General Star Trek thread

Goodshape wrote: »

Not within the first two seasons though.

Strongly disagree there. Pound for pound (so first two seasons), Discovery isn't even in the same sentence as DS9 when it comes to character development. Arguably Burnham maybe, but that's because it's the Michael Burnham show.

My main problem is that she's unlikable. I was hoping to see more of Saru, but nope, every scene has to have Burnham in it.

I don't like her character at all, but since it's all about her I can't watch the show.

I don't like Wesley, but I can still watch TNG. I don't like Kira in early DS9 but I can still watch it, I don't like Neelix in Voyager but I can still watch it

pixelburp wrote: »

She suffers from Main Character Syndrome, where everything must not only involve her, but an offshoot of this in which character is impossibly earnest. The straight person in the comedy act. Everyone else is allowed a personality and a wry sense of humour (Saru, Stamets, Tilly to a degree), but with Burnham it's all drama, all tearful EMOTION, all the time. It probably wouldn't be so bad if she could lighten the F up, but to the pile can be added the decision to make her Vulcan. Good idea in theory but the execution has made her insufferably serious.

Out of fairness I've been waiting until I see Martin-Green in other series, before rating her as an actress. (I think she was a lawyer in "The Good Wife", and some other things). Mostly because the general state of Michael Burnham might be blamed on the Directors and Production.

But if you ignore potentially blaming the Production staff, Micheal's woes are due to Martin-Green being a bad actress. Based on Discovery alone (which is why it's unfair to judge without seeing her in other works) she appears to have very little emotional range or convincing screen presence. I would dare say that she's mono-emotional on screen, with this constant state of "shock" on her face. Most lines lines appeared to have been delivered in this kind of shock-mode inter-spliced with "Kinda upset" and "Occasional mini-smile".

She's not the worst Trek-character even conceived, nor the worst actress to fill a role in Trek. But she really is below average, and as the main focus of the show, her inadequacies are regularly on display which drags the whole show down with her.

As for Main Character Syndrome.
I know some might not like the term "Mary Stu" to be bandied about, but it is surprising how similar Michael is to the Lt. Mary Stu of Star Trek fanfiction legend who lent her name to that phrase.

Lt. Stu and Lt. Burnham share some of the following:

-TOS era crew-member
-Highly intelligent, and an expert on most aspects of the ship
-Universally loved my all members of the crew (for Burnham, this starts late S1)
-Got on very well with Spock in the end (Burnham adding to this by being his adoptive sister and the "key to his humanity".....if you ignore Spock's human mom)
-Selflessly sacrifices herself for her crew. (Burnham tries this, but the story saves her)

Apart from that the main differences were that Lt. Mary Stu was on the Enterprise and as 16 years old (!), other than that a very similar character. Michael Burnham nearly fits the mold as a successor to that character.

She was a good actress in "The Walking dead" as far as I recall. I remember when she was originally announced, there was some excitement at having her in the role based on her performance in that show.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Slight derailment but I watched Khan, Search for Spock and Voyage home the other night after my formed telling me they work as a trilogy and are the best ones.
They’re great fun and charming but they’re all kinds of naff as well. Riddled with in universe inconsistencies.

On balance I think Star Trek tv is better than the cinematic version of Star Trek. Don’t shoot me.

Oh we won’t shoot you. However a beem setting at Level 10 should be just as effective :P

Inviere wrote: »

I wouldn't say that's the core problem. Nimoy portrayed a half human half vulcan with measurable amounts of charisma, presence, and style. He done all that in three tv seasons, and six movies. He was able to command viewers attention with his work, and bring a true sense of belief to Spock, as a character.

On the other hand, I found Tuvok on Voyager very hard to tolerate, ditto for T'pol on Enterprise.

Sarek was a great character, but he was portrayed as far more emotional than is typical for a Vulcan in many of his incarnations.

Stark wrote: »

On the other hand, I found Tuvok on Voyager very hard to tolerate, ditto for T'pol on Enterprise.

Tuvok I enjoyed, not a lot of character development for him really, but I thought Tim Russ did a good job based on the tools available. T'Pol took a while to warm to, Blalock took time to properly find the presence/confidence needed to properly pull off a Vulcan character, but by the time she did, T'Pol had enough development to make her ok as a character.

Neither were burdened with the weight of an entire show on their backs though, unlike Burnham. I think Green does damn fine, considering. Pixelburp has a point in what they say though, pulling off a Vulcan anchor character, isn't going to be an easy task - it can be done, but it needs a damned fine actor/actress, with a damn fine writing team. Discovery definitely, definitely doesn't have the latter anyway.

The thing is, Burnham isn't even Vulcan, she's human. Yes, raised by Vulcans, but that doesn't make her Vulcan, any more than it makes Worf a Human in being raised by them.

Sarek was a great character, but he was portrayed as far more emotional than is typical for a Vulcan in many of his incarnations.

Another good example of a Vulcan played correctly. The best Vulcans are the ones with emotion bubbling just enough beneath the surface that you can't see it with your eyes, but you damned well know its there. Unfortunately, even as far back as Enterprise, writers threw this concept out the window are wrote Vulcans as cold emotionless psuedo-androids. They make for some poor viewing.