|
Also argument doesn't bear weight for Star Trek Enterprise not being STE because it was just named Enterprise until season 3
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:I get that you hate the show (very understandable, even from someone who likes it), but you realize the trial was longer than 12 seconds and many things were probably said that didn't end up on screen, right? There is plenty to not like about the show without resorting to "clearly the main character withheld evidence at her trial to cover up her crimes. The writers are too bad to havenot shown them discussing what most militaries wouldn't have cared about under the circumstances!" But again- this is a show that took (I think) 4 opportunities to reiterate to you that Burnham was a mutineer. The prisoners comment on it. Lorca comments on it. Cadet nerd comments on it. Saru obviously comments on it- and that's off the top of my head. This is also a show that decided to throw in a completely pointless cafeteria fight scene. And a military would have absolutely cared about it. In fact I almost can't imagine how it didn't come up- even though nobody has actually said a word about it on screen despite all they've said about the less consequential mutiny: Judge: Where is Captain Georgiou's body? Burnham: On the Klingon ship Judge: You left her there? Burnham: we couldn't beam her back, she had no life signs Judge: How did she die? Burnham: Well your honor she was stabbed in the dang chest by a Klingon Judge: What were you doing over there? Burnham: We went over there to capture T'Kuvma to try and end the war Judge: And you failed at that? Burnham: Yes Judge: Is T'Kuvma still alive? Burnham: no anyways you see where this goes I think?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Also argument doesn't bear weight for Star Trek Enterprise not being STE because it was just named Enterprise until season 3 Looking forward to Discovery doing this in reverse a couple years from now
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
skasion posted:Looking forward to Discovery doing this in reverse a couple years from now Ah, an optimist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Ah, an optimist. Well hey, optimism for the future is what Trek is all about 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
skasion posted:Well hey, optimism for the future is what Trek is all about I am also optimistic that everything will be dark, brutal, and grumpy in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:But again- this is a show that took (I think) 4 opportunities to reiterate to you that Burnham was a mutineer. The prisoners comment on it. Lorca comments on it. Cadet nerd comments on it. Saru obviously comments on it- and that's off the top of my head. This is also a show that decided to throw in a completely pointless cafeteria fight scene. The action you are talking about doesn't seem relevant to the trial at all. By the time it happens, the battle had already resulted in 8,000 deaths and the destruction of a ton of Starships and Starfleet personnel, including an admiral. At that point, trying to capture the enemy commander who had lead a massive attack, failing, and killing him instead is basically failing a mission, not committing a crime against Starfleet. Especially since she went with the captain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:But again- this is a show that took (I think) 4 opportunities to reiterate to you that Burnham was a mutineer. The prisoners comment on it. Lorca comments on it. Cadet nerd comments on it. Saru obviously comments on it- and that's off the top of my head. This is also a show that decided to throw in a completely pointless cafeteria fight scene. I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that she told them, but that they didn't care. If there hadn't been a mutiny, they probably would have debated the issue and maybe put a reprimand in her file. With the mutiny and the other charges, they probably didn't think it was worth it. She was already up for life in prison and they don't have the death penalty unless you go to Talos IV. Nobody cares if you jaywalk on the way to rob a bank. We know that they would have been in a much better position to end the war had they captured T'Kuvma alive, but given that he was armed, had just killed someone, and there were more enemy soldiers around Starfleet brass could very easily justify using deadly force on a guy that just started a war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
I love that there's a death penalty for going to Talos IV because their ability of illusions is far too dangerous and tempting, and less than a century later all ships are basically outfitted with their own Talos IV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
wait why would you kill people for going somewhere nice?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I love that there's a death penalty for going to Talos IV because their ability of illusions is far too dangerous and tempting, and less than a century later all ships are basically outfitted with their own Talos IV. Kirk would take an axe to the holodeck and in the pile of rubble he'd give a speech about how man is a slave and not a god to his own delusions and the power of the heart being greater than the cowardice of the mind, or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:wait why would you kill people for going somewhere nice? The feds were a more extreme Worf from the episode where he gets mad people on Risa are loving.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
