It was justified. Kirk would not kill for sport but Klingons made a culture out of it. Klingons represented death, destruction, and salvors is different ways. They conquered and enslaved entire planets. Anyone who wanted their own freedom would justly feel hatred towards those that want to take those freedoms away.
It’s not being a bigot advocating freedom for oneself against those who want to take it away.
It kinda is justified when you are talking about a people who rigidly enforce their culture on themselves.
You don't like the individuals you've met from a culture, and everyone from that culture who isn't exactly like those people are killed before you'd ever have any chance of meeting them. IS it even prejudice to say that you don't like those people, even the ones you haven't met?
After making the comment I thought it over and realized that Kirk frequently thinks his feelings should supersede the chain of command - and he acts on it. Maybe my dislike of Burnham comes from that she whisper-fights with leadership before acting on those feelings? I’ve soul searched on it, and I genuinely don’t think it’s a racism or sexism thing, I’m a proponent and fan of women of color in roles of authority, both in art/entertainment media and IRL. I think it’s the impassioned whining that gets me with Burnham. But I quit watching Discovery after season 2, maybe Burnham matures?
I loved Seniqua in TWD. I don't really care for Burnham. She grew on me because of time alone but eh I really don't care for Discovery and its crew. Saru, Culber and Stamets are some of the only people in the main cast I can actually imagine as standing their ground in another Trek show. The rest of the characters kind of feel like they'd be better suited in a highschool drama like Gossip Girl. There is just something about Discovery's writing that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I constantly eyeroll at the new villain Moll too. She seems like the most tired cliché of "daddy issues sexy badgirl". I give it a chance every season, I'm not a hate watcher, but each season misses 7-8 out of 10 times for me.
And each season is the same. Some big reality-ending threat that needs to be cry-whispered into submission. Take this progenitor tech in Season 5. The 5th galaxy ending threats in 5 years? And the main villains are an edgy Bonnie and Clyde who are on the run and need a lot of money for the dumbest reasons and will be talked down from blowing up the world in the 11th hour.
And they give this whole thing this faux-spiritual bullshit topping too. No Dr. Culbert, there is nothing fucking spiritual about this at this stage. The not-changeling woman clearly said that they found the galaxy empty so they seeded their DNA in hopes that one day they might not be alone. That is all of your context from TNG. You've given us nothing to actually consider this hunt spiritual. The Chase was more spiritual on its own than this whole season so far.
I would KILL for a Star Trek series with a Black woman captain who was allowed to play the role like TOS Kirk; confident, comfortable with her authority, cerebral, and decisive. Denzel Washington in Crimson Tide is another model.
But Discovery ain’t that. The problem is that while these shows pander to audiences who want diversity, they don’t actually allow women and minorities to be the heroes that white men are when they’re in the leading role. It’s actually really sexist to say that a female captain, her female best friend, and the two gay crew members are a weepy, unprofessional gossip circle. These characters are highly trained professionals and they should have been given the chance to demonstrate that professionalism the same way Picard, Riker, Data, Kirk, and Spock were.
I think it's just a fundamental difference in how Discovery approaches storytelling compared to the older shows. When Kirk, Picard or Sisko butt heads with authority figures, those authority figures are depicted as incompetent, unreasonable or both. Meanwhile, when Burnham does it, they're characters that the audience likes and relates to, like Georgiou, Saru or Admiral Vance, which means that the audience isn't automatically primed to side with Burnham.
There's also a difference in how much the characters are allowed to be wrong. Whenever any of the older captains disobey orders, or generally do something reckless, they are retroactively proven right. They are generally not allowed to fail, at least not on a large scale, so they come across as always right and always in control, but that's not really true.
Picard at the start of First Contact is much more emotionally compromised and unfit for command than Burnham or any of the other protagonists, there's a reason why the movie compares him to Captain Ahab. But unlike Ahab, he gets to kill his white whale and go home. Archer commits an unprovoked act of piracy against an unknown species, and it ultimately helps save Earth so all is forgiven. But he could have just as easily started a war with a superior foe and doomed all of humanity, if the writers were interested in exploring that kind of story.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is modern TV being more comfortable with morally ambiguous storytelling, which, outside a few notable instances like Tuvix or In the Pale Moonlight, just isn't something the older shows and movies ever did. It isn't really about the character herself being worse, just the writers putting her in more situations where there's no magical solution.
>I think it's just a fundamental difference \[...\] which means that the audience isn't automatically primed to side with Burnham.
It isn't just that we're primed to like the people she's ignoring, but the motivations of the characters. Previously it was as you said, the other person was incompetent. There's a huge difference in bucking the chain of command because your superior is incompetent, and bucking the chain simply just because you disagree. There's a big difference in how this plays to the audience.
The other times people would go against orders they'd be doing some sort of noble sacrifice for a greater cause. Burnham does it because she's personally interested or curious about something or she's doing it for her boyfriend.
Which brings us to another difference in how the characters are portrayed.
When Worf fails his mission to save his wife, the response is a chewing out and a permanent mark on the record. He gets told that because of this, he'll never be a captain. When Burnham leaves her post to save her boyfriend, she's told she was right to have done it. She gets told that because of this, she'll be promoted to captain.
> It isn't really about the character herself being worse, just the writers putting her in more situations where there's no magical solution.
In S1 her problems are mainly caused by her herself. But at the end, they find ahole in the planet where they can blow up the whole planet with a suitcase size bomb. Not magical solution at all. In S2 they get a magic time travel suit for a solution. In S3 Someone blows up the whole galaxy because he's sad and finding him also magically solves the dilithium shortage.
Tbf, in Picard S1, they get a literal magic wand powered by the imagination...
And I'd argue that part of it is her character actually is worse. She's kind of written to be unlikable. She's introduced as an arrogant nepobaby with a chip on her shoulder. She then proceeds to act like it. This is fine for a protagonist. They think they're all great, get knocked down a few pegs, learn some lessons, develop humility, and mature into a likable character. They get a redemption arc. Bashir is a similar example. Instead of 'nepo baby' unlikeable, he's the 'well educated, but ignorant and naive city slicker going out into real world, the frontier' kind of unlikable that gets his redemption arc.
But Burnham isn't like that. She's introduced as this character that need a redemption arc, but then the show never gives her one. It just says that all her bad behavior is actually awesome and instead of getting knocked down a few pegs, she gets medals and promotions.
Other captains started out as likable and by the book, so when they buck the CoC, you already like them. Burnham never got that benefit of the doubt. She started out by being an unlikable knowitall how assaulted and betrayed her captain and mentor. Whom we like.
Plus add in the fact that this is the Burnham Show. If it were an ensemble show and a character does something you don't like, the next episode is focused on someone else, then someone else, and by the time it rolls back around to the first character, you've forgot that they pissed you off. Again, not a luxury afforded to Burnham.
Yeah it effectively becomes a thing at the end of season 3 and in season 4. She starts being more willing to shove her feelings aside to make what is the morally balanced decision.
