Oh yeah, Owo Anne Detmer. Love that characterYou know.
Mayfield's granddaughter.
Is STLD what STD should have been?
Well, yeah, she's the lead character. Amazing how so many around here find it so difficult to grasp the concept that a show's lead character is naturally the show's most important character.
Well, there is kind of a difference between Kirk and Spock (and McCoy!) saving the day every week, and Burnham doing it on her own.I know what you mean, but I fear this may be a generational thing. For me, Burnham saving the day all the time is no different than Perry Mason winning the case every week, or Columbo solving the mystery every week, or even (gasp!) Kirk and Spock saving the day every week.
But modern fans seem to think that every Trek show has to be an ensemble show just because the TNG-era shows were.
Which is not the way things were back in the day.
Burnham is a main character and treated as such. Just like Picard goes on super secret spy missions.I know what you mean, but I fear this may be a generational thing. For me, Burnham saving the day all the time is no different than Perry Mason winning the case every week, or Columbo solving the mystery every week, or even (gasp!) Kirk and Spock saving the day every week.
But modern fans seem to think that every Trek show has to be an ensemble show just because the TNG-era shows were.
Which is not the way things were back in the day.
That changed starting with season 2. Burnham played a big part sure, but the other characters started getting involved more.and Burnham doing it on her own.
Trek is no stranger to "personal stakes" From "The Man Trap" to "The Turnabout Intruder". From "The Emissary" to "What We Leave Behind". World/Federation/Galaxy at stake? Call the only ship in the quadrant, the USS Enterprise. Some whack job is causing a ruckus? Turns out it's an old enemy, crazy brother or creepy clone of someone on the Enterprise.I also agree with the poster who said that the way events always seemed to end up having personal stakes for Burnham did feel a bit contrived sometimes. Not necessarily consistently, but sometimes.
Trek is no stranger to "personal stakes" From "The Man Trap" to "The Turnabout Intruder". From "The Emissary" to "What We Leave Behind". World/Federation/Galaxy at stake? Call the only ship in the quadrant, the USS Enterprise. Some whack job is causing a ruckus? Turns out it's an old enemy, crazy brother or creepy clone of someone on the Enterprise.
Triple stakes!!!!!Heck, in THE WRATH OF KHAN, not only does the main antagonist have a very personal grudge against Kirk but the Genesis McGuffin just happens to be the work of Kirk's old flame . . . and his hitherto-unmentioned son.
Doesn't hurt the movie one bit.
Triple stakes!!!!!
It also butt dialed Spock.And note that in TMP, V'Ger just happens to communicate with the crew via . . . a recreation of a new crew member who just happens to be Decker's old flame.
Also, why should we care about Decker or Ilia? We've never seen them before. Shouldn't that time be given to Chekov, Sulu or Uhura?And note that in TMP, V'Ger just happens to communicate with the crew via . . . a recreation of a new crew member who just happens to be Decker's old flame.
Trek has been personalizing its crises since Kirk had to kill his best friend in the second pilot.
Just because Trek's done it before doesn't mean it was consistently a good move on the writers' parts.Trek is no stranger to "personal stakes" From "The Man Trap" to "The Turnabout Intruder". From "The Emissary" to "What We Leave Behind". World/Federation/Galaxy at stake? Call the only ship in the quadrant, the USS Enterprise. Some whack job is causing a ruckus? Turns out it's an old enemy, crazy brother or creepy clone of someone on the Enterprise.
No it not. But it’s very much part of Star Trek.Just because Trek's done it before doesn't mean it was consistently a good move on the writers' parts.
Well they no longer stand in a half-circle, arms straight at their sides and take turns saying their lines like in TNG, so we're getting there.Maybe weaker parts of Star Trek deserve to be left behind?
Has TV actually changed so much that shows based on one or two lead characters have gone out of fashion? I've never really thought about it, but doesn't seem entirely implausible.But modern fans seem to think that every Trek show has to be an ensemble show just because the TNG-era shows were.
Which is not the way things were back in the day.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.