M
Has Season 2 made use of any of the background characters?
- Thread starter Freman
- Start date
There's no point critiquing a fact. Discovery was devised to be told from the perspective of a lower ranked crewmember. There are multiple sources proclaiming that, including many of its fans on this very forum. I used to not accept that since I was hoping it would be more ensemble like the other shows but thus far its been unequivocally The Michael Burnham Show as it was always intended to be.
Me during Season 1 : "I don't like Burnham. She takes up too much screen time and is boring".
Discovery fan : "Suck it up. It's her show. She's supposed to get most of the screen time".
Me during Season 2 : "I still hate Burnham but I accept this is her show even though the background characters are more appealing to watch".
Discovery fan : "Wrong. All the other shows were like this".
Me : "Deuces"
I think part of this difference of opinion comes down to expectations of what these characters are.
We're so used to the bridge crew being actual characters that it's hard not to expect it again.
They have less to do than most actual recurring characters, but they have more to do (only just!) than the old "no lines" background Trek players. And some of them are presented as individuals with distinct looks and imagined backstories instead of nondescript "brown haired girl or guy with beard", so it's only natural that some people find them interesting even with an almost total lack of depth to them.
We're so used to the bridge crew being actual characters that it's hard not to expect it again.
They have less to do than most actual recurring characters, but they have more to do (only just!) than the old "no lines" background Trek players. And some of them are presented as individuals with distinct looks and imagined backstories instead of nondescript "brown haired girl or guy with beard", so it's only natural that some people find them interesting even with an almost total lack of depth to them.
So Burnham is treated no differently than Kirk as the definite protagonist of the show who is the center character of all episodes except a very select few.
I guess that's fair...if it made sense
I guess the Burnham hate is part that I don't get.
I guess that's fair...if it made sense
I guess the Burnham hate is part that I don't get.
She's a terrible character and actress. Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, she ain't.
There's nothing wrong with SMG.
And we get to see them every episode. It really does drive some people batty that there are no episodes devoted to them. I have encountered this plenty of times.
Well, Shatner and Stewart were stage actors. Their style was over the top as they were used to playing to the twentieth row.. Avery Brooks was an academic actor whose defining TV role was the hitman Hawk from Spenser for Hire, so much so that we watched Sisko tranform into Hawk over the course of DS9 (but sadly never was allowed a big silver phaser to carry around). I remember Marc Alaimos trash talking him for being such an academic. Janeway? I am so glad SMG is not Captain Hepburn. That is assuredly a blessing.
SMG a naturalist actor and IMO it fits her role. A difference I see in her is she's performing in the direction of her fellow actors, not reaching out to the audience to say, "Look at me, I'm acting!!" Like Anson Mount, she has a very expressive face, and I like that too, as it rewards paying attention. It's why I've always enjoyed Rutger Hauer even though he's been in a lot of terrible films.
Must you like her. No. Everyone has their likes and dislikes.
But having endured watching TV acting from the seventies through today, I can confidently say a bad actor she is not.
I don't want her to be those captains. I want her to be her own character. Which, the fact that people have such an aversion to her makes me think she succeeds far more than she will ever be given credit for.
But, that doesn't explain "hating" the actress, or even the character.
Naturalistic? She's wooden. All she can do is emote. There's nothing natural about the way she delivers her dialogue. In my opinion.
Acting aside, the character is certainly not interesting enough to carry an entire series. The fact the acting is also poor only adds insult to injury. In my opinion.
I don't want her to be those captains. I want her to be her own character. Which, the fact that people have such an aversion to her makes me think she succeeds far more than she will ever be given credit for.
But, that doesn't explain "hating" the actress, or even the character.
Honestly, from what I've seen of Michael Burnham, I am not sure she would make a great Captain. Thus far, I see her first best destiny as a diplomat. That's the vibe I get. I do however see command potential in Tilly in both her virtues and faults I think she's got it in her.
I don't want her to be those captains. I want her to be her own character. Which, the fact that people have such an aversion to her makes me think she succeeds far more than she will ever be given credit for.
But, that doesn't explain "hating" the actress, or even the character.
I don't hate SMG. I just think she's a bad actress. I'm sure she's a wonderful person.
I hate the character of Burnham because she's dull and the whole series revolves around her. I know that's the premise of this show so I have to accept that but I don't even love to hate Burnham. She's just annoying and overbearing. The latter obviously being a prerequisite considering the series is about her.
I waited a long time for a new Star Trek show and it has been a letdown for me. And yes, that's because of my expectations. The writing was on the wall from the moment they announced the premise. It's my fault for not accepting it until now.
It's not unwatchable but when you're only watching to see the supporting cast, many of whom are glorified extras, it's time to admit this show is not for you. Never mind. Plenty more Trek on the way
Took the words out of my mouth.