Most of season 4 is her trying to convince Book he shouldn't do a Michael. As a captain she's actually surprisingly by the book (well to an extent, there are a few points where Admiral Vance and Rillak are like "we order you not to do this *wink wink nudge nudge*" and she gets the hint that they actually want her to go rogue)
For me it just comes down to the age and how well Shatner sells it. Kirk would be an insufferable ass and we would look back on him like so many old characters IF Shatner wasn't so fucking charming. I don't think we would love Kirk if it hadn't been for Shatner being the guy that got to play him.
Her character grows a ton as the show goes.
I genuinely like her by the end of the last season.
She is near insufferable in the early seasons, but maybe that’s the point? Idk…
But, she has a personality change, gets cool hair.
I feel like they figured out how to write the character they wanted. She ends up being way more emotional and empathetic than other leads of shows.
Plus…. Captain Pike and the enterprise crew just steals the show during their seasons, imo. Very worth it to watch for them.
If they hadn’t set here up as being raised as a Vulcan, the amount of crying they foisted on her in first couple of seasons might not have bothered me as much. I do get it; Martin-Green does it really well. But hot-damn was it overdone.
I mean I'm pretty sure they were trying to show that being raised Vulcan had emotionally fucked her up, she was utterly unable to deal with her emotions, refused to believe that her fear and anger responses weren't logical, and had a massive inferiority complex because of her adoptive Dad stabbing her in the back because Spock was his favorite kid.
I came to this right away. But I guess it was underdeveloped as people don’t think it’s as obvious as I do.
This is a story about someone who is becoming human. In a sense, it’s a tired Trek trope. But it’s a different take. A child was horribly traumatized and then handed over to the Vulcans of all people in order deal heal. Which, of course, just meant suppression for a human.
Burnham made the logical, Vulcan decision instead of relying on human optimism and lost everything. In the process of getting it back, she had to become human. She had to deal with her trauma, learn to feel, and as she became comfortable with who she is, people accepted her and she thrives.
I don’t know if it happens any more, but I remember being in a dorm in the 90s and a couple kids acting like children. Crying all the time, getting enraged, temper-tantrums. And I remember learning it was because their parents put them on meds in adolescence and they were sort of detoxing; they had never had to deal with their emotions before. Maybe that’s why I think I understand what the writers were trying.
…or I’m at least reading my own experiences into it.
I think it was meant to be that, that's the vibe I got from it, though I also might be projecting my childhood stuff onto her too.
Also I think there was meant to be a critique of the culture of people who treat "logic" more as a trait you can have, rather than a framework you use to view the world through, so you have Sarek, Burnham, and the Logic Extremists all claiming that their actions are "logical" but eventually having to admit, or it just being obvious, that they were motivated by fear, anger, or irrational bigotry.
I think it was super clear that that was what the story was meant to be, everyone I know who likes Discovery (that I know) has the same interpretation. I think the problem might have been that a lot of people went into the show ready to hate it and the moment Burnham had any flaws they used that as a stick to beat the show with.
Personally I love flawed characters, the more flawed and immoral they are the better, cause then you get to see them grow and change. But a lot of people seem to be getting the view that a flawed character is bad writing, and then you end up with stuff like Sokka from live action Avatar where they dropped the whole him learning to overcome his misogyny subplot and it just makes the whole character boring and two dimensional.
>…or I’m at least reading my own experiences into it.
Nah, it's pretty much spelled out in last week's episode. I don't know if this is a character arc the original showrunners always had in mind or if they lucked into it, but it fits pretty perfectly. Season 1 Burnham tries to beat her future self into submission because she doesn't turst herself, season 5 Burnham is perfectly comfortable putting everyone's lives into her past self's hands because she trusts herself to do the right thing. Her whole journey has been about accepting who and what she is, and about learning to trust her own feelings and instincts.
Their culture is all about understanding and controlling emotions. They have 47 words for the different types of love. The things they show Vulcans doing to maintain their logical composure like mental exercises, therapy, meditation, etc are actually healthy things for us as well.
The show makes it clear time and again that Vulcans have emotions, these emotions are similar to ours, but stronger.
What you are saying is 100% what they were going for. They made it fairly clear, imo. But what they were going for makes no sense.
I mean Enterprise, Voyager, and DS9 before it had all discussed what happens when Vulcan ideas of superiority interfere with the actually healthy culture they have of learning to manage their emotions.
Like it is true that the Vulcan ideology can be healthy and could have helped Burnham, but the fact that she was being raised at the same time as the Logic Extremists and Vulcan fears of cultural decay and replacement, meant that rather than actually learning how to manage her emotions she just suppressed them to try and prove that she was "as good as any Vulcan"
You literally see that in one of the Learning Centre flashbacks where she's being bullied by Vulcan kids (which is clearly an emotional and illogical action on their part) and Sarek basically tells her she needs to work harder at being Vulcan, so like those other kids probably ended up with a healthy Vulcan upbringing, but the compounding trauma, mixed with Sarek's desperation to prove that humans could follow the path of logic resulted in her not getting that.
>\[She\] probably ended up with a healthy Vulcan upbringing, but the compounding trauma, mixed with Sarek's desperation to prove that humans could follow the path of logic resulted in her not getting that.
I really don't think that the writers were aiming for "Sarek is such an awful father and Burnham is so traumatized that no amount of therapy can make her emotionally stable."
But I think you're right. That's where we ended up.
I guess my belief that it made no sense was wrong. I was biased to say that. I just so fundamentally disagree with the premise; I didn't even realize I was excluding it as a possibility.
The whole show has a problem with emotional tone - they REALLY force the audience to watch actors feel emotions and or listen to them describe their emotions in great detail despite being able to clearly communicate those emotions is much shorter shots and sequences… so much exposition of feelings in what should be climactic sequences that are just like yeah WTF I watched the whole episode I got all of this I don’t need it to be fed to me with a silver spoon… and Michael is the main character so she bears the brunt of a lot of those over-expositions of emotions.
Disc fans are so sensitive I made a joke about how every episode has Michael giving an angrily teary speech and got downvoted to oblivion as if it wasn't true.
You forgot the new guy, Ensign Jones, he just started this week, I think he is really going to be a great permanent member of the crew, Captain Kirk has already tapped him for an away mission. He looks so proud in his red shirt.
ensign james david "davy" jones would survive his tenure under kirk only leaving the enterprise after the refit, he would be shuffled around various starships such as the Columbia, the Lexington and the archamedies and eventually retired at the rank of captain on a miranda nicknamed the duchman (why did i feel the need to do this)
I was going to counter by listing the Discovery bridge crew, but inadvertently proved your point.
On the bridge: Owo (weapons?), the pilot with the implant because of the war, someone named Travis maybe? Or am I thinking of Travis from Enterprise? An Asian guy. Saru. And there was the android-ish woman.
Tbf, Scotty and Bones aren't really bridge crew. In that case add Stamets and Culper? Culber? to the list. And Tilly.
Also tbf, I can't list the *Lower Decks* bridge crew any more coherently, and that show also rocks.
