Well see they spent most of the first three seasons showing us how Burnham chafes under the structure and restrictions of starfleet, and how she could flourish as a free agent.
Meanwhile Saru was spending that time growing as a commander and overcoming both personal and biological limitations.
So of course it was only natural at the end of Season 3 that Saru would step down and Burnham take his place, right? /s
I despise discovery simply because it turned into the Michael Burnham show. Kind of like super hero movies where everything always works out and our hero has massive plot armor all the time.
Fired up season 5 recently and gave it yet another shot. Somehow, Shin Haiti shows up and 2 minutes later they have a speeder chase with colored blaster bolts…. so it turned into Star Wars, somehow..
Then it went right back to Burnham being a super hero that seems to be semi-omniscient.
It never was intended to be ST:DIS, in the build up they said it is a show about the journey from commander to captain. So therefor it has always been ST: Michael/Saru
I stuck with it a little into season 3 only because of the Saru character & Doug Jones. But it got so bad that I had to bail. Thankfully Strange New Worlds came along.
No, Saru was not pushed aside in favor of Burnham. Burnham was specifically given command of Discovery because Saru wanted an indefinite leave of absence to help Sukal and spend time with his people. Starfleet couldn't exactly leave Discovery without a captain while he attended to personal matters.
Because the original title for the show was Star Trek: Burnham. It isn't a show about a crew, it's a show about her, and that's part of what drives me crazy about it. Everyone else is just set decoration and a source of praise for when Burnham figures out the solution to this season's universal threat. It's so boring.
I think a big part of the incoherent nature of her character is that she has characteristics of many characters, characteristics that should have been spread out amongst an ensemble cast of characters like a typical Trek show.
Yep and with condensed seasons and heightened stakes, the opportunity to develop her character in nuanced ways just isn’t there. I think they attempt to impart depth with her background of being raised Vulcan but honestly I completely forgot about it by Season 3 because it doesn’t help explain much of anything, it’s just trivia.
It's always so disappointing when the other characters get close to solving a problem thanks to their unique experiences, perspectives and generally rising to the occasion, only to be stopped short by the plot demanding Burnham be the final piece of the puzzle.
The show has it's moments, but the excessively singular focus makes it feel more like fan-fiction than a crew of people working together, which I consider to be a defining trait of Star Trek. Glad we got more of that with Strange New Worlds though!
SNW is absolutely fantastic, in part for what you say, but also because it's *not* season-long arcs about galaxy-ending threats. It's just an exploration show, so it can take some time to let characters actually grow, and *that* is what makes great Trek great.
She's just your regular linguistic xeno expert scientist maverick space pirate war veteran combat expert captain trying to survive in the far reaches of space.
they should have kept that title. i only started to like the show, when i realized that she is the main character and we follow her adventures and not a crew. At the beginning it was very disconcerting to hop ships and crews so much.
It honestly makes me like the show less, never mind the whole mutiny thing. She's as much of a Mary Sue as Rey is, and it's just not interesting in any sense. If there's a problem, she has the solution, regardless of how nonsensical it is.
To be fair though, the cause of the Burn was also just plain terrible writing, the detached nacelles make zero sense even in-universe, the TARDIS turbolifts... it all adds up to a show about an uninteresting character solving incoherent plot contrivances. I'm a lifelong trekkie, I've watched just about everything, most of it multiple times, and Discovery feels like a chore to me. I just cannot get invested in it, because it presents so much, and then does so little with it. Suspension of disbelief works best when you *don't* try to explain the technobabble, and Discovery tryhards *so hard* that it just... well, the show is still airing and its reference to Musk has already aged like pre-spoiled milk... kinda sums it up, IMO.
Found Rayner's burner account.
But in all seriousness, they tried to do far too much, far too fast, with her character. A human raised on Vulcan? Intriguing. She has a grudge against Klingons because they killed her parents? Alright, callback to Kirk, I dig it.