Burnham is definitely a character I would hang out with so I can appreciate that that is not for everyone.
She is portraying a human raised by Vulcans. So I see her doing her job. Is she, say, a female MIchael O'Hare? IMHO, certainly not. And we certainly differ on the character being interesting enough, well, I'll agree to disagree on that. One thing she isn't is an archtype, for which I am grateful.
Indeed, yes. She presents differently than most Star Trek protagonists and I prefer that. I have met people like Michael, while people like Kirk, Picard or Janeway are fewer and far less likely to be encountered.
What??? That doesn't make sense.
Her whole problem is that she's a character based on a poorly conceived and terribly executed gimmick.
She's a human child raised by Vulcans. That's supposed to justify her being smarter and all around better than everyone else. But the "trade-off", by the logic of the writers, is that she's meant to constrain her emotions in a non-human way thanks to Vulcan training and culture.
The problem with that is that that doesn't consistently amount to anything except the actress giving serious™ resonant emphasis to every single word and sentence she speaks, as if she was narrating a movie trailer.
She's intonating and emoting (as an actress) the wrong way for her to be taken as Vulcan instead of "tryhard". I wonder if she even watched how Vulcans performed in any other series in order to understand her role. If she put effort into putting NO emotional emphasis in her enunciation, she would probably be a good pseudo-Vulcan, but instead she's putting MORE emotion into her voice and face than any good actor would in any other role.
The other problem with that concept is that the way the story is written is that it's written in such a way as to make her character the centrepiece of emotional drama and expressiveness, all the way through. Burnham is the angry one, the sad one, the suffering one, the one who's in love, the triumphant one, etc etc.
In TOS Spock was a better character because there were more emotional human characters around him for his episodes and character moments to have impact. In STD the only other "tone" given full attention besides hyper-emotional yet emotionally monotone Burnham is goofy, unserious Tilly.
We also have a good basis of comparison with Burnham as well in terms of acting with Seven of Nine. Both characters suffer from the same issue of humans that been raised to suppress their emotions but Jeri Ryan just gives such a more likeable and consistent performance than SMG.
She's a human child raised by Vulcans. That's supposed to justify her being smarter and all around better than everyone else. But the "trade-off", by the logic of the writers, is that she's meant to constrain her emotions in a non-human way thanks to Vulcan training and culture.
The problem with that is that that doesn't consistently amount to anything except the actress giving serious™ resonant emphasis to every single word and sentence she speaks, as if she was narrating a movie trailer.
She's intonating and emoting (as an actress) the wrong way for her to be taken as Vulcan instead of "tryhard". I wonder if she even watched how Vulcans performed in any other series in order to understand her role. If she put effort into putting NO emotional emphasis in her enunciation, she would probably be a good pseudo-Vulcan, but instead she's putting MORE emotion into her voice and face than any good actor would in any other role.
The other problem with that concept is that the way the story is written is that it's written in such a way as to make her character the centrepiece of emotional drama and expressiveness, all the way through. Burnham is the angry one, the sad one, the suffering one, the one who's in love, the triumphant one, etc etc.
In TOS Spock was a better character because there were more emotional human characters around him for his episodes and character moments to have impact. In STD the only other "tone" given full attention besides hyper-emotional yet emotionally monotone Burnham is goofy, unserious Tilly.
We also have a good basis of comparison with Burnham as well in terms of acting with Seven of Nine. Both characters suffer from the same issue of humans that been raised to suppress their emotions but Jeri Ryan just gives such a more likeable and consistent performance than SMG.
I'll be the first to admit there are problems with how the Michael Burnham character is written, but how her emotions are handled isn't one of them. The point they're trying to get across is how difficult a Vulcan's emotional repression is. We see Spock, someone who has been exposed to Vulcan culture his whole life and is part Vulcan himself has trouble with it, so logically Michael, a human who lived among humans and with a human family for several years before moving in with a Vulcan family would have more difficulty with emotions. And indeed, given she is human, Michael likely wasn't pressured to repress her emotions as much as a typical Vulcan was. SMG's performance and line delivery actually is quite convincing as a human raised among Vulcans, that is she has subconsciously picked up some of their mannerism and personality traits but hasn't completely devoted herself to the Vulcan lifestyle.
The character is not a Vulcan. Not even a half-Vulcan. As a human emotion is going to leak out however it is suppressed. And that is going to be as unique growing up among Vulcans as it does on Earth. There's not really a wrong way of it coming out. But we as the audience need to get what she is experiencing, so it does have to come out. It it works for me. I appreciate her performance, and I think its a good one.
For those not fixated on Burhnam, we've also seen Stamets get to be an emotiona; centerpiece at times along with Lorca and Saru as well as Burnham and Tilly. Heck, Rain Wilson's Mudd performance was a sterling centerpiece of 2 eps.