vermin posted:Kirk would take axe to the holodeck and in the pile of rubble he'd give a speech about how man is a slave and not a god to his own delusions and the power of the heart being greater than the cowardice of the mind, or something. Big words from a man whose real life is his Holodeck Fantasy
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah the UFP would refuse to fix even super autism we see this in DS9. They'd draw the line at super debilitating symptoms like catatonia. The supernerds that Bashir babysat were the product of attempted genetic engineering. Someone already tried to "fix" or "improve" them and it turned out badly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
vermin posted:Kirk would take an axe to the holodeck and in the pile of rubble he'd give a speech about how man is a slave and not a god to his own delusions and the power of the heart being greater than the cowardice of the mind, or something. Which is one reason why I love TOS so much. It wasn't optimistic about the future, but not utopian. Episodes never shied away from depicting characters as going into situations with the wrong mindset (like Kirk warmongering after the Cestus III attack) and changing their mind after more facts became known.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
There is a TAS episode where they randomly have a holodeck, which predictably breaks. Kirk doesn't use it though if i recall. It's the episode with KIRK IS A JERK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
The Practical Joker. My personal head canon is that they didn't have holodeck technology until TNG, although I pretty much consider TAS canon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah the UFP would refuse to fix even super autism we see this in DS9. They'd draw the line at super debilitating symptoms like catatonia. Non Trek tangent here there's a show coming out on ABC, I think it's called The Good Doctor. It's about a young doctor who has super autism. I'm not being glib, theres a trailer for it that ends with "Yes, he has autism." Like it's a super power. So now whenever I hear someone talk about Bashir I'll think of that trailer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:The supernerds that Bashir babysat were the product of attempted genetic engineering. Someone already tried to "fix" or "improve" them and it turned out badly. Yes, but they straight up say they got messed up because they were treated by graduates of Hollywood Upstairs Medical College.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Yes, but they straight up say they got messed up because they were treated by graduates of Hollywood Upstairs Medical College. DS9 hosed up super nerds are evidence why the federation needs well researched and publicly available enhancement for its population, it's that or back alley enhancement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that she told them, but that they didn't care. If there hadn't been a mutiny, they probably would have debated the issue and maybe put a reprimand in her file. With the mutiny and the other charges, they probably didn't think it was worth it. She was already up for life in prison and they don't have the death penalty unless you go to Talos IV. Nobody cares if you jaywalk on the way to rob a bank. Of course they'd want to know the details. The captain went over to a Klingon ship with only one other person- a person who knocked her out and attempted a mutiny only an hour beforehand- and ended up dead. Did Burnham kill her? That's stuff they need to know. If Burnham didn't, what happened? They're going to try and recreate the details of that mission for posterity. And so now she's explaining what happened. She explains the plan was to capture him, right? She explains the beamed over with phasers set to stun and was perfectly capable of stunning the first Klingons they encountered. She describes the scuffle. She describes fighting off the Klingon attacking her and then seeing Georgiou getting stabbed. What does she say next? Burnham: so I shot T'Kuvma Judge: stunning him? Burnham: no, i decided to switch my phaser to kill Judge: why? was the stun setting not working? Burnham: no, it was working Judge: were you in immediate personal danger ? Burnham: no Judge: so why was your phaser on kill Burnham: oh I was really angry So- we're assuming she told them everything honestly. Even if the Judges don't believe the capture of T'Kuvma would have made a difference, she's literally telling them she sabotaged the mission as defined by the Captain "just 'cause". The Judges wouldn't wonder how utterly absurd that is? They wouldn't wonder if she was actually lying because this makes no sense? This would imply so many weird things about the Federation's justice system that I can't even imagine. They were just like 'ehhh, she's got life in prison, no need to spend any more time on this'? And this doesn't even get in to other parts are Starfleet that want to know what happened because they actually need to win a war and the current status of T'Kuvma- alive or dead- might be important to that. Edit - I know this is a somewhat pedantic walk through of that scene, but at a storytelling level the killing of T'Kuvma is incredibly important both for defining the world around our characters AND as critical a character defining moment for Burnham as the mutiny. For it to go completely unmentioned isn't them skipping the scene of how Burnham walked from her quarters to the lab. It isn't a perfunctory bit of information. It is as important as reminding you that she's a mutineer. So either they aren't mentioning it because she lied (which is par for the course in melodrama like this), or they comepletely forgot about that scene. Fidel Cuckstro fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