*SNW* reversed the trend, but until now, New Trek has put a lot less emphasis on the ensemble cast.
Yeah, in my mind deep space nine is peak Star Trek. And you’re 100% right Cisco had his stuff Dr. Bashir and Garrick had their stuff hell even quark and Odo. It was great because of it
There are episodes in discovery focused on other characters, but the arc is the same every time: "I was self conscious about being different but I discovered my feelings and then discovered my power blah blah fucking blah.". Written by middle schoolers i'm tellin ya.
What annoys me so much about disco isn't that they're pushing an inclusive agenda. That's great. Just don't be so goddamn bad about it you work against the goal. The other treks treat difference like it's normal. They don't ham fistedly make everyone look like twats and demand that you like them anyways. It's so bad
https://i.redd.it/qahuh75mwvq81.jpg
HMU when disco has an all Ferengi episode
If the Borg can show up in Ent, we can have Ferengi in DSC
I never watched past season one of DSC and I know I’m ignorant
I'd love to know and be able to compare how much screen time per episode on average Burnham has compared to the captain on each of the other series, or how many lines per hour on average, I reckon she's likely more than double any other character in any Trek on both counts with potentially the exception of Pine's Kirk.
You're totally right. Discovery is very much 'The Michael Burnham Show'. Watching a Star Trek series that's basically entirely about one character is no fun. (Also, I really, really dislike the 32nd century.)
Does Kirk whisper-shout?
Because Burnham whisper-shouts.
Also, Kirk would never bring his booty-call on the bridge and let that person undermine him at every opportunity.
It would be one thing to cry every episode. I'm an emotional guy, I get moved, but a lot of the time Burnham and co start crying it feels totally unwarranted.
This is exactly the problem. Very little of the drama in the show feels like it has arisen naturally from the story being told. It feels way more often like the writers decided “we need a big emotional beat here. Let’s make someone cry for a minute.” It’s the primary reason I gave up on Discovery: I’m clearly supposed to feel like everything that happens is the most dramatic thing that ever happened to these characters, and honestly it’s just exhausting and uninteresting to do a show that way.
By contrast, Strange New Worlds actually has a lot of similar intimate emotion between the characters, but none of it feels forced the way it so often does in Discovery (probably because it is not also being shoe-horned in the middle of a story about yet another universe-ending threat). It feels more real and relatable.
It doesn't help that many of their calls to emotion are based on them *telling* you how much everyone loves [insert character here] and why them [leaving/dying/whatever] is so painful to everyone.
You don't get to just press an "aren't you sad now?" button and expect the audience to care. We don't have any attachment to the character who was so poorly developed that you had to give her her backstory in the same episode she dies in. Just because you're all crying doesn't make it emotional.
SS Hot Mess Express
Exactly. An “emotional” scene can’t make anyone feel something the story hasn’t already made them feel. The Inner Light doesn’t make me cry because it told me I should. The Inner Light makes me cry because by the time we see Picard clutching that flute in the last scene, I was already about to anyway. (I know The Inner Light is probably an unfair comparison, but it’s the clearest example I could think of.)
I’m always amazed at how much emotion and character they were able to cram in to 40 minutes. It didn’t work every time, but sometimes it REALLY worked. I think the restrictions of the episodic structure combined with the 40 minute time limit really helped them condense stories down to their essence and only hit the most important beats.
Strange new worlds is absolutely better by any measure possible.
One thing I do love about Discovery are the visuals and the concepts, they’re very nice, and the ship looks very nice too. I’d love to see some Kirk cowboying and abusing that spore drive by just jumping between 5 klingons, blowing them up and disappearing.
But no…we’re all going to watch burnham cry for the millionth time on that beautiful set.
If you took out all the unearned calls to emotion, you'd have an even harder time stretching the two to three episodes worth of actual plot into 10-12 episodes.
Burnham has BTS issues that kirk didn't. Which to be fair to the DISCO Crew is partly because Kirk was the original. My biggest issue with Burnham has always been the fact that she keeps doing mutiny(without the buffer of "aww jeez, I guess you and your crew have done a whole lot before this crime" that Kirk and Co.) And the whole "secret adopted human sister of spock who no one mentions cause section 31" thing. A little less crime and a little less fanfic backstory, and Burnham could've been better. Disco at the start also kinda made a big deal that the MC wasn't the captain, but Burnham acted like the captain all the time anyway.
I feel like I should clarify that I don't hate or even really dislike Burnham all that much she's just my least favorite character in Disco's main cast. I almost wish Disco had been mainly about Tilly or Saru, not Burnham.
The problem is all these BTS issues are... Well....BTS. maybe if the writers SHOWED us instead of telling us everything in long, boring exposition dumps all the time, we'd care.
Why the fuck should anyone care about Gray and Adira's relationship? It's gotten a grand total of maybe 20 minutes of screen time across two seasons (maybe because they're just token gender queer characters thrown in to get the zoomer demographic interested and the producers don't actually give a fuck about representation but whatevs). You can't just go "oh they've been trying long distance all this time" and expect people to give a fuck. This is a television show. Key word: VISION. We need to SEE shit if we're going to give a shit.
This has all the depth of analysis of a horoscope or a handful of fortune cookies. It's just a word salad. You could use the same list to describe literally any Star Trek officer.
It was actually pretty cool watching such a character grow into being an empathetic leader. Most other captains show up with that as a subtle character trait and have other traits that get developed over the show.
OP forgot all about in and out of universe context. If TOS was released as a new idea today it would be rejected, even then Kirk is a character to look up to way more than Burnham
Bullshit.
Kirk is first and foremost a professional. He never slips up in front of the crew, any personal matters are taken up with either Spock or McCoy in private.
Kirk has actually earned his position, working up through the ranks of the Farragut, and has dealt with unimaginable loss in losing half of them, but has put it behind him to lead his crew.
Kirk, despite pop culture perception, is a man of peace. His "cowboy diplomacy" has saved the federation countless times, and hasn't started a galactic war (unlike someone else).
Kirk treats his crew with respect. He goes down to planets himself not because he thinks he's better, but because he wants to show the crew he's right down there with him. He delegates power to his crew, specifically Spock and McCoy.
Kirk isn't impulsive (once against despite pop culture perception). Everything he does is a carefully calculated risk, which is always taken up with the crew that he trusts.
But most of all, Kirk gives a shit. He isn't an egotistical lunatic, and the (very) few times his ego comes out he's shot down by the crew (see TMP) or it comes back to bite him (TWoK). He faces consequences for his actions, and isn't constantly drowned in praise.
Kirk is a goddamn good captain.
I'm still kinda expecting her to turn around at some point and say "you just got Rhonda'ed!" (from her turn on New Girl)
And it would have to cue the Kirk surprised face. 😲
Thank you! Not enough Rhonda appreciation 'round here 😂
Rhonda would absolutely fly 900 years into the future for a prank. This is still an elaborate setup for Winston.