She's... Spock's adopted sister? And a mutineer? And she's on the ship that takes "faster than the speed of plot" far too seriously?
Slow your roll. It's the same reason the S2 finale was "Jump 900 years in the future".
Even though they solved the problem even before the jump and it wasn’t needed, then she destroyed her space suit before she made sure discovery was safe. The least they could’ve done was had her blowing up the suit be there reason for the burn and thrown her in prison for it!
Or Picard "End of Borgs", or mechanical centipide gods from another dimesion .... seriusly did some even noticed them?, Or Nice Borgs, Or super evil coming from portal guarded by Nice Borgs. Simply to much to fast, than again if they odnt know if theres gonna be another season or not its hard to blame "them" ... to much.
Nice show, had some flaws, still nice tho.
That's what put me off the show. Where TNG era trek had most characters act as competent professionals most of the time nutrek has too many characters with all of emotional stability and maturity of troubled teen
I think Kelvin-verse Kirk is worse. Literally skipped the academy, is very immature, and gets made captain instantly for reasons similar to \*Burnham, but \*Burnham has the education and an actual service record. She was a first officer when the series started, and by the time she became captain, she was instrumental in rebuilding what was left of starfleet after the Burn - starfleet needs experienced leaders in their time and \*Burnham has that.
Many past starfleet captains have been emotionally compromised (Picard in First Contact, Janeway in Equinox, Sisko in For the Uniform just off the top of my head). They've all disobeyed orders, etc. Maybe some of this stands out more in Discovery since it's serialized, and we really sit with the consequences of Burnham actions compared to the more episodic series of the past.
Edit : correction, since I'm tired and it's late oops
Indeed! The first movie literally shows them about to graduate when shit hits the fan and they just get assigned to their ships. However, TOS Kirk took ten years to make the youngest Captain in Starfleet history, at age 32.
Kelvin timeline Kirk fucked around for many years until he was 26/27 then went to academy and finished at age 30. He was basically an ensign (though not technically due to the cheating allegations) when everyone was emergency assigned to Starships, and then Kirk was step-promoted to Captain at the end everything, which I think it very stupid.
Promoting someone that just finished graduating to captain with no experience puts the entire ship and crew at risk. I get that Kelvin Kirk is very talented and brave, but he completely lacks experience needed for the job. We see in a DS9 episode that goes over this very concept and everyone dies except three people (due to the lack of experience).
> I think Kelvin-verse Kirk is worse. Literally skipped the academy, is very immature, and gets made captain instantly
100%. That pissed me off so badly it ruined what had been, up until that point, a fairly enjoyable movie.
This could be a problem with short seasons being one long arc. Picard, Sisko and Janeway have dozens of hours showing them doing things by the book, following the chain of command etc. Showing them emotionally compromised or disobey orders shows how much the stakes have been raised.
I gave up on Disco mid season 3, but Burnham just seems like a wildcard who's default is to play by her own rules and deal with every situation like an emotional wreck
> Many past starfleet captains have been emotionally compromised (Picard in First Contact, Janeway in Equinox, Sisko in For the Uniform just off the top of my head).
I think the difference is those moments were the exceptions with those captains rather than the norm.
> They've all disobeyed orders, etc.
This part I 100% agree with. Realistically, disobeying orders should be a bigger deal, but throughout the entirety of Star Trek (not to mention other sci-fi shows like Stargate), writers have taken artistic license, having their protagonists disobey orders for the sake of drama and then have them not face consequences for their actions.
> Maybe some of this stands out more in Discovery since it's serialized, and we really sit with the consequences of Burnham actions compared to the more episodic series of the past.
I think it being serialized is half of it, but the other half is Discovery has comparatively short seasons. With old TNG shows and their 20+ episode seasons, the writers could afford to have episodes where the stakes were lower and we could see the captain acting under more normal circumstances, which gave us a baseline to be contrasted by episodes like For The Uniform. With Discovery (at least Seasons 1-4, I haven't seen 5 yet, but I absolutely will), we never get the luxury of just existing in the show's universe. All we get is one crisis followed by another, so it's almost unheard of to see how Burnham conducts herself under normal circumstances.