They really did it. They really midichlorian'd Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Is the plot of this series going to be that the Discovery's biological warfare program culminates in spreading Tribbles throughout the Klingon Empire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
mossyfisk posted:Is the plot of this series going to be that the Discovery's biological warfare program culminates in spreading Tribbles throughout the Klingon Empire. Childhood leukemia. So tribbles were all juvenile cancer cells all this time. Where is my writing job, CBS
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
I like the technicolour look of space they've been using in DSC. Also, this episode was better, but the ship's remit is you have to be a dick?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:It's Avery Brooks' 69th birthday! Nice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Of course they'd want to know the details. The captain went over to a Klingon ship with only one other person- a person who knocked her out and attempted a mutiny only an hour beforehand- and ended up dead. Did Burnham kill her? That's stuff they need to know. If Burnham didn't, what happened? They're going to try and recreate the details of that mission for posterity. So what would they charge her with? Completing the original (and presumably still secondary) objective of the mission? Killing an armed enemy soldier in a situation that was now more dangerous because now she didn't have backup? Forgive me for finding it possible that that isn't the foremost on people's minds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:I like the technicolour look of space they've been using in DSC. Also, this episode was better, but the ship's remit is you have to be a dick? You have to wonder what it says about our culture when the modern version of "relate-able, realistic" characterization is "unlikable hostile dick"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
The gently caress is this magic spore they introduced? Seriously? Before TOS huh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
To be fair, this setup has government coverup written all over it. The ship is basically a black site and the shroom engines are obviously one of those things Not Meant For Man To Know like eugenic enhancement, the Genesis device and why they can't just reconstitute dead crew members using the pattern buffer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:So what would they charge her with? Completing the original (and presumably still secondary) objective of the mission? Killing an armed enemy soldier in a situation that was now more dangerous because now she didn't have backup? Forgive me for finding it possible that that isn't the foremost on people's minds. Are you interpreting her actions as a decision based on the increased danger of the situation because her backup was gone? Really? Burnham deciding to kill T'Kuvma is probably the most important moment in the premier. It's honestly more important than the mutiny because despite all the action around it we as an audience know it was pretty irrelevant to what happened next. Killing T'Kuvma however sets the world and story on a course that we are told could have been reversed. It's also incredibly important to understanding who Burnham is, and it's a different piece of information than the mutiny. The mutiny tells us Burnham will break the rules if she thinks it will save her friends. Killing T'Kuvma tells us Burnham will sacrifice her friends for vengeance on Klingons. This piece of information is important. And it's so important that the writers decided to mention in 0 times after the fact so far. They did mention her being a mutineer 4 times. They did decide to have Lorca talk about his family's fortune cookie biz so they could set up that ham-handed 'Burnham takes her fate in her hand' shot. They did decide to have a pointless snit between Burnham and Stamets just so you knew he could be catty. They did decide to have a cafeteria prison fight scene. It's not as if they didn't have fat to cut elsewhere so they could draw attention this INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT plot point. This was an episode that needed to justify why everyone was angry with Burnham and at no point do they bring out what would be the most obvious point to that: Burnham's need for personal catharsis resulted in this war continuing. And it's not as if this show has established anywhere else that it's any less subtle than a 2x4 cracking over someone's head when it needs to tell you something. Not mentioning it is a storytelling choice. And the