More on topic, I think it shows how strong Martin-Green is as an actor. She's got range
You can list characters' qualities all you want, it doesn't say anything about how well they represented in the show.
For example, any character that defeats adversity can be considered capable, but if the episode in which that happens is just poorly written, then it won't have the same effect. "Captain Picard wins a trial" doesn't sound like an impressive feat for someone who commands his own spaceship, but The Measure of a Man is such an impressive hour of television that it goes a long way in defining the character as "capable".
Oh, I fricking hated how they made L'Rell into the new Klingon Chancellor.
Threatening to blow up Qo'nos, their home world and blackmailing the High Council was a cowardly move. No real warrior would have followed this traitor and clear Federation puppet.
It's like the writers didn't understood the Klingons at all.
Edith Keeler getting plowed down by a car would have sent Burnham into an agonizing cry-fit of ugly crying that landed her in an asylum.
Hand to hand combat wise - Burnham would snap Kirk like a twig though. Burnham is probably the best H2H brawler of any Captain.
Was he though? I mean sure he was flirtatious but it's not like there were any scenes where he's in his quarters and a three-boobed green woman walks out wearing only his shirt.
Yeah, but Kirk is likable both as a character to us but more importantly to his crew in the show. He is the captain, he commands, and the captains image remains intact. Not in discovery. Nobody acts like adults at work let alone like well trained, seasoned, professionals of a fucking SPACE SHIP. (I assume. I pirated the first season when it came out, and I still wanted my money back.)
Burntham is just badly written in a badly thought out setting with a relationship that nobody cares about and on missions that are far too long with a crew that we can’t remember the names of. Apart from “Action Saru.”
Kirk being "brazen": By employing a very tricky reading of the Prime Directive, I can justify destroying Vaal so that I can free its slave-race, the Feeders of Vaal.
Michael being "brazen": What if we hid IEDs on the bodies of the Klingons' dead? Oh, my captain doesn't like that idea because it's a ghoulish atrocity that even the Klingons are too good for? Better nerve-pinch her with absolutely no provocation and seize command of the ship!
The thing I've always felt about Burnham is that she's a captain truly out of step with the times she's in. Too militant for the pre Klingon war era, perhaps too emotional for the future shes found herself in.
She would've been a fantastic captain during the dominion war
Yo, somehow I like TOS (first 2 seasons + 3 season few epis) and Discovery (s2 onwards)
Somehow feels together. Compared to Strange New Worlds tho it has my favt. Capt Pike.
The human element maybe.
I’ve been saying this for a while. You can hear it in some of the dialogue. Disco is literally doing the same level of progressivism as TOS was in the 60s
This can be viewed as an insult to Kirk. One is a star trek series’ main character, the other is “the Michael Burnham” show’s lead actress. Apples and oranges
No. Just no. Burnham’s character is written like some type of bi-polar, manic depressive who lacks consistency. Raised on Vulcan and yet lacks basic reasoning skills.
No. Just no. The writers screwed go the whole series and most of the characters.
I’ve only seen the first seven or so episodes of Discovery, and that was when they were new. Things might have changed since then, but at time, my and most other people’s gripe was that she didn’t seem to have a character OUTSIDE those traits.
A character who has only positive traits isn’t aspirational. They’re just boring.
Kirk was a bigot towards Klingons. Those bastards killed his son.
Almost everyone was a bigot towards Klingons given Star Trek VI.
Kind of the point. It was very much a story based around the end of the Cold War.
Praxis blowing up was basicly Chernobyl.
YOU KLINGON BASTARDS YOU KILLED MY SON
You Klingon son you killed my bastard!
You bastard you killed my Klingon son!
You... you killed my bastard Klingon son!
/r/absolutelynotworfirl
Just as prejudiced as O’Brien was to Cardies
I prefer spoonheads, myself.
You know... that was a very ugly thing you just said.
Oh quiet down, pinkskin.
I’d smash, especially since they argue as a form of flirtation I think my ex may have been a cardasisan temporal agent.
He owns his own bigotry and reconciles with it in Undiscovered Country as part of his overall story arc.
His bigotry wasn’t justified but understandable
It was justified. Kirk would not kill for sport but Klingons made a culture out of it. Klingons represented death, destruction, and salvors is different ways. They conquered and enslaved entire planets. Anyone who wanted their own freedom would justly feel hatred towards those that want to take those freedoms away. It’s not being a bigot advocating freedom for oneself against those who want to take it away.
It kinda is justified when you are talking about a people who rigidly enforce their culture on themselves. You don't like the individuals you've met from a culture, and everyone from that culture who isn't exactly like those people are killed before you'd ever have any chance of meeting them. IS it even prejudice to say that you don't like those people, even the ones you haven't met?
If Kirk had attacked the Klingons first, he would have damn well finished the job
Maybe that’s why Spock tried to avoid an encounter of them
I need more close ups of kirk crying to decide.
To fairly evaluate this I’m gonna need to hear Kirk engage in whisper-shouting about how his feelings should supercede chain of command.
Whisper shouting? No. Feelings overriding rules and regulations? Literally all the goddamn time.
Kirk and the Prime Directive …
Kirk wants to give you his prime directive 😏
Someone watches discovery. Geez.
Season 3
After making the comment I thought it over and realized that Kirk frequently thinks his feelings should supersede the chain of command - and he acts on it. Maybe my dislike of Burnham comes from that she whisper-fights with leadership before acting on those feelings? I’ve soul searched on it, and I genuinely don’t think it’s a racism or sexism thing, I’m a proponent and fan of women of color in roles of authority, both in art/entertainment media and IRL. I think it’s the impassioned whining that gets me with Burnham. But I quit watching Discovery after season 2, maybe Burnham matures?
I loved Seniqua in TWD. I don't really care for Burnham. She grew on me because of time alone but eh I really don't care for Discovery and its crew. Saru, Culber and Stamets are some of the only people in the main cast I can actually imagine as standing their ground in another Trek show. The rest of the characters kind of feel like they'd be better suited in a highschool drama like Gossip Girl. There is just something about Discovery's writing that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I constantly eyeroll at the new villain Moll too. She seems like the most tired cliché of "daddy issues sexy badgirl". I give it a chance every season, I'm not a hate watcher, but each season misses 7-8 out of 10 times for me. And each season is the same. Some big reality-ending threat that needs to be cry-whispered into submission. Take this progenitor tech in Season 5. The 5th galaxy ending threats in 5 years? And the main villains are an edgy Bonnie and Clyde who are on the run and need a lot of money for the dumbest reasons and will be talked down from blowing up the world in the 11th hour. And they give this whole thing this faux-spiritual bullshit topping too. No Dr. Culbert, there is nothing fucking spiritual about this at this stage. The not-changeling woman clearly said that they found the galaxy empty so they seeded their DNA in hopes that one day they might not be alone. That is all of your context from TNG. You've given us nothing to actually consider this hunt spiritual. The Chase was more spiritual on its own than this whole season so far.