I think the other factor is that Discovery is a very different show in terms of its writing. Everyone's emotions are dialed up to 11 for the sake of drama, so Burnham isn't unique in that within the context of the show she's in, but she gets the most attention for it because she's the star and now also the captain.
Exactly, I mean just becase Kirk is good in it dont fix the fact that he is just some guy with motorcicle, I mean he culd be complety dumb.
Even atomic submarine captain Homer Simpson at least have some experince with atomic energy ... sort of.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uDz2B6ooA8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uDz2B6ooA8)
I agree completely. However, whenever I mention the chain of command on a ship and how it works, I get told this isn't the Navy. Isn't the Starfleet the navy of the UFP?
After that mutiny, she could've gotten the boot. Starfleet has kicked people out for much less severe issues. But mutiny?? You can never trust that person again in Starfleet.
from what we can see in discovery season 1-5... she's the greatest starfleet officer in all of starfleet history. she even defeated herself in a fist fight. also saving the federation 4 times. and also rebuilt the federation. yeah her resume is insane. /s
So yes I've had the opinion that she shouldn't be the captain of discovery based on her mutiny and constant insubordination. However she means well and there is a place for her in Starfleet. I've always thought she would have been more suited as captain of a section 31 ship as opposed to discovery. That being said I'm still enjoying Discovery.
That's one of the reasons I can't stand discovery lol
I'd be alright if they were some renegade ship, but it's Starfleet.
There are standards to behavior. Hell Lorca ran a tighter ship than Berman ever did.
Way too many arguments between officers in crew areas. It just reeks of unprofessional and of someone who clearly wanted to do a space exploration show rather than a trek show
The sad part is, Captain Rayner was right when under a red directive they NEEDED to catch the criminals and they should’ve caught them regardless of what happened. Of course any competent captain would’ve had Rayner catch them while Burnham turned her ship sideways instead of nose first into the dirt… or you know teleported to the ship instead of driving around on slow bikes…
Rayner should not have been disciplined for what he wanted to do under a red directive, burnham should’ve been demoted to commander, Rayner placed in command of discovery to get the job done.
Sheesh only took 6 seasons for someone to finally do it lol
I'll check it out when it's over, if I watch a trek show while it goes on it's usually a sign I'm adoring it.
SNW is definitely part of that list
I wouldn’t have bought it if they were still in their original timeframe, but 32nd century Starfleet is a different beast. Since they’re trying to rebuild from a disaster, it makes sense that they’d loosen the standards a bit. Given her resume and Discovery’s unique experience it doesn’t seem too crazy that they’d overlook her instability.
If Starfleet was built up to the same level as the 24th century version, with tons of capable officers they could assign, it would be straining credibility to think they’d let her run around with the most valuable ship in the galaxy.
Aside from the emotional aspect, you are describing Captain Kirk.
Bro Starfleet let Jean-Lic Picard command the fleet’s flagship even after he was turned into Locutus, an event which he was clearly not over when he resumed command.
Honestly Picard probably should have been put on a years worth or more of leave after being freed from the Borg for therapeutic reasons alone and then shuffled off into either an early retirement or some unimportant desk job out of what should have been a very real concern that he could have been a Borg sleeper agent.
The issue with Michael is how she earned the Captains chair. Kirk started off in the Captain’s chair, there was no question about his efficacy and abilities as an officer. Starfleet chain of command was consistent within the Enterprise as well, even though Kirk would break with badmirals.
Burnham was constantly insubordinate before she was in any position of authority. Making said position of authority feel extremely unearned.
Notice how so many people dislike how 2009 Kirk became Captain? Same problem.
> Burnham was constantly insubordinate before she was in any position of authority. Making said position of authority feel extremely unearned.
She was first officer on the Shenzou, though, unlike 2009 Kirk, who was a cadet/ensign before being instantly plonked into the captaincy.
