Why yes, I am. Are you familiar with the meaning of the word "condescending"? But seriously — I do agree that the characters in DSC frequently acted in stupid and illogical ways. It does not follow that they behaved like actual human beings, however, because they manifestly didn't. Lots of characters in lots of fiction are written to behave in stupid and illogical ways, but that doesn't get a free pass for being realistic if the behavior is also psychologically implausible and plainly motivated by the needs of the plot. Psst... the "drama" isn't real either! It's all made up. Beyond that, I wonder who you're replying to here, because I didn't hold myself out as an expert on Klingons, nor am I talking only about the behavior of Klingon characters, by any means. Beyond that, suffice it to say that any aspect of a show that forces me to step back and think "oh yeah, it's just a show" is a red flag indicative of bad writing. (Or bad acting, or directing, or production values. Any way you slice it, it's a problem.)
Totally agree with your interpretation here. Especially this bit: I suspect that we have seen the full development of Michael Burnham in season 1 and that’s how she’ll be for the next six seasons (or whatever). Lorca sums her up in “context” when he says she loves being right. Michael is *convinced* she’s right and even officers with more experience (Georgiou and Anderson) or people who are cleverer than her or who have done more work in a particular area (Stamets) are not as smart as she is. And she’ll prove it even when ordered not to take a course of action or simply ordered to be quiet. Going forward we’re going to see Star Trek through the eyes of a contrarian (Michael) who will not be silenced even when silence is the most prudent course of action. That’s what her “arc” in season 1 showed her as a character - keep bashing away at everything and everyone and eventually you will be vindicated. Stick to your convictions and never change your attitude even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It’s like she took the worst characteristics of humans and Vulcans and merged them into her personality. I hope that the tiny slither of growth she showed when she realised that Ash was a Klingon and that Klingons were people too or whatever can eventually make her into a more likeable and productive character. Based on season 1 I’m not holding out much hope for that - I think Michael has developed as far as she possibly ever could.
Second principle of fiction: "It really happened" or "This happens in real life" never excuses bad storytelling.
Thanks for the kind words! However... ...I have to disagree with you here. I think Michael has some developing yet to do. At least, she clearly has the need for it, and perhaps I'm just being a crazy optimist, but I hope the writers aren't oblivious to that. Personally I found her relationship with Ash utterly unconvincing, for one thing, and her categorical rejection of him after Voq's (brief) re-emergence too judgmental by half. And even at the tail end of the season, her bizarre trust in Mirror Georgiou demonstrates a lingering emotional blind spot. As for opposing genocide, that's hardly a great accomplishment; it's what any decent human being would do (unless they're specifically written to be foils for plot purposes), and presumably what Michael herself would have done even at the start of the season. (Plus, if nothing else, we have her unresolved sibling conflict with Spock, and you can be sure the writers will find a way to milk that when they think the moment is right.)
That's patently false. Retcons, even sorely needed retcons to fix problem episodes like this one, don't alter what the original intent was, and the original intent seems crystal clear that it be literally true of Starfleet. It wasn't just what Lester said, it was Kirk's agreement with her, and the premise of the episode as an unofficial adaptation/ripoff of the film Turnabout (1940) and/or the book on which it was based.
That's really not how I saw the arc at all. Basically, what I saw was this: Burnham made a series of big mistakes that destroyed her Starfleet career, caused her commanding officer to die, and were (wrongly) considered to be the spark that caused all-out war with the Klingons to ensue. Burnham was immediately remorseful and accepted full responsibility for her actions. She already made the major shift from defiance to guilt by the end of the second episode. When she is re-introduced after her imprisonment in Episode 3, we see a character who is totally committed to the principles of Starfleet, even if Starfleet rejected her. We see this in her initial rejection of Lorca's offer, how she's dead-set opposed to helping when she thinks it's an experimental weapon, and her concern for the welfare of the tardigrade and the gormagander. She is presented as The One Who is Right, the one who stands up for Starfleet principles, with Lorca as her foil. Of course, while all this is going on, there is some growth in at least the impression that others have. She builds a friendship with Tilly, builds a rapport with Stamets, and mends the fence with Saru. She gains a formal role on the ship as well. And her relationship with Ash begins to flower. None of this changes who she is however - just other people discover how Very Special she is. To the extent that these episodes do show growth on the part of Burnham, it seems to be growth away from her buttoned-down, fake Vulcan front into someone more comfortable with her humanity. However, this doesn't make much sense, because why wouldn't she have loosened up a bit when she was on the Shenzhou all those years? It's also a bit inconsistent, with her depicted as a normal woman in one script, then inexpressive again in the next episode. I felt like the end of the 9th episode actually would have been a good closure to her initial arc. Burnham returns to the Ship of the Dead, facing down Kol, helping in the destruction of it, and winning back her former commanding officer's badge. It was a little odd that she was terrified of Klingons in the opening arc, but now seems to show no problems, but I suppose it could have shown character growth on her part. If they ended the Klingon War arc then and there, I would have been happy. Unfortunately, they went to the MU. Whatever else it was, it was not a good decision in terms of Burnham's character arc, effectively sidelining any growth she showed at the end of Act 1. If there was any theme, it was "let's torture Micheal Burnham." They had her lover become a sleeper agent who tried to strangle her, her commanding officer turn out to be a MU shitheel, and the body double of her former commanding officer/stand in mom turn out to be Space Hitler. We got to see her cry a lot, but we didn't see any real growth in her as a person, and I'm not sure what lessons this was supposed to teach her. Then they get back to the PU. Lorca isn't brought up again, but she continues to deal with the aftermath of the Ash and Georgiou reveals. Twenty minutes before the end of the season, a "conclusion" to her arc comes out of nowhere. You can easily imagine the writer's team sitting down trying to break the story, finding some way out of the tangled mess, and pulling this out of a hat. Honestly, at the end of the last episode, I decided Ash Tyler had a much better arc over the course of the season than Burnham. He started the series as an emotionally crippled mess, and ended it with accepting both "sides" of his history and a desire to move on. And he decided to run off with his rapist and wasn't even the main character of the show.
