Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x03 - "Context is for Kings"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
It all comes down to how it was done. She made every mistake possible, when she could have done it another way and quite possibly could have been listened to and her suggestions executed.
Frankly, the way she was acting, I'd have stunned her and had her ass dragged off my bridge. It's not her ship, not her command to make the final call.
That simply isn't how the military works. We have been lulled into a false sense of what the military will allow you to get away with in Star Trek. But, 99% of the actions taken by people who go against orders would have them locked away for a good long time, regardless of outcome.
But Georgiou was written so one-dimensionally that it wouldn't have matter what evidence Burnham had. Georgiou was simply there to be a road block.
Last edited:
G
Gonzo
Guest
Thing is that's in the real world, this is Starfleet who at times seem to be run by snowflakes at the worst possible times.
The fleet was doomed and no one was meant to make it out alive, I would rather have a 1st officer who would act when I cant, then again I would have fired first anyway.
It would have happened like this:
Scanner Operator - "Ship detected captain"
Me - "Identification"
Scanner Operator - "Klingon"
Pause for effect...
Me - "Fire at will"
Me - "Give them a torpedo in the face as well"
The Vulcans knew it and so should Starfleet, the naivety of Starfleet really makes me laugh at times, its no wonder Section 31 was needed.
The whole idea that the Vulcans would withhold vital information with the Klingons sitting on the Federation border is ludicrous.
G
Gonzo
Guest
That's plots and scriptwriters for you.
I did laugh at Sarek when he said "that was our solution you must find your own".
I would have said "nope that solution works for me just fine actually."
I wonder why he would even tell her? He knows she has emotional issues with Klingons. If anything, he is just as responsible for the war as she is.
Based on how the federation reacted to that information, it may be that the ludicrous part was telling them at all. Sarek was dumb not to realise that Burnham was too emotional on the subject to weigh the options properly and was clearly just going to attack if he gave her an excuse to.
Job security for Sarek! What's interesting is that his son had more wisdom in that way, electing to not give his younger self every single decision he has to make for the rest of his life (save the situation with Khan), choosing instead to let him go his own path.
So what is this "Multiple Sareks theory" I keep hearing about? Are there those who actually believe that this Sarek is not Spock's father? That would be somewhat confusing and strange, considering the existing history of the character through almost every incarnation of Trek. Now all of a sudden this Sarek is NOT the one we've always known? Does not compute! 
It's just an unsubstantiated rumour, nothing more. Like the section 31 stuff, or the Michael is transgender rubbish, etc. People just make it up and it proliferates.So what is this "Multiple Sareks theory" I keep hearing about? Are there those who actually believe that this Sarek is not Spock's father? That would be somewhat confusing and strange, considering the existing history of the character through almost every incarnation of Trek. Now all of a sudden this Sarek is NOT the one we've always known? Does not compute!
Exactly. It's been established by the last episode that Sarek is the same.
Roger that. And good - very glad it's the unconfirmed bullshit that I expected it should have been.
Reminds me of the early rumors that Discovery was a rebuilt Shenzhou after the latter's destruction. Although I'm kind of curious what happened to it after the escape pods left. Does the "no body, not dead" trope also apply to starships? "No 'splosion, not destroyed"?
Reminds me of the early rumors that Discovery was a rebuilt Shenzhou after the latter's destruction. Although I'm kind of curious what happened to it after the escape pods left. Does the "no body, not dead" trope also apply to starships? "No 'splosion, not destroyed"?
If you plan to watch "Context is for Kings", it's a line of dialogue that confirms Sarek.Roger that. And good - very glad it's the unconfirmed bullshit that I expected it should have been.
Reminds me of the early rumors that Discovery was a rebuilt Shenzhou after the latter's destruction. Although I'm kind of curious what happened to it after the escape pods left. Does the "no body, not dead" trope also apply to starships? "No 'splosion, not destroyed"?
There was also the rumor about both ships working together in a region of space, etc.
Speaking of Shenzhou, there were people on here sure that the last episode shown was a boarding party to the Shenzhou. Again, not the case.
If you plan to watch "Context is for Kings", I won't spoil the Sarek confirmation for you.Roger that. And good - very glad it's the unconfirmed bullshit that I expected it should have been.
Reminds me of the early rumors that Discovery was a rebuilt Shenzhou after the latter's destruction. Although I'm kind of curious what happened to it after the escape pods left. Does the "no body, not dead" trope also apply to starships? "No 'splosion, not destroyed"?
I think the choice not to have Shenzhou blow up was very deliberate, yes.Roger that. And good - very glad it's the unconfirmed bullshit that I expected it should have been.
Reminds me of the early rumors that Discovery was a rebuilt Shenzhou after the latter's destruction. Although I'm kind of curious what happened to it after the escape pods left. Does the "no body, not dead" trope also apply to starships? "No 'splosion, not destroyed"?
Yep - that plus the announcement of Amanda's appearance in a later ep pretty much clinches it.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
