No shit. But people such as yourself are talking like it's definitely going to happen.
When Do You Want To See Burnham Become The STD Captain?
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
No shit. But people such as yourself are talking like it's definitely going to happen.
Lorca can't last and Saru is ####.
Maybe they are planning on using something similar to the Doctor Who Model?
Bring in a different b-list movie actor every now and then to be the Discoveries all-new, all-different Captain.
Maybe they are planning on using something similar to the Doctor Who Model?
Bring in a different b-list movie actor every now and then to be the Discoveries all-new, all-different Captain.
And I don't "give a damn" about the UCMJ. Starfleet isn't the U.S. Military-it's only "semi-military" in practice, according to one Writer's Guide.
It's the whole attitude that Burnham can't possibly learn, grow or develop. And since that's what one of the major points within Star Trek, why is Burnham not allowed to grow, and develop? Why is Riker's crime of violating a sovereign treaty not prohibitive? Spock's hijacking of a starship and violating lawful chain of command, including falsifying orders? Kirk's disregard of flag officers on multiple occasions?
But, if it would please the audience, why not condemn her back to prison? Then we can have the Star Trek version of "Orange is the New Black."
C
Captain pl1ngpl0ng
Guest
I would totaly watch that!
So Spock, Kirk, etc. just got away with it.
The argument seems to hinge on her legal status. Kirk stole and destroyed a Ship of the Line (as a flag officer no less) yet less than a year later was put in direct command of 500 souls. I was going to say that the difference is that one was convicted and the other not. But then I remembered that Kirk WAS convicted. Of disobeying the orders of a superior officer. He also killed a Klingon crew but for some reason the Klingon's didn't feel like going to war this time.
So all Burnham has to do is "prove herself" and her sentence can be overturned, pardoned, declared untimely, whatever. Then her legal status is clean.
And then they can bring in another captain at that point. Or Saru can get the job. Or Saru can be made captain of another ship. Or moved to being another ship's first officer.
That's a spirited debate under the best of times. In all out war? Why is the Federation not forming a military (since Starfleet is not one)? For one thing, it would give all of the types like Stamets the opportunity to not enlist. (Unless there's a draft, of course. At which point I would question McCoy's faulty memory that the "reserve activation clause" was "little known".)
Maybe we need to see the fallout when Burnham is in command??
No, it's the Federation's miliary. Apparently the only one the Federation has.
But not according to what is presented on screen.
The 'argument' that involves Spock and Kirk etc. really applies to what the writers can do, it would seem based on what other writers have done in other Trek. In story though, Spock and Kirk are not relevant.
Michael's legal status if it has any reference to the actual plot where her mutiny was based on disabling her Captain to take over command, is not in dispute. She can't say, no one can say, she didn't do that. It can't be disproved. BUT if the writers make it all a reset then we are back to that option.
I have not argued that it needs to be reset. I have argued that Starfleet has been willing to allow individuals to continue to serve if they demonstrate service above and beyond such as Kirk saving Earth, or Spock's loyalty to Pike at the expense of his own career.
In other words, stop being so self-serving and serve Starfleet.
Pretty clear Burnham will get her rank back soon. Perhaps by the end of the season. They seem to be pushing her 'importance' hard, and put her in command situations again.
Thing is, they've been trying to make her more human and distance her from cold, logical Spock lately.
In the most recent episode, there's definitely a push to give her leadership qualities.
They are telegraphing that she will be Captain soon.
Burnham might eventually become Captain. Might. But that's too easy from a dramatic standpoint. DSC won't do "too easy".
I prefer to have Lorca in command for the time being. It opens up far more shady stories, more room for conflict, and more room for controversial decisions. Lorca's not inept. He's extremely skilled but also corrupt. Which makes him an anti-hero.
Burham becoming Captain has to feel earned. She's not there yet. She probably will be by the end of the series but that's not for hopefully several years.
If something happens to Lorca, I think someone else will be put in command that Burnham (and Saru) will have to deal with. I think Lorca will stick around though. He's the unexpected breakout character.
I prefer to have Lorca in command for the time being. It opens up far more shady stories, more room for conflict, and more room for controversial decisions. Lorca's not inept. He's extremely skilled but also corrupt. Which makes him an anti-hero.
Burham becoming Captain has to feel earned. She's not there yet. She probably will be by the end of the series but that's not for hopefully several years.
If something happens to Lorca, I think someone else will be put in command that Burnham (and Saru) will have to deal with. I think Lorca will stick around though. He's the unexpected breakout character.
I don't. I think she is a pretty uninteresting and bland character, like all of them on Discovery actually, bar Lorca.
Right now he is the only character on the show I care about.
Right now he is the only character on the show I care about.
Never