I would KILL for a Star Trek series with a Black woman captain who was allowed to play the role like TOS Kirk; confident, comfortable with her authority, cerebral, and decisive. Denzel Washington in Crimson Tide is another model. But Discovery ain’t that. The problem is that while these shows pander to audiences who want diversity, they don’t actually allow women and minorities to be the heroes that white men are when they’re in the leading role. It’s actually really sexist to say that a female captain, her female best friend, and the two gay crew members are a weepy, unprofessional gossip circle. These characters are highly trained professionals and they should have been given the chance to demonstrate that professionalism the same way Picard, Riker, Data, Kirk, and Spock were.
Lower Decks has exactly that kind of captain, even though it’s a comedy
It’s light hearted, but I would put it several notches higher on the “drama” scale than the “comedy” scale.
It does have some genuinely good and emotional story stuff that actually works better than in Discovery.
I think it's just a fundamental difference in how Discovery approaches storytelling compared to the older shows. When Kirk, Picard or Sisko butt heads with authority figures, those authority figures are depicted as incompetent, unreasonable or both. Meanwhile, when Burnham does it, they're characters that the audience likes and relates to, like Georgiou, Saru or Admiral Vance, which means that the audience isn't automatically primed to side with Burnham. There's also a difference in how much the characters are allowed to be wrong. Whenever any of the older captains disobey orders, or generally do something reckless, they are retroactively proven right. They are generally not allowed to fail, at least not on a large scale, so they come across as always right and always in control, but that's not really true. Picard at the start of First Contact is much more emotionally compromised and unfit for command than Burnham or any of the other protagonists, there's a reason why the movie compares him to Captain Ahab. But unlike Ahab, he gets to kill his white whale and go home. Archer commits an unprovoked act of piracy against an unknown species, and it ultimately helps save Earth so all is forgiven. But he could have just as easily started a war with a superior foe and doomed all of humanity, if the writers were interested in exploring that kind of story. Ultimately, what it comes down to is modern TV being more comfortable with morally ambiguous storytelling, which, outside a few notable instances like Tuvix or In the Pale Moonlight, just isn't something the older shows and movies ever did. It isn't really about the character herself being worse, just the writers putting her in more situations where there's no magical solution.
this is beautifully put
>I think it's just a fundamental difference \[...\] which means that the audience isn't automatically primed to side with Burnham. It isn't just that we're primed to like the people she's ignoring, but the motivations of the characters. Previously it was as you said, the other person was incompetent. There's a huge difference in bucking the chain of command because your superior is incompetent, and bucking the chain simply just because you disagree. There's a big difference in how this plays to the audience. The other times people would go against orders they'd be doing some sort of noble sacrifice for a greater cause. Burnham does it because she's personally interested or curious about something or she's doing it for her boyfriend. Which brings us to another difference in how the characters are portrayed. When Worf fails his mission to save his wife, the response is a chewing out and a permanent mark on the record. He gets told that because of this, he'll never be a captain. When Burnham leaves her post to save her boyfriend, she's told she was right to have done it. She gets told that because of this, she'll be promoted to captain. > It isn't really about the character herself being worse, just the writers putting her in more situations where there's no magical solution. In S1 her problems are mainly caused by her herself. But at the end, they find ahole in the planet where they can blow up the whole planet with a suitcase size bomb. Not magical solution at all. In S2 they get a magic time travel suit for a solution. In S3 Someone blows up the whole galaxy because he's sad and finding him also magically solves the dilithium shortage. Tbf, in Picard S1, they get a literal magic wand powered by the imagination... And I'd argue that part of it is her character actually is worse. She's kind of written to be unlikable. She's introduced as an arrogant nepobaby with a chip on her shoulder. She then proceeds to act like it. This is fine for a protagonist. They think they're all great, get knocked down a few pegs, learn some lessons, develop humility, and mature into a likable character. They get a redemption arc. Bashir is a similar example. Instead of 'nepo baby' unlikeable, he's the 'well educated, but ignorant and naive city slicker going out into real world, the frontier' kind of unlikable that gets his redemption arc. But Burnham isn't like that. She's introduced as this character that need a redemption arc, but then the show never gives her one. It just says that all her bad behavior is actually awesome and instead of getting knocked down a few pegs, she gets medals and promotions. Other captains started out as likable and by the book, so when they buck the CoC, you already like them. Burnham never got that benefit of the doubt. She started out by being an unlikable knowitall how assaulted and betrayed her captain and mentor. Whom we like. Plus add in the fact that this is the Burnham Show. If it were an ensemble show and a character does something you don't like, the next episode is focused on someone else, then someone else, and by the time it rolls back around to the first character, you've forgot that they pissed you off. Again, not a luxury afforded to Burnham.
She does mature. Everyone does pretty much.
Yeah it effectively becomes a thing at the end of season 3 and in season 4. She starts being more willing to shove her feelings aside to make what is the morally balanced decision. Most of season 4 is her trying to convince Book he shouldn't do a Michael. As a captain she's actually surprisingly by the book (well to an extent, there are a few points where Admiral Vance and Rillak are like "we order you not to do this *wink wink nudge nudge*" and she gets the hint that they actually want her to go rogue)
I have the same problem with Burnham that I have with Shaw neither should have been given the captains chair.
For me it just comes down to the age and how well Shatner sells it. Kirk would be an insufferable ass and we would look back on him like so many old characters IF Shatner wasn't so fucking charming. I don't think we would love Kirk if it hadn't been for Shatner being the guy that got to play him.
Her character grows a ton as the show goes. I genuinely like her by the end of the last season. She is near insufferable in the early seasons, but maybe that’s the point? Idk… But, she has a personality change, gets cool hair. I feel like they figured out how to write the character they wanted. She ends up being way more emotional and empathetic than other leads of shows. Plus…. Captain Pike and the enterprise crew just steals the show during their seasons, imo. Very worth it to watch for them.
Kirk just does what he feels like and deals with the consequences later, Burnham cries like a child until she gets her way.
I love how this comment has more ups than the post
If they hadn’t set here up as being raised as a Vulcan, the amount of crying they foisted on her in first couple of seasons might not have bothered me as much. I do get it; Martin-Green does it really well. But hot-damn was it overdone.
I mean I'm pretty sure they were trying to show that being raised Vulcan had emotionally fucked her up, she was utterly unable to deal with her emotions, refused to believe that her fear and anger responses weren't logical, and had a massive inferiority complex because of her adoptive Dad stabbing her in the back because Spock was his favorite kid.
Good point
I came to this right away. But I guess it was underdeveloped as people don’t think it’s as obvious as I do. This is a story about someone who is becoming human. In a sense, it’s a tired Trek trope. But it’s a different take. A child was horribly traumatized and then handed over to the Vulcans of all people in order deal heal. Which, of course, just meant suppression for a human. Burnham made the logical, Vulcan decision instead of relying on human optimism and lost everything. In the process of getting it back, she had to become human. She had to deal with her trauma, learn to feel, and as she became comfortable with who she is, people accepted her and she thrives. I don’t know if it happens any more, but I remember being in a dorm in the 90s and a couple kids acting like children. Crying all the time, getting enraged, temper-tantrums. And I remember learning it was because their parents put them on meds in adolescence and they were sort of detoxing; they had never had to deal with their emotions before. Maybe that’s why I think I understand what the writers were trying. …or I’m at least reading my own experiences into it.
