To be fair, Tilly was a far better character previously. Lately she is stuck in the same one tone comedy relief of the series.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
To be fair, Tilly was a far better character previously. Lately she is stuck in the same one tone comedy relief of the series.
Well, I hated just about everything in this episode.
Section 31 keeps being shit
Drama, so much fucking drama
Project Daedalus is a nonsensically huge tech advancement even by Star Trek standards
Humanizing space Hitler
Everything revolves around main character because "reasons"
Section 31 keeps being shit
Drama, so much fucking drama
Project Daedalus is a nonsensically huge tech advancement even by Star Trek standards
Humanizing space Hitler
Everything revolves around main character because "reasons"
This. The writers have been overdoing it for the past few episodes.
Because it's the main character? There are indeed some issues with the story's reliance on only Michael, but complaining the main character gets the main attention is not a good argument.
I guess you're trying to argue that not everything has to happen TO the main character, just that the main character should be the main focus of the show. Which I agree with. But, we've know Discovery was going to revolve around Michael most of the time, so whatever, I thought it was a good and creative way to broach the subject of Michael's protagonism both in-universe and in the meta commentary.
And Section 31 IS supposed to be shit. I'm guessing this season is going to be a way to explain why Section 31 was forced even more into hiding by the federation.
Plus, like the theory some of us have discussed here already, it's likely another big upcoming reveal will be that the suit or maybe even Michael's parents are from the future, fleeing the AI.
Yeah, I'm kind of disappointed that she's becoming a bit one note. I've seen it happen before in series where writers seem to have struggled in keeping a "zany" character fundamentally well written, and have drifted into writing almost a caricature that's defined entirely by their quirkier personality traits. It's recoverable though, so hopefully she gets some better writing in up coming episodes/the next season.
I agree, it's been bothering me nearly every episode now, and I don't find myself laughing at any of her "jokes". The writers really need to dial it back.
Latest episode was an atrocity. I've found season 2 uneven, with some great highs overall, but this was just a disaster on all fronts.
Red Angel twist was dumb/predictable and executed terribly, massively over-playing the reaction to the death of a member of the crew that had no personality to speak of until the episode previous, did a five year old write the time travel stuff from this episode?
It's really trying my patience. There's some fantastic stuff in the show, but the lows are real low.
It's really trying my patience. There's some fantastic stuff in the show, but the lows are real low.
They're not so much jokes so much as depicting Tilly not being able to handle a normal conversation without it turning into word salad.
"Hello, Tilly, how are you?"
"Fine..I mean, not fine, as in being fined, like a fee, but fine as in 'okay'. I mean, I'm not doing just okay, really, things have been good. I mean, except for that bad thing that happened last week, but I guess I'm okay relatively speaking, except...." blah blah blah
Anyway, here's the weird thing about Airiam: She was played by Sara Mitich in season 1, but was replaced by Hannah Cheesman in season 2. Since Airiam never got a major role in any episode in season 1 and Airiam's facial features are obscured by her make up, i actually never noticed the difference and still can't really tell the difference between them in the show (though the lighting in that pic emphasizes the differences). I only found out about this when I looked up info on Airiam.
However, in Season 2, Sara Mitich was seen playing a rando in on the ship. This made no sense until this episode where that rando turns out to be Nilsson, who is Airiam's replacement. So Sara Mitich the actress got replaced by Hannah Cheesman the actress, only for Hannah's character to bite it, so as to be replaced by Sara Mitich's character.
I honestly can't think of an explanation for this casting other than Sara Mitich not wanting to put on Airiam make up, but still wanting to be part of the main cast of the show. So they replaced her with someone who was willng to put on the make up, then killed her off so Sara could come back as part of the bridge crew.
Re: main character argument
A few years ago, when details of the show were being floated, it was rumoured that each season would focus on a different ship and possibly time period. It would have sense to have self-contained stories that follow one main character's perspective.
Michael Burnham Season 1 -- a Starfleet officer who sparks the Klingon/Federation war, only to then fall in love with a Klingon -- makes for an intriguing story.
Cue my surprise when I finally saw last night's episode: the writers have centered "all sentient life" around her. I've been the most vocal critic about her character, but I literally had my mouth wide open after that opening scene. They really went there.
And yet Discovery has hands down the best writing of any Trek show. But the fact remains: they are going to do 3 seasons and center galactic events around one character. Doesn't quite make sense.
A few years ago, when details of the show were being floated, it was rumoured that each season would focus on a different ship and possibly time period. It would have sense to have self-contained stories that follow one main character's perspective.
Michael Burnham Season 1 -- a Starfleet officer who sparks the Klingon/Federation war, only to then fall in love with a Klingon -- makes for an intriguing story.