I think this debate goes on and on because it's easy to grasp what they were going for, and it's very traditional Star Trek. If anything, it's a bit paint-by-numbers. But the way they handled it was clumsy and undermined the "Federation values triumphant" theme they were trying to employ.
As I've said before, Burnham's real arc - judging by what the beginning of the show showed us - should have been resolving the conflict between her human nature and her Vulcan upbringing. The early portions of the show indicated clearly that Burnham thought she was a logical person, but was just an inexpressive one. Her decisions in the prologue were many guided by her absolute terror of the Klingons, although she attempted to paint a patina of logic over it when arguing with Georgiou. Suppression of emotions might work for Vulcans, but it doesn't for humans - or at least her. Early episodes which had numerous flashbacks to her life on Vulcan really seemed to indicate they were going that way, which could have been quite interesting. That is why the decisions made later in the series were so terrible, IMHO. Saving MU Georgiou - Space Hitler) because she had the same face as her former commanding officer showed that she learned nothing, and kept making impulsive emotional decisions. Indeed, she was impulsive and emotional right up to the last - absolutely sure that MU Georgiou wouldn't kill her (and unfortunately, the show proved her right).
I seriously wonder if the last 20 minutes or so were a last-minute rewrite, because they seem so hastily and sloppily done. Maybe they didn't want to actually conclude the war arc until the second season, and the networks told them to finish it up because it wasn't working? The first half of the episode was not perfect, but it had lots of great moments within.
It did seem like the second half of a TNG two-parter, didn't it? But the rest of the season makes me think they were adrift pretty early on. Look at the freeing of the Tardigrade -- that happened because that's what happens in Star Trek, rather than because it made sense in the story. Finale was the same -- this is what happens in Star Trek. By the end, Lorca is evil because he's from the MU, there's a nice speech about Federation values and all the Trek toys go back in the box unblemished. People accuse the writers of faking their fandom, but, if anything, the writing strikes me as very fannish. The ending was basically pre-ordained by their unwavering commitment to Star Trek Values, and the bomb was just a convenient means of getting there.
From the very beginning I had issues with having "superfans" in the writing room. I would've rather had people who had no prior association with Star Trek.
You’re welcome I hope you’re right and that Michael does go through some actual development. I’d love to be wrong about her going forward! Oh my goodness the Spock thing! If they’re really smart they’ll stay well away from that. So with that in mind it’ll be about 3 minutes in to the season 2 opener that lil Spock appears in a flashback haha!
Of course, because the writers can't stay away from the fanwank and tell a coherent story about the Discovery characters.
I agree. It makes for better objectivity in coming up with stories that are good on their own merit, rather than heavily relying on a bunch of call-backs. Kor
My understanding is they were still filming the final episode at the time the opening episode was premiered. I have to wonder if some of the mixed reaction it got (both critically and from fans) caused CBS to freak out and come down on the writers like a ton of bricks.
Is it a show about the Discovery characters, or a show about the Star Trek universe? The second sounds far more appealing to me, given that the majority of the Discovery character aren't all that interesting. Burnham and Saru are at best marginal. Only Tilly's character shows promise as someone whose arc I'd like to follow. Watch her rise through the ranks, gaining experience, in time becoming a starship captain.
Is it more Trek referential than Enterprise was? I haven’t sat and watched ENT for a while but I don’t remember the same kind of random references in ENT as what disco throws out. Mintaka iii being the worst offender. I mean, let’s ignore the fact that the tng episode featuring Mintaka iii is one of the best ones, there was no reason for them to bring it up on DSC. Why would the empire need to subdue/murder all the Mintakans? Were they a threat to the empire? The planet didn’t seem to have any strategic value or natural resources. So why did Georgiou and Killy need to kill a planet of Proto Vulcans? Or have I missed the point of a pointless name drop that was only on DSC to fool me into thinking the people what wrote it knows what Star Trek is?
Personally, I don't think being a Trek fan should preclude you from writing for the show. But neither should being a fan facilitate it. The bar should be whether you're a good writer. If so, you should be able to set aside your fannishness.