felt kind of wasted - Landry's death was a genuine surprise, so it felt deliberate. Connelly's was so heavily telegraphed, as a viewer I was just left with the question of "What was that?". That was too much effort by the creators put in for a single redshirt. Only to have it turn out to be a random redshirt without follow-up anyway.

Again: This is not really serious criticism. I really liked the episode, and probably the explosion of the craft was the important visual the creators wanted, and they set this character up just to deliver that. But, in an otherwise very well and clever put together episode - this was the one thing that felt kinda' sloppy.

Connolly's entire existence is as follows (Please note these times are according to the YT version of "Brother"):

1. Connolly appears onscreen at a little past 11 minutes in the episode. He has no lines in the scene in the transporter room.
2. In the corridor, his first line is at about 12:40 which is very much expository in nature. He has two lines in the corridor.
3. In the sneeze on turbolift scene, he has 2 lines, one merely "Excuse me" and the other again expository in nature.
4. On his first bridge scene, he has no lines and one close up.
5. He does not appear in the episode again until his second bridge scene where he merely says his name and has a few shots and asks a question to push the plot along (I think we call that exposition.)
6. In the corridor on the way to the shuttlebay, Connolly has some actual character development (he loves rollercoasters) and two lines.
7. Then in the shuttlebay, he has no lines.
8. Then he has his last scene in the pods (this is split apart by a lot of crosscutting so I'm just counting it as one). He has 7 lines before he goes kablooey. Most of the lines are either arrogant in nature with the one line about the Catian roommate as character development. He is deceased by 34:40.

Evan Connolly's entire time in existence is less than 23 minutes (primarily because he does not appear in every scene). He has a total of eight scenes with fifteen lines in total, only two of which truly are anything other than exposition.

I'm sorry, I really have a hard time believing that he is ever sold as anything more than a one-off character whose only role is to be a skid mark on the side of an asteroid.

 

[Greg Cox]

Trek has a long history of glossing over the death of secondary characters and extra's. In "Galilieo Seven" several people die on the planet yet at the end everyone is on bridge pratically doubled over in laughter because Spock made a funny. On DS9 in "The Magnificent Ferengi" the Ferengi accidently murder the Vorta in their care and this is done for comedy. Then they use devices to basically do a "Spock's Brain" thing with the dead body and it breaks down and the episode ends with them leaving the dead Vorta bumping into a wall constantly as they all leave and this is played as a happy ending.

"The Apple" is another chief offender here. At least four redshirts are brutally killed, but this doesn't stop Chekov and Martha Landon from flirting with each other, or Kirk and others from smirking about the Vaalians not knowing about the birds and the bees . . ..

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, in "The Apple" 100% of the red shirts, all four of them, are killed.

 

[Rahul]

I must be a different level of stupid because I did not see it coming and the impact still startled me. I thought Connolley's death actually had a bit of an impact upon Pike and served even more as a driving force for him in the episode.

Naw, man. Entertainment is subjective.
What doesn't work for others might work for you, and vice versa. No shame in that!

Connolly's entire existence is as follows (Please note these times are according to the YT version of "Brother"):

1. Connolly appears onscreen at a little past 11 minutes in the episode. He has no lines in the scene in the transporter room.
2. In the corridor, his first line is at about 12:40 which is very much expository in nature. He has two lines in the corridor.
3. In the sneeze on turbolift scene, he has 2 lines, one merely "Excuse me" and the other again expository in nature.
4. On his first bridge scene, he has no lines and one close up.
5. He does not appear in the episode again until his second bridge scene where he merely says his name and has a few shots and asks a question to push the plot along (I think we call that exposition.)
6. In the corridor on the way to the shuttlebay, Connolly has some actual character development (he loves rollercoasters) and two lines.
7. Then in the shuttlebay, he has no lines.
8. Then he has his last scene in the pods (this is split apart by a lot of crosscutting so I'm just counting it as one). He has 7 lines before he goes kablooey. Most of the lines are either arrogant in nature with the one line about the Catian roommate as character development. He is deceased by 34:40.

Evan Connolly's entire time in existence is less than 23 minutes (primarily because he does not appear in every scene). He has a total of eight scenes with fifteen lines in total, only two of which truly are anything other than exposition.

I'm sorry, I really have a hard time believing that he is ever sold as anything more than a one-off character whose only role is to be a skid mark on the side of an asteroid.

Again: He was introduced with a big, loong close-up (when Burnham thought he was Spock), but then didn't just "disappear" into the background (like the red-dressed woman), but continuesly had lines and reaction shots.

Yes, he wasn't propped up as a main character - but certainly as a major background character. For example, he had more lines and screen-time than the religious leader in episode 2 "New Eden" - her appereance was also rather short, but impactfull, had she died over the course of the episode, it would have been a bigger event, even though of course she never was a main character either.

All I'm saying is - the way Connelly's character and demise was handled wasn't perfect. This is not to say "bad". It really wasn't! He had a short appereance, left a mark, and had quite a spectacular death scene people remember. It's just that his character arc left people a little confused, as there were clear attempts to develop his character in a way worthy of a modern day, high-end television show, only to have resolved in a very 90s era episodic-television way anyway. That's not 'bad'. Again - Trek itself did it regular this way in the past! It's just, people are nowadays accustomed to 'better' from other shows.

And in an episode that was otherwise all around an improvement in every possible regard - this just stuck out a tiny little bit.

 

[Campe]

Again: He was introduced with a big, loong close-up (when Burnham thought he was Spock), but then didn't just "disappear" into the background (like the red-dressed woman), but continuesly had lines and reaction shots.

Yes, he wasn't propped up as a main character - but certainly as a major background character. For example, he had more lines and screen-time than the religious leader in episode 2 "New Eden" - her appereance was also rather short, but impactfull, had she died over the course of the episode, it would have been a bigger event, even though of course she never was a main character either.

All I'm saying is - the way Connelly's character and demise was handled wasn't perfect. This is not to say "bad". It really wasn't! He had a short appereance, left a mark, and had quite a spectacular death scene people remember. It's just that his character arc left people a little confused, as there were clear attempts to develop his character in a way worthy of a modern day, high-end television show, only to have resolved in a very 90s era episodic-television way anyway. That's not 'bad'. Again - Trek itself did it regular this way in the past! It's just, people are nowadays accustomed to 'better' from other shows.

And in an episode that was otherwise all around an improvement in every possible regard - this just stuck out a tiny little bit.

Agree to disagree. Let's move on. No offense to you. I've just spent enough time arguing about this background character.