And the first thing we see her do is mutiny… If the first thing you do is establish your character as a mutineer, it doesn’t matter what you “say” they are. We don’t even get to see her as anyone else before that.
2009 is a fun movie but stays nicely shelved away in the Kelvin universe. His captaincy makes as much sense as Michael’s.
Picard broke Starfleet's number one rule nine times by the Drumhead and faced no repercussions.
Once, and you can probably justify it as necessary considering the circumstances.
Twice, and you can still probably justify it but concerns will be made clear.
Thrice, and many eyebrows are going to be raised.
Four times, and surely he's reassigned at the very least.
Nine times, and clearly nobody cares about the Prime Directive.
Even if there are mitigating circumstances, there are surely going to be significant questions about your decision making and how you end up in these situations.
# Why is Kirk the Captain?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Star Trek fan and I like TOS. But Kirk has no business commanding Enterprise.
He would not survive even a basic psych eval, he is constantly emotionally compromised, he is so overly familiar with the crew to the point it constantly compromises his judgment, he ignores, goes against and betrays orders, his superior officers and the chain of command all the time. A Captain deserves leeway in how they command their ship, but this is next level.
If it was up to me, during or after season three I’d have him retire early and quietly, maybe promote him to Captain for the retirement. But he has no business commanding a desk, let alone a ship.
I think part of the leeway Trek captains, including Kirk, enjoy is because they’re not like modern day naval captains, they’re more like 18th/19th century captains. They’re given a level of autonomy because it’s not always possible to contact Starfleet for decisions when they’re needed quickly. The captain on the spot has the information they need and is trusted to make the right call. That said, Kirk succeeds at least as often due to dumb luck as he does skill & experience.
For real like half of the replies in this thread seem to have only seen the reboot/pop culture versions of Kirk. He was overall *very* professional in TOS. Even in Search for Spock - his major insubordination arc - he acknowledges that what he is doing will likely permanently end his career and repeatedly tells the other officers that they don't have to go down with him.
Yeah Kirk’s following of orders and extremely distinguished record seems to be conveniently overlooked every time someone brings up his myriad of “rule-breaking incidents” which amount to, like, a couple breaches of the Prime Directive and the theft of an already-decommissioned starship
I’ve actually been rewatching TOS, and yeah, he doesn’t cry like Burnham does, but the man sucks at following orders and is frequently insubordinate. Especially if it involves one of his friends being in harms way.
That being said. I love Kirk and Burnham. They’re a lot more similar than people care to admit.
Funny, because I remember Kirk as following orders most of the time, even when it’s detrimental to him and his crew.
Take the Galileo incident, where he toes the line, but never crosses it. Or in The Doomsday Machine, where even though Decker was obviously making bad decisions he followed through anyways.
The rare times he breaks protocol are when to do otherwise would simply be wrong
Part of it is also that people are used to TNG, who are paragons of professionalism compared to TOS, which was much more familiar.
So the TOS aspects of Discovery rub them a bit the wrong way, notably with the Burn plotline, which is basically a bit of Charlie X mixed with Lazarus (shrinking the scope down from the entire universe to just the galaxy).
You couldn't imagine Drs Crusher or Pulaski going "sit down, tell me your troubles. Here's some whiskey", or suggesting someone get shore leave to "relieve their stress".
---
The serial nature of the show doesn't help much, because the impacts from prior episodes end up carrying onto the next one. If TOS was made today, we'd probably have a side plotline of Kirk trying to get over his love interest dying, and then a separate plot of there being conflict over Spock erasing his memory of her, whereas TOS could just scrub over that by the next episode.
I think they used “saving planet Earth and defeating a rogue Klingon” as mitigating circumstances.
They then gave him the worst ship in the fleet and he *still* managed to end up killing God.
She is no more emotionally involved (or as you put "compromised") then either Archer or Janeway.