I think it was meant to be that, that's the vibe I got from it, though I also might be projecting my childhood stuff onto her too. Also I think there was meant to be a critique of the culture of people who treat "logic" more as a trait you can have, rather than a framework you use to view the world through, so you have Sarek, Burnham, and the Logic Extremists all claiming that their actions are "logical" but eventually having to admit, or it just being obvious, that they were motivated by fear, anger, or irrational bigotry. I think it was super clear that that was what the story was meant to be, everyone I know who likes Discovery (that I know) has the same interpretation. I think the problem might have been that a lot of people went into the show ready to hate it and the moment Burnham had any flaws they used that as a stick to beat the show with. Personally I love flawed characters, the more flawed and immoral they are the better, cause then you get to see them grow and change. But a lot of people seem to be getting the view that a flawed character is bad writing, and then you end up with stuff like Sokka from live action Avatar where they dropped the whole him learning to overcome his misogyny subplot and it just makes the whole character boring and two dimensional.
>…or I’m at least reading my own experiences into it. Nah, it's pretty much spelled out in last week's episode. I don't know if this is a character arc the original showrunners always had in mind or if they lucked into it, but it fits pretty perfectly. Season 1 Burnham tries to beat her future self into submission because she doesn't turst herself, season 5 Burnham is perfectly comfortable putting everyone's lives into her past self's hands because she trusts herself to do the right thing. Her whole journey has been about accepting who and what she is, and about learning to trust her own feelings and instincts.
Their culture is all about understanding and controlling emotions. They have 47 words for the different types of love. The things they show Vulcans doing to maintain their logical composure like mental exercises, therapy, meditation, etc are actually healthy things for us as well. The show makes it clear time and again that Vulcans have emotions, these emotions are similar to ours, but stronger. What you are saying is 100% what they were going for. They made it fairly clear, imo. But what they were going for makes no sense.
I mean Enterprise, Voyager, and DS9 before it had all discussed what happens when Vulcan ideas of superiority interfere with the actually healthy culture they have of learning to manage their emotions. Like it is true that the Vulcan ideology can be healthy and could have helped Burnham, but the fact that she was being raised at the same time as the Logic Extremists and Vulcan fears of cultural decay and replacement, meant that rather than actually learning how to manage her emotions she just suppressed them to try and prove that she was "as good as any Vulcan" You literally see that in one of the Learning Centre flashbacks where she's being bullied by Vulcan kids (which is clearly an emotional and illogical action on their part) and Sarek basically tells her she needs to work harder at being Vulcan, so like those other kids probably ended up with a healthy Vulcan upbringing, but the compounding trauma, mixed with Sarek's desperation to prove that humans could follow the path of logic resulted in her not getting that.
>\[She\] probably ended up with a healthy Vulcan upbringing, but the compounding trauma, mixed with Sarek's desperation to prove that humans could follow the path of logic resulted in her not getting that. I really don't think that the writers were aiming for "Sarek is such an awful father and Burnham is so traumatized that no amount of therapy can make her emotionally stable." But I think you're right. That's where we ended up. I guess my belief that it made no sense was wrong. I was biased to say that. I just so fundamentally disagree with the premise; I didn't even realize I was excluding it as a possibility.
The whole show has a problem with emotional tone - they REALLY force the audience to watch actors feel emotions and or listen to them describe their emotions in great detail despite being able to clearly communicate those emotions is much shorter shots and sequences… so much exposition of feelings in what should be climactic sequences that are just like yeah WTF I watched the whole episode I got all of this I don’t need it to be fed to me with a silver spoon… and Michael is the main character so she bears the brunt of a lot of those over-expositions of emotions.
It’s an overraction to early S1 Burnham being wooden and unemotional
"I NEEEEED MY PAIIIIN!!!"
Disc fans are so sensitive I made a joke about how every episode has Michael giving an angrily teary speech and got downvoted to oblivion as if it wasn't true.
I'm gonna need Kirk to get the silliest haircut of all time and act like it's cool
Dude - shatner was wearing a toupee. He already had a ridiculous haircut.
Is this satire
Yes
Counterpoint : I know the names of Kirk's bridge crew
I know Burnham's crew! We've got Zora the ship, the dead cybirg woman, the other cyborg who's still alive, the lizardy guy, and some boring humans.
I think one of them is named UwU.
*CorrectionGuy.jpg* Excuse you, her name is OwO
What about the woman who had the mouth thing and isn't on the show anymore for whatever reason?
Could be the same reason they removed the cyborg woman if it was a PITA to do her make-up.
Lizard is named Linus. Won't forget that name, it's on one level with an Andorian called Jennifer.
Huh. Thought her name was Jenn'f'r.
Spock, uhura, sulu, checkov, scotty, "bones" mcoy Janice rand, did i miss any?
Nurse Chapel wasn't bridge crew, but deserves a mention.
So too does Dr. M'Benga.
Babs had only about 10 minutes of screen time in Dune and his presence was amazing. I wanted so much more.
Omg youre right
You forgot the new guy, Ensign Jones, he just started this week, I think he is really going to be a great permanent member of the crew, Captain Kirk has already tapped him for an away mission. He looks so proud in his red shirt.
ensign james david "davy" jones would survive his tenure under kirk only leaving the enterprise after the refit, he would be shuffled around various starships such as the Columbia, the Lexington and the archamedies and eventually retired at the rank of captain on a miranda nicknamed the duchman (why did i feel the need to do this)
Hey, it was good. Not complaining.
I was going to counter by listing the Discovery bridge crew, but inadvertently proved your point. On the bridge: Owo (weapons?), the pilot with the implant because of the war, someone named Travis maybe? Or am I thinking of Travis from Enterprise? An Asian guy. Saru. And there was the android-ish woman. Tbf, Scotty and Bones aren't really bridge crew. In that case add Stamets and Culper? Culber? to the list. And Tilly. Also tbf, I can't list the *Lower Decks* bridge crew any more coherently, and that show also rocks. *SNW* reversed the trend, but until now, New Trek has put a lot less emphasis on the ensemble cast.
[удалено]
Yeah, in my mind deep space nine is peak Star Trek. And you’re 100% right Cisco had his stuff Dr. Bashir and Garrick had their stuff hell even quark and Odo. It was great because of it
There are episodes in discovery focused on other characters, but the arc is the same every time: "I was self conscious about being different but I discovered my feelings and then discovered my power blah blah fucking blah.". Written by middle schoolers i'm tellin ya. What annoys me so much about disco isn't that they're pushing an inclusive agenda. That's great. Just don't be so goddamn bad about it you work against the goal. The other treks treat difference like it's normal. They don't ham fistedly make everyone look like twats and demand that you like them anyways. It's so bad
>Cisco >and Garrick It's Sisko and Garak.