only reason I can imagine you would not mention this very important point on purpose is to set up Burnham's secret shame that will burn her connections with the rest of the crew just as she's being accepted. But the idea that 'well it just wouldn't come up' is absurd. The writer makes things come up. The writers made 'Beetles Cover Band' come up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Of course they'd want to know the details. The captain went over to a Klingon ship with only one other person- a person who knocked her out and attempted a mutiny only an hour beforehand- and ended up dead. Did Burnham kill her? That's stuff they need to know. If Burnham didn't, what happened? They're going to try and recreate the details of that mission for posterity. Not to mention, wouldn't you think that Starfleet would want to know everything they could find about about the first and only mutiny in their history?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Are you interpreting her actions as a decision based on the increased danger of the situation because her backup was gone? Really? No, I'm saying its a contributing factor towards no crime having been committed. Fidel Cuckstro posted:... I interpret it as showing that despite being raised by Vulcans, she can still be overcome by her emotions (this is a frequently used trope with Vulcan characters going all the way back to Spock  ) and that she has flaws she can one day overcome. pyrotek posted:Not to mention, wouldn't you think that Starfleet would want to know everything they could find about about the first and only mutiny in their history? You almost make me feel like arguing about Star Trek on the internet is just a big waste of time. Cat Hatter posted:I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that she told them, but that they didn't care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:No, I'm saying its a contributing factor towards no crime having been committed. I'm not talking about whether it's a crime. That is actually irrelevant to the story. I'm talking about whether she's told anyone. And "I'll kill someone" is definitely a form of 'letting emotions get the better of you'. It's still a critical character trait. Congrats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:I interpret it as showing that despite being raised by Vulcans, she can still be overcome by her emotions (this is a frequently used trope with Vulcan characters going all the way back to Spock This is my favorite argument ever. "Burnham is a character in fiction, your move." Don't settle for merely reductive, let's get downright subatomic here. Fake edit: so much that we passed back out of spoiler territory because you can barely tell who we're talking about, much less what
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:I'm not talking about whether it's a crime. That is actually irrelevant to the story. I'm talking about whether she's told anyone. So now that we're on the same page, why do you feel so strongly that not bringing up a thing that isn't a crime during a brief trial scene is proof that the main character lied about what happened? I agree that it should have been brought up at some point, but we also agree that this isn't Shakespeare. McSpanky posted:This is my favorite argument ever. "Burnham is a character in fiction, your move." Don't settle for merely reductive, let's get downright subatomic here. What are you talking about? This is a commonly used storyline in Star Trek. Why should I assume they aren't doing it again? The show is dark enough on its own without bending it into a premeditated Vengence>Loyalty plotline.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:So now that we're on the same page, why do you feel so strongly that not bringing up a thing that isn't a crime during a brief trial scene is proof that the main character lied about what happened? I agree that it should have been brought up at some point, but we also agree that this isn't Shakespeare. This very important piece of the story has not been mentioned. But we know it's common knowledge in the story, because even though we have no proof we can just assume the writers are apes. I don't see how I can argue against this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:What are you talking about? It means that what you said isn't a counter example or argument against what he said, you just keep zooming out so the failure of the specifics are lost in the blur of generalities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Tilly doesn't have loving Autism or anything like even a light form of it. Asperger's/High Functioning Autism has specific symptoms, not just 'all awkward nerds'. If anything, she has social anxiety issues. Saru is the best. WampaLord posted:I know I'm not going to make people stop doing it, but it really should be DIS, not STD. I see DSC getting more traction around than DIS, so I'm just using that. F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:The Practical Joker. My personal head canon is that they didn't have holodeck technology until TNG, although I pretty much consider TAS canon. ENT hosed with it, but I liked to imagine that TNG solid hologram tech was developed from the Kalandan outpost that projected Losira in That Which Survives. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:31
|
|