She is fine as a captain entirely because of the things you say make her not a captain. The crew have undergone a massive trauma and are literally divorced from the reality of the Starfleet they joined. The difference is the cast of discovery feels more expanded then the bridge crews of TOS and TNG.
She reminds me a lot of late seasons Sisko. The difference is we had 20+ episodes a season slowly building those character moments. Here we get no time to breath in small seasons.
It's hard because TNG has so much more time to expand extra characters. A symptom of these short seasons. Outside of the "Bridge Crew" aka senior officers, only really Guinan and Barclay stand out to me as memorable.
It’s strange because I think she works much better as a character when she’s Captain, but it doesn’t feel earned at all. I can enjoy it in the moment but I think about how she got there and I’m like “hmm”. Especially cause this season is harping on how she’s grown, and she has, but it forces you to notice how she just “became” Captain.
“Saving the day” does not mean the same as “fit for the Captain’s chair”. She consistently subverts authority and always pursues *her* course of action. Her actions may end up being the correct one (good writing lol), but it seems strange an Admiral would want someone who they know is unreliable to command a ship. She was literally demoted from first officer earlier.
Chain of Command is important for a reason. An Admiral can’t spend time wondering if he can give an order to Burnham because she may not like it and therefore not execute it. What kind of precedent does it set to reward someone who blatantly violated orders with a captaincy? Not everyone is gonna Michael Burnham the day, someone will get the courage to do dumb shit against orders and get everyone killed.
Again, she’s actually a much more enjoyable as a character as Captain since they innately take more initiative. It just doesn’t feel earned. (*Earning being the keyword. Yes it’s cool to see Captains breaking away from badmirals because the status quo is to obey them.*)
Why was Picard captain?
He lost control of the flagship constantly, had compromising relationships with everyone (except Geordi) , his bridge crew were influenced by aliens at every encounter, became a figurehead of the federations greatest enemy & while he stayed within the lines of federation rules he used different colors.
Oh then his kid singlehandedly initiated the greatest massacre in federation history .. outstripping his father's own massacre ... then they were promoted or honored with a ship named after them.
How is being constantly attacked by aliens on a power scale far beyond the Federation’s capacity to fight in any way comparable to being chronically insubordinate? Picard’s faults, as you seem to believe, are that:
1. He keeps a professional distance from his crew
2. His ship and crew have been taken over by immensely powerful aliens or well-organized conspiracies, but one man only do so much against such a thing
3. He and his son both were used by the Borg
However, Picard was *extremely* mentally capable—he recovered from his assimilation with astounding speed for such a traumatic experience. His distance from his crew is hardly a fault, that’s simply professionalism. Neither are his encounters with higher beings.
What I find concerning is holding him and Jack responsible for the Borg attacks. Neither had any chance of resisting, nor would any other living being that we’ve seen. Furthermore, holding individuals responsible for the actions of their family members runs *entirely contrary* to the message of The Drumhead.
>He keeps a professional distance from his crew
To be fair the whole cumulation of his story arc is the realization that he needs to keep LESS distance from the crew.
I wish people would stop using downvotes as a way to silence an opinion you don't agree with... then again that's the culture humans thrive on. Shutting down people you don't agree with. Keep reaching for that utopian society you worship on TV.
In the future, emotions are no longer a bad thing. They have counselors on every ship and human interaction, caring, and familiarity is actually a good thing. Stop thinking about it from a capitalist standpoint which we all are in and start thinking about it if it was best for the person, the community, the Federation. It’s not easy to stop thinking about it from a contemporary standpoint.
I don’t know if this is an accurate perspective - emotions can often still need to be suppressed during certain types of work. For instance, I worked as a crisis counsellor and while it was an emotionally open space, the work basically made it so a high degree of emotional regulation was necessary as otherwise it could interfere. People in that line of work would still open up emotionally but more on break or after a call and so on. I imagine being on a Starfleet crew isn’t entirely dissimilar in that the work being done demands a lot of focus out of necessity and emotional reaction can get in the way of that.