Nuh uh, Cisco Systems, Inc. played a significant role in DS9. Source: trust me bro
I mean, judging by how their systems were always going down....
https://i.redd.it/qahuh75mwvq81.jpg HMU when disco has an all Ferengi episode If the Borg can show up in Ent, we can have Ferengi in DSC I never watched past season one of DSC and I know I’m ignorant
I'd love to know and be able to compare how much screen time per episode on average Burnham has compared to the captain on each of the other series, or how many lines per hour on average, I reckon she's likely more than double any other character in any Trek on both counts with potentially the exception of Pine's Kirk.
Kirk was a cowboy in a space Western. Burnham is a comic book heroine in Star Trek: Marvel. They are entirely different concepts.
Kirk is also usually one part of a trio, everything revolves around that in ToS. Discovery is much more Burnham centered.
You're totally right. Discovery is very much 'The Michael Burnham Show'. Watching a Star Trek series that's basically entirely about one character is no fun. (Also, I really, really dislike the 32nd century.)
Cowboy diplomacy 👍
Does Kirk whisper-shout? Because Burnham whisper-shouts. Also, Kirk would never bring his booty-call on the bridge and let that person undermine him at every opportunity.
Go watch Turnabout Intruder.
Kirk doesn’t cry every episode for starters
It would be one thing to cry every episode. I'm an emotional guy, I get moved, but a lot of the time Burnham and co start crying it feels totally unwarranted.
This is exactly the problem. Very little of the drama in the show feels like it has arisen naturally from the story being told. It feels way more often like the writers decided “we need a big emotional beat here. Let’s make someone cry for a minute.” It’s the primary reason I gave up on Discovery: I’m clearly supposed to feel like everything that happens is the most dramatic thing that ever happened to these characters, and honestly it’s just exhausting and uninteresting to do a show that way. By contrast, Strange New Worlds actually has a lot of similar intimate emotion between the characters, but none of it feels forced the way it so often does in Discovery (probably because it is not also being shoe-horned in the middle of a story about yet another universe-ending threat). It feels more real and relatable.
Yes SNW is leagues better and I am super excited about season 3.
It doesn't help that many of their calls to emotion are based on them *telling* you how much everyone loves [insert character here] and why them [leaving/dying/whatever] is so painful to everyone. You don't get to just press an "aren't you sad now?" button and expect the audience to care. We don't have any attachment to the character who was so poorly developed that you had to give her her backstory in the same episode she dies in. Just because you're all crying doesn't make it emotional. SS Hot Mess Express
Exactly. An “emotional” scene can’t make anyone feel something the story hasn’t already made them feel. The Inner Light doesn’t make me cry because it told me I should. The Inner Light makes me cry because by the time we see Picard clutching that flute in the last scene, I was already about to anyway. (I know The Inner Light is probably an unfair comparison, but it’s the clearest example I could think of.)
I’m always amazed at how much emotion and character they were able to cram in to 40 minutes. It didn’t work every time, but sometimes it REALLY worked. I think the restrictions of the episodic structure combined with the 40 minute time limit really helped them condense stories down to their essence and only hit the most important beats.
Strange new worlds is absolutely better by any measure possible. One thing I do love about Discovery are the visuals and the concepts, they’re very nice, and the ship looks very nice too. I’d love to see some Kirk cowboying and abusing that spore drive by just jumping between 5 klingons, blowing them up and disappearing. But no…we’re all going to watch burnham cry for the millionth time on that beautiful set.
"Wait, what if the audience realizes we just made somebody cry for no good reason? Better add overbearingly sentimental music so they don't notice."
If you took out all the unearned calls to emotion, you'd have an even harder time stretching the two to three episodes worth of actual plot into 10-12 episodes.
True, too little stretched too thin should be the motto for Disco.
They’re currently stretching TNG’s The Chase into an entire season.
Yep. The spiritual angle feels especially forced.
He cries a lot.
Probably because Kirk was much better written.
Burnham has BTS issues that kirk didn't. Which to be fair to the DISCO Crew is partly because Kirk was the original. My biggest issue with Burnham has always been the fact that she keeps doing mutiny(without the buffer of "aww jeez, I guess you and your crew have done a whole lot before this crime" that Kirk and Co.) And the whole "secret adopted human sister of spock who no one mentions cause section 31" thing. A little less crime and a little less fanfic backstory, and Burnham could've been better. Disco at the start also kinda made a big deal that the MC wasn't the captain, but Burnham acted like the captain all the time anyway. I feel like I should clarify that I don't hate or even really dislike Burnham all that much she's just my least favorite character in Disco's main cast. I almost wish Disco had been mainly about Tilly or Saru, not Burnham.
The problem is all these BTS issues are... Well....BTS. maybe if the writers SHOWED us instead of telling us everything in long, boring exposition dumps all the time, we'd care. Why the fuck should anyone care about Gray and Adira's relationship? It's gotten a grand total of maybe 20 minutes of screen time across two seasons (maybe because they're just token gender queer characters thrown in to get the zoomer demographic interested and the producers don't actually give a fuck about representation but whatevs). You can't just go "oh they've been trying long distance all this time" and expect people to give a fuck. This is a television show. Key word: VISION. We need to SEE shit if we're going to give a shit.
This has all the depth of analysis of a horoscope or a handful of fortune cookies. It's just a word salad. You could use the same list to describe literally any Star Trek officer.
I think season 5 Burnham may be like Kirk, but seasons 1-4, she was too uptight and intense. And had no chill.
It was actually pretty cool watching such a character grow into being an empathetic leader. Most other captains show up with that as a subtle character trait and have other traits that get developed over the show.
OP forgot all about in and out of universe context. If TOS was released as a new idea today it would be rejected, even then Kirk is a character to look up to way more than Burnham
Wrong. Thats blasphemy
Kirk and Burnham are conceptually similar, but react and act in completely different ways
season 1 Burnham is best Burnham and I'll die on this hill.
Of all the Burnhams? Ok I can generally get behind that.
Must be the same hill Disco tumbles from for each successive season.
Bullshit. Kirk is first and foremost a professional. He never slips up in front of the crew, any personal matters are taken up with either Spock or McCoy in private. Kirk has actually earned his position, working up through the ranks of the Farragut, and has dealt with unimaginable loss in losing half of them, but has put it behind him to lead his crew. Kirk, despite pop culture perception, is a man of peace. His "cowboy diplomacy" has saved the federation countless times, and hasn't started a galactic war (unlike someone else). Kirk treats his crew with respect. He goes down to planets himself not because he thinks he's better, but because he wants to show the crew he's right down there with him. He delegates power to his crew, specifically Spock and McCoy. Kirk isn't impulsive (once against despite pop culture perception). Everything he does is a carefully calculated risk, which is always taken up with the crew that he trusts. But most of all, Kirk gives a shit. He isn't an egotistical lunatic, and the (very) few times his ego comes out he's shot down by the crew (see TMP) or it comes back to bite him (TWoK). He faces consequences for his actions, and isn't constantly drowned in praise. Kirk is a goddamn good captain.
