If we're going to accept this as a baseline then Michael's reaction to Georious' treat was over the top and a product of her ridiculous Federation upbringing.
Lorca and the hard man making hard choices
- Thread starter Captain Killy
- Start date
Abe Sapience?
Our aversion to cannibalism is rooted in the fact that it's a vector for disease transmission. If you get rid of that, then all that's left is where you draw the moral line.
Most people would draw that line at dogs/cats, because they're raised as pets and part of the family, but they have no problem eating things off a farm that are smarter than the standard pure(/in)bred dog.
So if you can introduce that disconnect in somebody's mind that "this is a food animal", it doesn't really matter if it can do neat tricks around the house. The important thing is that it's delicious.
The duoverses presented just draw that line at different points.
Most people would draw that line at dogs/cats, because they're raised as pets and part of the family, but they have no problem eating things off a farm that are smarter than the standard pure(/in)bred dog.
So if you can introduce that disconnect in somebody's mind that "this is a food animal", it doesn't really matter if it can do neat tricks around the house. The important thing is that it's delicious.
The duoverses presented just draw that line at different points.
Because she represents Burnham's failure. Here was the woman that not only did she betray, but also got killed. The Empress is a living embodiment of that failure, that Burnham has demonstrated that whether it is a good idea or not, she will not let her die again. She is a living representation of Burnham's guilty conscience and an opportunity to drive Burnham's sense of duty to Starfleet against her sense of duty to a representation of her mother figure. It is an opportunity for character drama.
Another way to torture Burnham. She has been intimate with the being that ate her Captain, that assisted in the death of her Captain, her mother figure. She let her guard down, which was taught to her by her Vulcan foster father, with him and was completely betrayed. It is an opportunity for character drama.
Two fold... to drive home the betrayal of Burnham (not only did he betray her, but he killed the husband of a man she considers a friend at that point) and to create emotional conflict (in the future, presumably, currently their plates are a bit full) for Stamets. It is an opportunity for character drama.
Two fold - one, to kill one of the people Lorca considered a confidant which makes him draw Burnham closer, and two to show how dangerous the Tartigrade could be.
She is the heart and comic relief. She is funny, and she holds the same place that in Whedon's works would have been held by Willow, Fred, and Kaylee.
I understand if these are not reason enough for you to watch a show, but as I see it it's mostly about character drama.
But is this Trek, or the Burnham show?
I can understand (but apparently not overly enjoy) a Trek story told through Burnham's journey.
I can't understand a Burnham story told with Trek dressing.
Do any of these things matter in relation to a larger Trek story?
I can understand (but apparently not overly enjoy) a Trek story told through Burnham's journey.
I can't understand a Burnham story told with Trek dressing.
Do any of these things matter in relation to a larger Trek story?
I like Burnham, but frankly there is just too much stuff happening to her and not enough time to let any o it to matter. A disgraced former officer trying to regain her trust in herself, and gain the trust of her comrades, while overcoming her grief about her dead mother figure is a good plot. No need to throw doppelgänger Klingon boyfriend and mirror captain and mirror dead mother figure there. It is just too much.
There's character drama and character drama. I don't have a problem with character drama but the problem with STD is that the show is poorly written. None of the deaths have any emotional weight or seem to affect any of the characters. If it is character drama we should see how these thing impact the characters - emotionally. It's too flat.
Maybe it's the pacing - the show seems to be burning through a heck of a lot of plot lines which end up going nowhere but in skilled hands could last more than one season. It kind of reminds me of how Scandal burned through plot in the first season and a half then became a pile of poo thereafter with shock plot twist after plot twist.
I can accept what you say about the Empress but why should the audience be invested in it? We hardly saw Burnham and PU Georgiou and their relationship. The writers haven't developed the characters including Burnham enough for me to care about their needs and flaws.
Maybe. Story isn't over yet.
It’s Burnham’s journey. Always has been. She is our POV character. We are following her down the long road of redemption. Everything else is ancillary to that. It’s a first for a Trek series, but focusing on a non-Captain, heck a non-officer makes for a refreshing change.
I prefer my series to not focus on anyone at all, but YMMV.
Which is funny given how often there was BTS squabbles with Shatner and Nimoy that GR had to settle because Shatner thought he was the only lead, or TNG actors being told that Picard were the only characters that matter, etc.
I see nothing wrong with a focus on one character.
entertainment without protagonists? good luck finding that
I would say with the exception of TOS, in past Trek shows the captain was the "leading character" - perhaps even the "main character" but wasn't really the protagonist of the series from week to week. Basically episodes can be split into two buckets. The "Action Trek" episodes tended to have roles for all of the cast to play. The captain of course was in command, and thus leading the action, but not necessarily dominating the show. In contrast, in the "character" episodes the focus is on a particular cast member (or two, with an A/B plot structure). Often these episodes did not focus on the captain at all. The most extreme example is how in some DS9 episodes Sisko just appears for a five-minute scene at the beginning or the end of the show so Brooks would get his paycheck.
Also, most of the time I read modern science fiction or fantasy there isn't a clear protagonist any longer. The norm are these doorstopper novels with loads of different POVs which slowly converge as the series goes on. I actually think of a speculative fiction narrative from a single point of view as being something either antiquated (reminding me of "golden age" sci-fi) or more associated with YA fiction.
That explains so much.
Huh?
Why I like Golden Age Science Fiction versus contemporary. I prefer having a main character with a singular focus rather than multiples.
