Seasons 1-2 or 3-4?
- Thread starter BlueStuff
- Start date
Well we can't all have you are advanced reasoning skills...no doubt it are almost as impressive as your are grammar.
Given all we see Kirk do I have no issue with him getting lionized. I would've liked some unheard of captains added to that Discovery scene (especially some alien names) ), but have no issue with the ones they used. I remember in Treachery, Faith and the Great River O'Brien - describing the guy who liked to take photos of himself behind famous captain's desks - gave a few unheard of names along with Picard and Sisko. I'd like some more names added that way to make the universe feel bigger, but - Lower Decks notwithstanding - it makes sense that the shows would be following the best captains having the coolest adventures.
Micheal B... Is a Mary Sue... I thought in the 4th season would be better. She could be the female Kirk but no. She figures out how to fix cryogenic chambers and telling the Federation President how she wants to be treated... Oh wait only she could drive some grabbing machine instead of another crew member ... While her ship under threat... Oh she figures out how to solve a political dispute... The show becoming a joke... Unless you like Mary Sue...
She failed the test due to making that choice and lost out on the job of commanding Voyager. There's a difference between the character taking on the responsibility to do everything herself, and her being the only one who actually can do it.
I've finally gotten around to season 3. And I enjoy this more than seasons 1 and 2.
For one, each episode seems like it has a meaningful story that stands well on its own, instead of just being an incomplete piece of a heavily serialized season that only serves the purpose of leading into the next episode, like so much of 1 and 2. The mirror universe two-parter was delightful. I'm not sure if we're out of the spoiler period for that yet, so to be vague I'll say that I found the depiction of a certain character on a certain planet to be wonderfully reminiscent of something from the classic Twilight Zone or Outer Limits. And that reveal, wow!
Also, the people don't seem like a bunch of irritable grouches like they did in 1 and 2. That was quite tiresome.
Kor
For one, each episode seems like it has a meaningful story that stands well on its own, instead of just being an incomplete piece of a heavily serialized season that only serves the purpose of leading into the next episode, like so much of 1 and 2. The mirror universe two-parter was delightful. I'm not sure if we're out of the spoiler period for that yet, so to be vague I'll say that I found the depiction of a certain character on a certain planet to be wonderfully reminiscent of something from the classic Twilight Zone or Outer Limits. And that reveal, wow!
Also, the people don't seem like a bunch of irritable grouches like they did in 1 and 2. That was quite tiresome.
Kor
Last edited:
Please tell me how Burnham is a “Mary Sue” but, say, Picard or Janeway aren’t.
Tell how she is not... Picard never told off/talk back to higher rank officers or Federation civilian leadership... He never left the bridge to fly a shuttle into danger... Picard was bad at finding love... Michael B , I was ready for her to get her Kirk on but like always she leaves Kirk behind. She is always the hero of every episode... That is why the mirror universe episode in season 3 were a nice change... Picard was not always the hero of every episode... And neither was Janeway...
Now she went down to free prisoners off a planet... She drives a grabbing vehicle while no others can... She does everything right... Always the hero, fixes alien tech save the aliens... In 10 min too...
Yeah, I get that it's handy to have a term to use as shorthand to describe something, but when it actually describes something else maybe it's time to come up with a new term.
It's been a while since I watched that episode but wasn't it Tilly that fixed the alien tech? Also I just said that driving the grabbing vehicle was a mistake! She chose herself for the role instead of delegating the task to a subordinate and lost a job (that she didn't want) as a result. At the end of the season she shows her growth by not flying the ship to save the day personally and letting someone else do the job instead. And they succeed in her place.
That's not how this works. The onus is on the person making the claim to back it up with evidence.
OMG. How to tell me you never watched TNG (and spin-offs/films) without saying you never watched TNG.
Picard argued with senior officers all the time. Admiral Haftel when he tried to take Lal. Admiral Pressman when he conducted illegal phase cloak experiments. Admiral Satie when she went on a witchhunt. Admiral Nechayev when she got pissed that they didn't use Hugh as a suicide bomb against the Borg Collective. Admiral Dougherty when he wanted to forcibly relocate the Bak'u. Admiral Clancy when she accused him of "sheer fucking hubris." I think he lectured Admiral Jameson about trading arms to both sides of a conflict and igniting a decades-long civil war. That's just off the top of my head, and there are certainly more. He disobeyed orders from Admiral Hayes not to engage the Borg and to remain patrolling the Neutral Zone in FC (it was the right decision to make, of course, but he still disobeyed a direct order from a superior).
Except for all those times he left the bridge to fly a shuttlecraft or runabout and wound up in danger. Final Mission, Time Squared, Timescape, leading the commando team to the Cardassian outpost in Chain of Command, Liaisons, In Theory (piloting the shuttlecraft to lead the Enterprise out of the nebula), ST: Insurrection (twice), the stolen Reman fighter in Nemesis (not really leaving the bridge in that case, but he chose to pilot the fighter instead of letting the far more capable Data do it), not a shuttlecraft, but the infamous dune buggy chase in Nemesis, though they did fly there and back in the Argo shuttle, and Fast & Furious'd off a cliff to get back into it.
The only love interests she's found, apart from the love of her friends and family, has been her relationship with Ash Tyler in the 23rd century and Cleveland Booker in the 32nd century. So I'm not sure where you're getting the "left Kirk behind" comment from, not to mention that Kirk's romantic exploits are subject to much exaggeration themselves.
You've already had this mentioned before multiple times and just ignored it in favor of your original programming, but she committed mutiny, she rigged bombs to Klingon corpses which is a war crime, she went to prison, she wanted to launch a preemptive strike against the Klingons, which despite being something they'd conversely respect, is not the Starfleet way, she rigged weapons of mass destruction on the Klingon homeworld which would cause a mass genocide in order to force them into a ceasefire (another war crime), etc. She had good intentions with all, but she's hardly a flawless character.
By your own admission, she is initially incapable of delegating responsibility to her subordinates or trusting them to be able to get the job done, which is... wait for it... a flaw.
Now proceed to ignore and cherry-pick everything I just said while saying "Think about it..."
Last edited:
What? She's had two love interests the whole series, both long term.
I have summarize numerous times Micheal B. showing her sueist...
My comment was referring to my notion Michael B. would behave more like Kirk but she went beyond that expectatio on to being a sue...
She always forgiven and everyone is okay with her actions even starting wars. She was sent to jail for life and was let out 6 months early and put on a super secret starship...
I bet you do not think Hawkeye from M.A.S.H. was a Gary sue...
You've been laying this on really thick. I mean really thick. To the point where I think you just want reactions.
If I thought for one second that you genuinely wanted to discuss this, I'd be happy to. But you don't. Which is why I didn't reply earlier. This feels too much like a game.
So, like Riker?
He's flawed, makes mistakes, looses patients, doesn't get the girl and gets corrected by others.
So, no.
Oh, snap! You got me!
I'm not a native English speaker.
But hey, keep up ad hominem attacks and don't deal with my arguments.
A female Kirk? What in the hell for? I don't need Burnham to be a female version of Kirk. I need her to be Michael Burnham. And you've nearly described every Trek lead in the franchise. Including Kirk.
There's literally a TNG episode where Picard flies outside in a shuttle to guide the D through some kind of time/gravity distortions.
I loved the setting in Season 3 but I'm loving it even more now I'm finally making my way through Season 4. It's just a better show to me and really becomes a distinctive show in and of itself once they travel forward in time.
I loved the setting in Season 3 but I'm loving it even more now I'm finally making my way through Season 4. It's just a better show to me and really becomes a distinctive show in and of itself once they travel forward in time.
Similar threads