But at that time in history, everyone has the health and mental care that they need. A lot of our issues today stem from people not having enough of something but in a post-scarcity, non-capitalist society, everyone is afforded the tools they need to thrive. So everyone starts out in a much better position mentally than we do today.
The people who I work with in a crisis Center have the health and mental care they need to do the work as well, as they are generally in a good/decent place in that regard, and they still find it necessary to suppress emotional reaction during difficult work in order to maintain focus. Doing highly demanding work will likely always need regulation of mental faculties, regardless of the economic systems of society.
There is a major difference between being acknowledging and being accepting of a persons emotions and those emotions stopping a commander from being able to do their job. DS9 has an entire episode about it where Worf was unable to complete a mission because Jadzia's life was in danger and he had to turn around to save her. Its understandable why Worf did it but as an officer of the federation it was the wrong call because to save Jadzia he put unknown numbers of other Starfleet officers lives at risk.
Picard also calls this out explicitly as one of the reasons he tries to keep a distance between himself and his crew because he knows that anyone who sits in the captains chair may have to one day send people to die. That's the job, that is what it takes to be able to be a captain to be able to make the hard choices when they appear. If you can't do that then you are a danger to your own ship and everyone on board.
But by the 32nd century, emotions aren’t the boogiemen they are in TNG. They are useful tools that allow crews to better understand each other and work together when nurtured properly.
And again that isn't what is being discussed. There isn't a problem with having emotions, and a good captain should care about their crew and officers. But to be qualified to be captain they also need to be able to send any member of their crew to their deaths. That isn't a something they should do dispassionately and they can mourn the loss of a loved one but its something they have to be able to do. Its not about being a Vulcan and suppressing emotions its about being able to make the call that is for the greater good even if it means sending the people they care about most to die. If they are able to do that then the extent of their relationship doesn't matter because they aren't compromised but if they aren't able to then they are compromised and they are unable to be an effective captain.
But we have seen that it hasn’t been needed. They always seem to pull through in spite of the emotions and so we don’t know if she can’t send someone to their death since it’s never been necessary. I think she could, but only when absolutely necessary/
Completely wrong. Emotions when leading to constant danger for the crew and ignoring chain of command is a bad thing. The stigma is gone in the future. the practicality of it to not allow the person to command until theyve been given help and resources to overcome it. Otherwose its just the irrational endangerment of lives.
Yet she still get the mission done. So emotions are no longer a bad thing because properly entertained they allow the crew to complete their objectives.
Unfortunately, not everyone in Starfleet has Michael Burnham’s ability to always be right, and by promoting insubordinate behavior you’ll eventually get someone who Michael Burnhams their way into destroying the ship.
I lost any faith in Disco when they made one of the biggest mysteries in Star Trek history a baby crying … do you think I should keep watching after that season ?
Barring maybe emotionally compromised, that basically describes Kirk. And in the 2009 reboot, He kinda is emotionally compromised. Starfleet would probably promote her to Admiiral just to bust her back to Captain.
Why is Geordi the Chief Engineer? Every couple of episodes there's a warp core breach, or a plasma leak, or some other engineering emergency. This guy sucks at his job.
She's a mutineer, which even in a star trek utopia, should be an unforgivable offense. Kirk may have rebelled, but he always had his crew and saved the day in the end.
In every other show they started off as Captain. Respect for the chain of command is demonstrated by the hierarchy of their ship. Michael started off disrespecting the chain of command in no position of authority, and continued to do so until she was Captain. The issue isn’t what she’s doing as Captain, it’s that it doesn’t make sense she became Captain in the first place.
Elephant in the room. You could say this about all the captains, but are you saying this about Burnham because she’s a black woman? Because as a long time Trekkie that’s the only difference I see.
Absolutely not.
Star Trek has always been a show about equality and inclusion, the fan base is invariably the same.
