• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

This character wasn't believable. How could a Starfleet science officer be a complete idiot?

This was a one-off setup where the audience is supposed to enjoy watching the asshole get what's coming to him. It's cheap writing. Apparently we're supposed to be happy that a young Starfleet officer gets killed.

We've seen jerk Starfleet officers before like Hobson or Stiles. By the end of the episode these characters learn they were wrong, and we assume they grow and become better people. In STD the jerk character just dies. No growth. No redemption.

And did they think they were being clever that the blue shirt died instead of the red shirt? You could see it coming from a mile away. Again, this show is totally juvenile.

Well Trek doesn't really have a history with dark humor. It's not all that bad of a thing to do. What's wrong with doing some dark and twisted things from time to time. Expand the stuff that you can do on Trek. DS9 I think danced with that stuff but we have never seen a Trek show fully embrace it. Why can't they do something like on "Orville" were someone gets their leg cut off, fall from the ceiling during a scene all because of a prank.

Jason
 
Maybe if you’re 12 years old you’d find it funny?

Anyway Discovery clearly has a 1 straight white male quota for the crew and he’s been used up by Pike.
When is the straight white male —for so long underepresented in entertainment— finally gonna get his chance to shine? Is the only position left open to him on the show (besides the previous comms officer if he was straight, and several crew members) to be the lowly captain of the ship, twice? Somewhere, off in the distance, the world's smallest violin plays a sorrowful song, but no one can hear it over all of the whining.

This character wasn't believable. How could a Starfleet science officer be a complete idiot?
He wasn't an idiot, he was just arrogant and set in his ways, and therefore he became the "You must suffer for your hubris" character that always questions the protagonist in disaster movies and adventure shows and frequently gets killed ironically as a result (see: the boss in Dante's Peak for one example).

We've seen jerk Starfleet officers before like Hobson or Stiles. By the end of the episode these characters learn they were wrong, and we assume they grow and become better people. In STD the jerk character just dies. No growth. No redemption.
Stiles only learned his lesson because Spock saved him from dying. If the situation hadn't worked out that way and Stiles died, I would have preferred it less, but I wouldn't call it juvenile writing, I'd just say sometimes things don't work out. Jerks die in Trek all the time. It's nice when they become better people, but if every jerkass character had a big redemptive moment where they learn the error of their ways it would be a repetitive after school special. Sometimes jerks die. Sometimes good people die. That's just life.
 
Last edited:
He wasn't an idiot, he was just arrogant and set in his ways, and therefore he became the "You must suffer for your hubris" character that always questions the protagonist in disaster movies and adventure shows and frequently gets killed ironically as a result (see: the boss in Dante's Peak for one example).

.

The "Dante Peak" boss is your go to example for that type of character as well? He's mine also despite the fact that I haven't even seen that movie in many years. I actually did kind of feel more bad for his death though than I did Spoiler guy. He apologized before getting him and his truck pulled into a river I think it was.

Jason
 
I'm not sure what that means but it feels like a spoiler for the his Short trek which I haven't seen thus it seems this thread has now come full circle. :)

Jason
 
I'm not sure what that means but it feels like a spoiler for the his Short trek which I haven't seen thus it seems this thread has now come full circle. :)

Jason

Heh ...
Nope, no spoiler.
Jest making a funny.

The only thing blue about Saru is his uniform...

hqdefault.jpg

and his eyes​
:techman:
 
The "Dante Peak" boss is your go to example for that type of character as well? He's mine also despite the fact that I haven't even seen that movie in many years. I actually did kind of feel more bad for his death though than I did Spoiler guy. He apologized before getting him and his truck pulled into a river I think it was.
Yeah, they don't have to be assholes like the dude in this episode, they just have to deny the protagonist's conclusions, which we as the audience know are going to eventually be proven correct even if they might sound a bit crazy at the time. For another volcanic related movie, the MTA guy in Volcano who has the nerve to question that a volcano might be lurking beneath Los Angeles, so despite being a decent guy who helps save an entire subway car full of people, he must gruesomely melt to death in lava while getting the last person to safety as punishment for his earlier brief denial. Plus, he was totally the Zodiac Killer in Zodiac, so there was maybe some Karmic payback for that too.

