• 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!

Red Angel Theories- Post Here

Rick Grimes

Grimes.jpg
 
The red angel is “desperate and lonely”.

Vina?
I was just thinking that Vina might be a more satisfying answer than Burnham based on this line, and came here to say as much. You'd already beaten me though.

Actually, I think I'm going to be disappointed if it isn't Vina now.
 
I was just thinking that Vina might be a more satisfying answer than Burnham based on this line, and came here to say as much. You'd already beaten me though.

Actually, I think I'm going to be disappointed if it isn't Vina now.

I suggested Vina, upthread, on page 22. I said they had her green in The Cage and maybe they are going for red this time. :D
 
I don't think the Red Angel is Zora, as seems to be the current prevailing theory.

Spock said the angel was human. Also, I think the science v. faith aspect is at play. Within current tropes, malevolent AI is treated as the unintended pinnacle achievement of scientific progress. It is the bad of science, yet we see S31 (and, by extension, the brass) take everything Control tells them on faith.

To counter that, the Red Angel should be someone who takes science on faith to do good. The conclusion here is that the Red Angel is really Michael who has been whizz-banged into the future.

On that note, I still think my previous theory of a thematic tie-in to the Archangels is relevant. Here is a statue of Archangel Michael slaying a dragon (Per Wiki):

KagV5Yn.jpg


Young Spock's hologram at the beginning of the season morphed into a dragon. And, while the Matrix-inspired future-bots are more Kraken then Leviathan, they're still very serpentine in nature.

Here's to hoping that you haven't put more thought into this than TPTB.
 
I suggested Vina, upthread, on page 22. I said they had her green in The Cage and maybe they are going for red this time. :D
Yeah, but that was this week's episode, so I'd considered it a non starter until the possible groundwork being laid out now.

The thing is, I'm now starting to see the possibility that they might be setting up a post-managerie happy ending for her and Pike. Especially taking into account the fortune cookie in "Brother".
 
Remember that if the Angel hadn't intervened, Burnham would have died as a child. So if she's the Angel then there's a major paradox. This raises an issue, though. The Angel normally saves civilizations. To single Michael out it has to be someone who cares about her, and therefore can't be someone from the Discovery crew because in the unaltered timeline she's dead and they never met her. So Amanda or her birth mother make sense.

Another possibility is that its multiple people using the suit at different times. Kind of like Babylon 5's mystery of who was in the suit in Baylon Squared.
 
It's going to Burnham.....dammit.....i hoped it wasn't going to be but it looks more and more likely she is going to be Mary sue, center of and saviour of the galaxy :barf:
 
Remember that if the Angel hadn't intervened, Burnham would have died as a child. So if she's the Angel then there's a major paradox. This raises an issue, though. The Angel normally saves civilizations. To single Michael out it has to be someone who cares about her, and therefore can't be someone from the Discovery crew because in the unaltered timeline she's dead and they never met her. So Amanda or her birth mother make sense.

Another possibility is that its multiple people using the suit at different times. Kind of like Babylon 5's mystery of who was in the suit in Baylon Squared.
Because time travel in Star Trek has never created a paradox before....
 
It's going to Burnham.....dammit.....i hoped it wasn't going to be but it looks more and more likely she is going to be Mary sue, center of and saviour of the galaxy :barf:
This kind of comment makes it seem like you want it to happen just so you can say you were right and complain about it. No offence. What I don't get is this: if you hate one of the main characters of this show so much, why even keep bothering with it? You don't see me hate-watching The Orville or infiltrating the threads about that show here to gripe about it.
 
This kind of comment makes it seem like you want it to happen just so you can say you were right and complain about it. No offence. What I don't get is this: if you hate one of the main characters of this show so much, why even keep bothering with it? You don't see me hate-watching The Orville or infiltrating the threads about that show here to gripe about it.
You don't know anything about me so DON'T make assumptions.
And Excuse me for not being a fanboi.

You can like a show without 100% likeing all the charactors or every aspect of the shoe.
 
Last edited:
You don't know anything about me so DON'T make assumptions.
And Excuse me for not being a fanboi.

You can like a show with 100% like all the charactor or every aspect.
Jeez, sorry. Here I was, thinking that if you post something publicly, you'd expect people to respond. It wasn't anything personal. I was reacting to the post (mildly and politely. There is no need to overreact in such a silly way) (also, check your grammar and spelling before trying to actively insult a person). What's a "boi", anyway?

PS I don't even understand what was meant by that last sentence.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top