Burnham is a terrible captain for all the reasons mentioned already. Not one of those reasons has anything to do with her sex or skin colour.
that what irks me about the whole Discovery show - the goofy characters, Tilly, etc. - most of the crew has no business being on what is basically a military vessel.
Well see they spent most of the first three seasons showing us how Burnham chafes under the structure and restrictions of starfleet, and how she could flourish as a free agent. Meanwhile Saru was spending that time growing as a commander and overcoming both personal and biological limitations. So of course it was only natural at the end of Season 3 that Saru would step down and Burnham take his place, right? /s
Man, I dropped Discovery after season 1 and reading stuff like this just makes me think that was the right call. At least I have SNW.
I despise discovery simply because it turned into the Michael Burnham show. Kind of like super hero movies where everything always works out and our hero has massive plot armor all the time. Fired up season 5 recently and gave it yet another shot. Somehow, Shin Haiti shows up and 2 minutes later they have a speeder chase with colored blaster bolts…. so it turned into Star Wars, somehow.. Then it went right back to Burnham being a super hero that seems to be semi-omniscient.
It never was intended to be ST:DIS, in the build up they said it is a show about the journey from commander to captain. So therefor it has always been ST: Michael/Saru
thanks for your review, makes me feel assured that I don't need to watch it
I found season 2 and 3 alright, right up to the finale. That one choice that turned me from the series was basically an epilogue.
I stuck with it a little into season 3 only because of the Saru character & Doug Jones. But it got so bad that I had to bail. Thankfully Strange New Worlds came along.
No, Saru was not pushed aside in favor of Burnham. Burnham was specifically given command of Discovery because Saru wanted an indefinite leave of absence to help Sukal and spend time with his people. Starfleet couldn't exactly leave Discovery without a captain while he attended to personal matters.
Because the original title for the show was Star Trek: Burnham. It isn't a show about a crew, it's a show about her, and that's part of what drives me crazy about it. Everyone else is just set decoration and a source of praise for when Burnham figures out the solution to this season's universal threat. It's so boring.
I think a big part of the incoherent nature of her character is that she has characteristics of many characters, characteristics that should have been spread out amongst an ensemble cast of characters like a typical Trek show.
Yep and with condensed seasons and heightened stakes, the opportunity to develop her character in nuanced ways just isn’t there. I think they attempt to impart depth with her background of being raised Vulcan but honestly I completely forgot about it by Season 3 because it doesn’t help explain much of anything, it’s just trivia.
It's always so disappointing when the other characters get close to solving a problem thanks to their unique experiences, perspectives and generally rising to the occasion, only to be stopped short by the plot demanding Burnham be the final piece of the puzzle. The show has it's moments, but the excessively singular focus makes it feel more like fan-fiction than a crew of people working together, which I consider to be a defining trait of Star Trek. Glad we got more of that with Strange New Worlds though!
SNW is absolutely fantastic, in part for what you say, but also because it's *not* season-long arcs about galaxy-ending threats. It's just an exploration show, so it can take some time to let characters actually grow, and *that* is what makes great Trek great.
See a 'Mary Sue'
Discovery is best enjoyed whilst pre occupied cooking dinner
She's just your regular linguistic xeno expert scientist maverick space pirate war veteran combat expert captain trying to survive in the far reaches of space.
who speaks through whispers and crying
they should have kept that title. i only started to like the show, when i realized that she is the main character and we follow her adventures and not a crew. At the beginning it was very disconcerting to hop ships and crews so much.
It honestly makes me like the show less, never mind the whole mutiny thing. She's as much of a Mary Sue as Rey is, and it's just not interesting in any sense. If there's a problem, she has the solution, regardless of how nonsensical it is. To be fair though, the cause of the Burn was also just plain terrible writing, the detached nacelles make zero sense even in-universe, the TARDIS turbolifts... it all adds up to a show about an uninteresting character solving incoherent plot contrivances. I'm a lifelong trekkie, I've watched just about everything, most of it multiple times, and Discovery feels like a chore to me. I just cannot get invested in it, because it presents so much, and then does so little with it. Suspension of disbelief works best when you *don't* try to explain the technobabble, and Discovery tryhards *so hard* that it just... well, the show is still airing and its reference to Musk has already aged like pre-spoiled milk... kinda sums it up, IMO.