Of course, they subvert it every once in a while by having the "You Must Suffer for Your Hubris" character survive, like Vice President Totally Not Dick Cheney in The Day After Tomorrow or the Secretary of Defense in Independence Day.
 
DIdn't the Secretary Defense guy get fired in "Independence Day?" He did get to live though. I think "Generations" tried to do this with Captain Harriman but he seemed more harmless than someone with tons of hubris.

Jason
 
His zoophilia does stretch the definition of straight, I guess.

Was Connolly an idiot? As a science officer, he did slaughter many an innocent syllable in vain. It doesn't sound particularly fruitful to rule out "moons or any other type of planetoid" as the source of beacons that shine brightly across the entire galaxy. It really comes off as a USAF expert telling that they are tackling this UFO phenomenon, and have conclusively ruled out butterflies and gnats now. And classifying stars as a type of planetoid in that same phrase...

Beyond that, Connolly doesn't talk stupid, and asks pertinent questions. But he apparently chooses wrong in relying on his improved autonav over manual. What I don't quite understand is why improved autonav would make him fly wide when manual makes Burnham fly more or less straight. Wouldn't a computer be more likely to move economically and make fewer unnecessary corrective moves? Especially as we see that flying in a beeline is fine and well and gets the coasting Pike almost to the surface, suggesting Burnham's weaving past the rocks was inefficient and uncalled for.

Timo Saloniemi
 
His zoophilia does stretch the definition of straight, I guess.

Was Connolly an idiot? As a science officer, he did slaughter many an innocent syllable in vain. It doesn't sound particularly fruitful to rule out "moons or any other type of planetoid" as the source of beacons that shine brightly across the entire galaxy. It really comes off as a USAF expert telling that they are tackling this UFO phenomenon, and have conclusively ruled out butterflies and gnats now. And classifying stars as a type of planetoid in that same phrase...

Beyond that, Connolly doesn't talk stupid, and asks pertinent questions. But he apparently chooses wrong in relying on his improved autonav over manual. What I don't quite understand is why improved autonav would make him fly wide when manual makes Burnham fly more or less straight. Wouldn't a computer be more likely to move economically and make fewer unnecessary corrective moves? Especially as we see that flying in a beeline is fine and well and gets the coasting Pike almost to the surface, suggesting Burnham's weaving past the rocks was inefficient and uncalled for.

Timo Saloniemi

I think the key point was the arrogance and unwillingness to listen or recognise anyone elses opinions and expertise.

It's the kind of thing that marks a character out as being hard to empathise with.
 
I think the key point was the arrogance and unwillingness to listen or recognise anyone elses opinions and expertise.

It's the kind of thing that marks a character out as being hard to empathise with.
Which is precisely why Burnham was written to tell Saru to use his eyes.
 
His zoophilia does stretch the definition of straight, I guess.

Was Connolly an idiot? As a science officer, he did slaughter many an innocent syllable in vain. It doesn't sound particularly fruitful to rule out "moons or any other type of planetoid" as the source of beacons that shine brightly across the entire galaxy. It really comes off as a USAF expert telling that they are tackling this UFO phenomenon, and have conclusively ruled out butterflies and gnats now. And classifying stars as a type of planetoid in that same phrase...

Beyond that, Connolly doesn't talk stupid, and asks pertinent questions. But he apparently chooses wrong in relying on his improved autonav over manual. What I don't quite understand is why improved autonav would make him fly wide when manual makes Burnham fly more or less straight. Wouldn't a computer be more likely to move economically and make fewer unnecessary corrective moves? Especially as we see that flying in a beeline is fine and well and gets the coasting Pike almost to the surface, suggesting Burnham's weaving past the rocks was inefficient and uncalled for.

Timo Saloniemi
I got the feeling that Connolly was relying on the Autonav to help his manual steering (not just letting the pod fly by itself) and that was why it was doing such wide swings.
It was trying to compensate for his maneuvering and he didn't really realize (till it was too late) it was being a hindrance not a help.

There's no denying that he was also an ass toward Burnham, but I think that was more because of his imagined importance and status of being picked to be on THE Enterprise.
He definitely let his EGO get the better of him.
:techman:
 
If nobody is killable in DSC, might as well toss in the towel now. That's why TNG and Voyager got old for me, because you knew without a shadow of a doubt that they'd all make it through, it was just a question of how. The final outcome was always all too predictable.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top