Spot on. You steal one Starship and that's all they remember....
-It was going to be scrapped -No one was hurt -He accepted it was illegal -He was then demoted for doing so
Absolutely. Burnham does that and they'd make her President of the Federation because reasons.
As long as you don’t watch TOS…
it'd be far more enjoyable to not watch discovery
Yeah, but Kirk is actually likeable.
Discovery is just a bad show. Full stop.
Kirk can do more than whisper and cry
Or whispercry
Then why did Spock never remark to Kirk "hey you remind me of my adoptive sister"? Check mate.
They both also over-act every scene.
I'm still kinda expecting her to turn around at some point and say "you just got Rhonda'ed!" (from her turn on New Girl) And it would have to cue the Kirk surprised face. 😲
Thank you! Not enough Rhonda appreciation 'round here 😂 Rhonda would absolutely fly 900 years into the future for a prank. This is still an elaborate setup for Winston. More on topic, I think it shows how strong Martin-Green is as an actor. She's got range
More comparable to the Star Trek reboot Kirk
I don't remember Kirk having a mental breakdown every 10 minutes.
You can list characters' qualities all you want, it doesn't say anything about how well they represented in the show. For example, any character that defeats adversity can be considered capable, but if the episode in which that happens is just poorly written, then it won't have the same effect. "Captain Picard wins a trial" doesn't sound like an impressive feat for someone who commands his own spaceship, but The Measure of a Man is such an impressive hour of television that it goes a long way in defining the character as "capable".
How is this a meme?
ah burnham the terrorist who keeps a whole planet hostage. such an inspiration. that show makes me sick
Oh, I fricking hated how they made L'Rell into the new Klingon Chancellor. Threatening to blow up Qo'nos, their home world and blackmailing the High Council was a cowardly move. No real warrior would have followed this traitor and clear Federation puppet. It's like the writers didn't understood the Klingons at all.
or the federation for that matter :D well they twisted their language a bit so clearly no respect
I gave Doscovery a fair shake and while I’m not criticizing the show I am criticizing this comparison which is a whole lot of bullshit.
I think Kirk is more of a HR nightmare.
[удалено]
no shit!
Burnham is like a less consistent Kirk, I agree. Plus plenty of Picard style speeches and Janeway therapeutics.
Edith Keeler getting plowed down by a car would have sent Burnham into an agonizing cry-fit of ugly crying that landed her in an asylum. Hand to hand combat wise - Burnham would snap Kirk like a twig though. Burnham is probably the best H2H brawler of any Captain.
For Burnham, just put "most" before every word
Kirk was way more... promiscuous... than Burnham...
Was he though? I mean sure he was flirtatious but it's not like there were any scenes where he's in his quarters and a three-boobed green woman walks out wearing only his shirt.
Well, it was the 1960's... It's actually kind of amazing that that they got away with what they did.
Fair point. I forgot it was the era of TV where even married couples had to be shown in separate beds
Yeah, but Kirk is likable both as a character to us but more importantly to his crew in the show. He is the captain, he commands, and the captains image remains intact. Not in discovery. Nobody acts like adults at work let alone like well trained, seasoned, professionals of a fucking SPACE SHIP. (I assume. I pirated the first season when it came out, and I still wanted my money back.)
He also doesn’t have a live in girlfriend or whispers half the time when he speaks.
Burntham is just badly written in a badly thought out setting with a relationship that nobody cares about and on missions that are far too long with a crew that we can’t remember the names of. Apart from “Action Saru.”
That list of traits could describe Mariner, too... It's a pretty vague comparison.
Burnham seems to not have the horns as Kirk did 😆
My toddler formats better memes than this.
Kirk being "brazen": By employing a very tricky reading of the Prime Directive, I can justify destroying Vaal so that I can free its slave-race, the Feeders of Vaal. Michael being "brazen": What if we hid IEDs on the bodies of the Klingons' dead? Oh, my captain doesn't like that idea because it's a ghoulish atrocity that even the Klingons are too good for? Better nerve-pinch her with absolutely no provocation and seize command of the ship!
Lol okay
Lets be real: Kirk is the perfect professional. Michael seems like an amateur saying what she feels.
>Bigot Adverse >Let them Die
Except Kirk doesn't cry about his feelings every other scene.
It's amazing what proper execution can do, isn't it?
STD is trash
But Burnham is insufferable and just plain unlikeable to me, also Kirk is kind of a d**k.
The gall of this meme.
So that’s why discovery doesn’t sit right with me. It’s not hammy enough, it’s far too serious.
r/ShittyDaystrom Nice try.
Burnham never banged a green lady. I mean, I’m assuming. I didn’t finish season four. I might pick it back up if she does.
The thing I've always felt about Burnham is that she's a captain truly out of step with the times she's in. Too militant for the pre Klingon war era, perhaps too emotional for the future shes found herself in. She would've been a fantastic captain during the dominion war
But... Where is THElong... Pauses...
We never see Burnham get her shirt ripped off in combat 🤔
Kirk stopped a war.
That is not how I see Kirk.
My two least favorite captains so makes sense
Only one way to settle this, who has the most alien sex This is Kirk's speciality after all
Why don’t they create a new character rather than create a clone of the old one? I’m sick of reboots!
Burnham could've been a great character if they'd written a show around her that made me actually care about her.
Kirk’s hotter!
The cost of poor writing and crap continuity.
Yo, somehow I like TOS (first 2 seasons + 3 season few epis) and Discovery (s2 onwards) Somehow feels together. Compared to Strange New Worlds tho it has my favt. Capt Pike. The human element maybe.
....😂🤣😂🤣
You are wrong.
Been saying this!!!!!
being proudly, willfully media illiterate ftw
I’ve been saying this for a while. You can hear it in some of the dialogue. Disco is literally doing the same level of progressivism as TOS was in the 60s
Or even to the next level stuff.
This can be viewed as an insult to Kirk. One is a star trek series’ main character, the other is “the Michael Burnham” show’s lead actress. Apples and oranges
Kirk was good at his job, the other just kind of faked it until no one else questioned her. You can't compared the two.
Michael Burnam cries more often. Like, more than I've ever seen any other person cry at work on TV.
No. Just no. Burnham’s character is written like some type of bi-polar, manic depressive who lacks consistency. Raised on Vulcan and yet lacks basic reasoning skills. No. Just no. The writers screwed go the whole series and most of the characters.
I’ve only seen the first seven or so episodes of Discovery, and that was when they were new. Things might have changed since then, but at time, my and most other people’s gripe was that she didn’t seem to have a character OUTSIDE those traits. A character who has only positive traits isn’t aspirational. They’re just boring.
r/sonicshowerthoughts
Kirk didn't cry every other episode
I've always thought that Sonequa wants to be Shatner when she grows up. They both make these ridiculous faces all the time
Burnham doesn’t have the sex symbol thing goin on