Cue my surprise when I finally saw last night's episode: the writers have centered "all sentient life" around her. I've been the most vocal critic about her character, but I literally had my mouth wide open after that opening scene. They really went there.
And yet Discovery has hands down the best writing of any Trek show. But the fact remains: they are going to do 3 seasons and center galactic events around one character. Doesn't quite make sense.
Last edited:
Man, seeing some of you label my new favorite episode as atrocious is rough. I understand that ultimately it's about conflicting tastes and little more, but it makes hanging around in here a real bummer sometimes.
That was only when Brian Fuller was show runner and they wanted to do an Anthology, it didn't go past that and when the show was actually being developed it was always going to be about Burnham, in the same way TOS, TNG and DS9 were about Kirk, Picard and Sisko. Yes those shows went on to later develop their secondary cast (especially DS9) but the show was still very much about those three main characters, why on earth people can't seem to understand that Discos main character this time around is Michael I don't get, it's always going to be her.
No other Trek series has done season-long story arcs centering around one character. Possibly because you can't do several years of having a spaceship flying around the cosmos, and telling the story from one perspective without making it seem like that character is the center of the universe.
It's one thing to try it, but I don't think it's working. Calling it into question now is more than justified.
I agree. Tilly is a goddamn treasure and I will not tolerate any slander.
Last edited:
This is to me a strange criticism to make. Once again, I haven't watched Trek shows other than discovery, so feel free to use that as a way to discount everything I say here if you want, but here's my thoughts:
When hasn't "Save the world" been a staple of many, if not outright most, scifi shows? Like, sometimes it's a city, sometimes it's a planet, occasionally it's all life in the universe, whatever, but it's a common trope. It's not even necessarily bad. It's not like anyone goes "Pfft, so what, if this random fat hobbit doesn't drop the ring into a mountain, the ENTIRE WORLD and generations after it are fucked?" or "So the survival of the entire galaxy is placed on this one character and his crew stopping the reapers?" or "so if this 11 year old doesn't stop the fire nation before the comet, the world will be permanently out of balance" or "So this rando farmboy needs to stop an intergalactic empire and he's the only one who can do it because his dad, who is the emperor's right hand man is a magic scifi wizard and so is he" anything like that. You could argue it's cliche, but several series have done this concept well.
So I'm kind of baffled by this remark. Why would writing an (possibly cliched, definitely admittedly pulpy) end of the world scenerio for Star Trek that can be solved by the main character be, in itself, bad?
It isn't the scenario -- the trope of "saving the galaxy" has been done in 50 minutes in other shows, nevermind 14 episodes. The problem is that Trek has in the past had an episodic formula where the 'problem' was largely dealt with by different characters. With Discovery, the main storyline is centered around one character, who therefore plays a large role in every episode. It's difficult to articulate without you having the context of the other Trek shows.
Try out Voyager or Deep Space Nine. I think you'll begin to understand then.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if Jack Bauer is a good example because, while the plot details are obviously not analogous to what STD is doing, he has saved the world like every goddamn season. And again, there are numerous examples where the main character is the one that does this numerous times. Shit, my friend is currently reading Dresden Files, which is a series about a modern day wizard who, through 16 books (and several short stories), I think saves the world or similarly large amounts of people three dozen times over. And it's a good series, I should note.
Also, from your write up there, your implying that Michael is learning all sorts of different skills to accomplish this, and that's not really true. I mean, michael does use her skill and is learning as she goes along, but in season 1, she resolved the plot by learning to stand by star fleet principles, which isn't really so much a skill as character development put in action (sloppily done as it was). After all, it was the L'Rell that technically ended the war, Michael's role was to let her do it. So far, here, it's a similar thing. Yes, critical thinking to practical problems are here, but the key to resolving the mysteries are lying in Michael resolving the tensions with her family. Her uneasy relationship with spock and now whatever is going to happen with her mother. That I guess is tangential, since the trope is still about michael, but it's worth pointing out that the plot is greatly centered around Michael's conflicted relationships rather than them just learning to do stuff and then applying stuff to win the plot.
Either way, I just find some criticisms here weird. I honestly think that part of it is just because I'm locked out of the fandom loop with regards to other trek shows, but I'm legit baffled that them using one of the most common tropes in scifi (even centered around 1 character) is even a talking point. Because we're not discussing whether it's being executed competently as a narrative device, but that that are using the trope at all. And that's just weird.
Last edited:
The thing is, especially this season Michael has been in the background of a lot of stories, she doesn't even solve or do anything to push the plot forward in some episodes, we only see it from her POV and that's it, if you don't like that then that's fair but I don't think they're doing a poor job of involving everyone on Disco (and section 31) in solving the red angel and moving the plot forward. To me it's been a team effort all the way.
