It didn't.
Spoilers Section 31 General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Of course he was. He was already the best character in Star Trek. And now we have even more added depth and texture to his character. Insights that we never would have had before. We know more about his life than we did before. It's called character development.
You are welcome to your opinion about that. I respectfully disagree. The only character development I saw was Burnham’s at Spock’s expense.
And you're allowed to see whatever it is that you want to see.
Season 3 of Discovery established Spock as a character with as great an impact on Vulcan history as Surak himself, I'm not sure how that development is at Spock's expense.
Season 3 of Discovery established Spock as a character with as great an impact on Vulcan history as Surak himself, I'm not sure how that development is at Spock's expense.
Exactly. I think the only gripe I had was a minor one around the attack Spock did to escape but other than that I enjoyed him and Michael's dynamic. I didn't anything contradictory or how Spock's character was diminished, any more than George in SNW diminishes Jim Kirk.
I’ll tell you what I saw. I saw a lot of ‘Spock wouldn’t be the person he became if it wasn’t for you, Michael’ horseshit that the DSC writers were so fond of doing.
Anyway, back to the Section 31 movie. Only 21 days to go!
We are all influenced by the people around us, family most of all. But nowhere was it said that Michael was solely responsible for the man that Spock became. That's the horseshit right there.
A character literally said that line.
One of the great things about ST 2009 is a small moment between Kelvin Kirk and Prime Spock. Kirk asks if he knew his father, and Spock remarks about how Kirk Sr. was the main reason that Prime Kirk had joined Starfleet. In that moment, we see that influence that Kirk has missed.
Yet, equally, we see George chaffing under the same influence. It's not just one person but several, any more than Trek is the sole reason someone became an astronaut; equally horseshit.
Because the Spock-Sarek relationship for decades has been about the issues of how Spock made a choice to join Starfleet in order to go his own way. That his rejection of the Vulcan Science Academy is a moment where Sarek has to project Vulcan stoicism and disdain for an “illogical” decision, but on some level you get the sense that he respects Spock for bucking what was expected. But all of that is left unsaid, implied through the acting, and remains a major relationship issue within the franchise for decades.
When you shoehorn Burnham into that, and basically have Sarek screw over her application to the Vulcan Science Academy in order to favor Spock, I think it robs all of what was left to nuance and ambiguity, and underlines a definitive perception on those issues in an awkward way.
Also, I think part of what makes Spock’s upbringing tragic is the idea he only had his mother as a touchstone for his humanity on a planet full of Vulcans. Inserting Burnham into their family dynamic diminishes that idea.
Agree to disagree. To me, it seems like adding in more people who tried to connect with Spock, while some succeed and others failed, is far more realistic, relatable and interesting that "Spock rejected his father's plans."
ETA: Also, Burnham attempts to live as a Vulcan. Sarek's desire to manage Michael's trauma is through the Vulcan, suppressing it. So even though she is human, her upbringing was still to move towards the Vulcan way. Spock's human touchstone is still primarily his mom, while trying to be more Vulcan, despite his handicap of being human.
The themes continue on, just with far more people involved, as real life tends to be.
Last edited:
Trying to connect Burnham with Spock always felt like a reach but so was Sybok. In the end the Burnham character failed for the same reason any tv or movie character fails. They didn't make her interesting. They didn't give her compelling flaws. They tried to give her trauma but trauma is only interesting in how it negatively impacts the character's personality but in Burnham's case that amounted to just lots of crying and making sad faces.
She could have still worked somewhat if they had turned down the melodrama and make the show more of a standard action adventure show but the writers thought they were more deep than they actually were. To make things worst the actor was okay but not someone who can elevate the material she was given. Shatner,Stewart,Brooks and Mulgrew all brought more to their roles that wasn't on the page. Especially Shatner and his bigger than life performance and Stewarts high caliber acting skills. To this today I still wish they had gotten their first choice for the role in Rosario Dawson.
She could have still worked somewhat if they had turned down the melodrama and make the show more of a standard action adventure show but the writers thought they were more deep than they actually were. To make things worst the actor was okay but not someone who can elevate the material she was given. Shatner,Stewart,Brooks and Mulgrew all brought more to their roles that wasn't on the page. Especially Shatner and his bigger than life performance and Stewarts high caliber acting skills. To this today I still wish they had gotten their first choice for the role in Rosario Dawson.
Now we’re back to ‘there’s only 3 types: TOS, TMP/STIII/TNG, and DSC.’
I think the actor is fine. Just not really series lead level of good. She was really looking bad in those first two season when she had to sort of go up against Jason Isaacs and Anson Mount and Michelle Yeoh.
I think TMP and TNG are something different. The post TMP ones have a different approach. TNG circles back around to TMP in some ways. DISCO is TMP turned up to 11.
If you say so. Me, I don’t see much difference between the TMP Klingons and the STIII/TNG versions of those, other than Christopher Lloyd basically being the template for all Klingons going forward until DSC turned them into lobster people.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