But Section 31 did it in a cool anime suit shaped like an angel.
I don't think Airiam's going to, but the needle in Leland's eye plus a particular shot in the teaser for the next episode have me worried. They wouldn't do that, would they?
Last edited:
I mean the borg are already around at this point so it would be a pretty stupid to tie her in with the borg for no reason. They wouldn't be anywhere near this sector of the galaxy for at least another 100 years or so.
Those shows didn't so much focus on the Captains, it just it is they who at end of the day need to make the big decisions so get more exposure. Even on STD despite the writers trying force focus Burnham, both Lorca and Pike are getting the second most focus each season and they are both guest stars for each season. It's the position.
And that is the difference, focus on the Captains makes sense, rank brings that focus. Burnham it's just the writers writing her to be centre of the universe.
Too late since it's based on real science and it was namedropped last season.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Time_crystal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal
So where are the time cops? A rogue AI travelling through time and wiping out all life seems something they wanna get into.
Loved the last episode. That shit was cray. Not sure what to make of the other captain getting his eye gouged though.
It has increased my enjoyment of this thread (and others) immensely.
Nah. they're way out in the Delta quadrant probably messing with V'Ger. I'm just fooling around.
Man the last episode really started off horribly. This fake drama and all the tears because of the death of a crew member we as viewers don't really have any attachment to really soured me on the whole episode. When they came to the end with all the shenanigans to catch the red angel I was flabbergasted why they frontloaded the episode with all that faux-drama.
And I found Michaels facepunching of Leland weirdly out of place. I get that her thinking she was the reason her parents died was traumatizing, but in the end here parents did their job same as Leland by sending them there. Or did something get lost in translation?
And I found Michaels facepunching of Leland weirdly out of place. I get that her thinking she was the reason her parents died was traumatizing, but in the end here parents did their job same as Leland by sending them there. Or did something get lost in translation?
He did admit it was his fault for being overambitious and careless. Regardless, it would easier to blame a living 3rd party than her own dead parents.
Leland sent them there without proper due dilligence and process to ensure they were protected from reprisal from the Klingons because he was more interested in making a name for himself than doing things decently, safely, and in good order. He did explain this.
I'm sure they knew the risks, but her parents died explicitly because he couldn't be bothered to care enough about them to keep them safe. He deserved more than punches; he deserved to have his rank stripped and jail time served. Punches are the only realistic consequence for him given he'll never go on record admitting it to any wrong-doing and facing any real justice.
Never said he didn't but that did not come out in the dubbed version I watch. In the dub (is that even correct for a localized live-action series?) I understood it more along the lines of that they all were rash and he as the superior officer should have been more careful about their safety but that ultimately her parents chose to go there. Which then led to Burnham blaming him for her parents death and that was somehow a leap to me.
Thanks for clearing that up though!
And also....you know....he was admitting to being the reason her parents are dead
Even if all that wasn't true and he did everything by the book, as far as I'm concerned, characters are allowed to have irrational anger when their greatest emotional wounds are ripped open like that.
Yeah, it's cool they're taking their time with it and what happened to him. I really enjoyed the side scene with him and Cornwell too, it was a nice scene between them.
Same here, Georgiou had me laughing a bit at what she was knowingly doing to start pushing them and then I couldn't stop laughing after Tilly's amazing "what just happened?" since it fit so perfectly, Lmao
I felt it from the first episode of season two to be honest.
It's like they over-reacted to the season one love for Tilly by just peppering her 'funny' all over the place in season two. I fear they're killing it.
I don't know. There's maybe one or two episodes this season that I really liked, but then many others where I felt there was too much not clicking or that I didn't like. I loved season one after a slow-ish start, so I'm still hoping for the backend of season two to kick into gear and rescue things.
It's probably not fair to compare it to other Star Trek shows, but this is the first one I'm watching week-to-week, and maybe that's hurting it a bit? I feel like the other shows had an instant familiarity and sense of place that this show is lacking. Even something as 'small' as a sense of geography on the ship... I still have a very fuzzy sense of how the ship is made up, of a sense of it being a real place. With TNG I felt I had a very familiar/concrete mental map of the ship, where things were, how things related, the sense of 'family' on board. Ditto with DS9.
I don't know. This feels forced. I feel there's too many characters sometimes, and we're being 'forced' into sentimentality for characters too quickly. I'm rambling... but yeah. I hope we get a end of season recovery.
I hate Tilly so much. Just have her be taken by Pike to the Enterprise though, no need for her to die too.