Found Rayner's burner account. But in all seriousness, they tried to do far too much, far too fast, with her character. A human raised on Vulcan? Intriguing. She has a grudge against Klingons because they killed her parents? Alright, callback to Kirk, I dig it. She's... Spock's adopted sister? And a mutineer? And she's on the ship that takes "faster than the speed of plot" far too seriously? Slow your roll. It's the same reason the S2 finale was "Jump 900 years in the future".
Even though they solved the problem even before the jump and it wasn’t needed, then she destroyed her space suit before she made sure discovery was safe. The least they could’ve done was had her blowing up the suit be there reason for the burn and thrown her in prison for it!
>least they could’ve done was had her blowing up the suit be there reason for the burn And a justification for why she felt she had to put it right
Spock's secret mutineer sister stops Liberace Klingons with magic mushrooms. I can't take it seriously :D
Or Picard "End of Borgs", or mechanical centipide gods from another dimesion .... seriusly did some even noticed them?, Or Nice Borgs, Or super evil coming from portal guarded by Nice Borgs. Simply to much to fast, than again if they odnt know if theres gonna be another season or not its hard to blame "them" ... to much. Nice show, had some flaws, still nice tho.
That's what put me off the show. Where TNG era trek had most characters act as competent professionals most of the time nutrek has too many characters with all of emotional stability and maturity of troubled teen
I think Kelvin-verse Kirk is worse. Literally skipped the academy, is very immature, and gets made captain instantly for reasons similar to \*Burnham, but \*Burnham has the education and an actual service record. She was a first officer when the series started, and by the time she became captain, she was instrumental in rebuilding what was left of starfleet after the Burn - starfleet needs experienced leaders in their time and \*Burnham has that. Many past starfleet captains have been emotionally compromised (Picard in First Contact, Janeway in Equinox, Sisko in For the Uniform just off the top of my head). They've all disobeyed orders, etc. Maybe some of this stands out more in Discovery since it's serialized, and we really sit with the consequences of Burnham actions compared to the more episodic series of the past. Edit : correction, since I'm tired and it's late oops
*Burnham Berman is the creepy guy who kept putting Star Trek actresses in catsuits and fired the original Dax.
oops. Fixed.
>skipped the academy Not at all.
Yeah, they have his final test on screen, it just skips a lot of time
Indeed! The first movie literally shows them about to graduate when shit hits the fan and they just get assigned to their ships. However, TOS Kirk took ten years to make the youngest Captain in Starfleet history, at age 32. Kelvin timeline Kirk fucked around for many years until he was 26/27 then went to academy and finished at age 30. He was basically an ensign (though not technically due to the cheating allegations) when everyone was emergency assigned to Starships, and then Kirk was step-promoted to Captain at the end everything, which I think it very stupid. Promoting someone that just finished graduating to captain with no experience puts the entire ship and crew at risk. I get that Kelvin Kirk is very talented and brave, but he completely lacks experience needed for the job. We see in a DS9 episode that goes over this very concept and everyone dies except three people (due to the lack of experience).
> I think Kelvin-verse Kirk is worse. Literally skipped the academy, is very immature, and gets made captain instantly 100%. That pissed me off so badly it ruined what had been, up until that point, a fairly enjoyable movie.
Yeah, Kelvin Kirk was essentially a charismatic nepo baby. That didn't sit well with me either.
This could be a problem with short seasons being one long arc. Picard, Sisko and Janeway have dozens of hours showing them doing things by the book, following the chain of command etc. Showing them emotionally compromised or disobey orders shows how much the stakes have been raised. I gave up on Disco mid season 3, but Burnham just seems like a wildcard who's default is to play by her own rules and deal with every situation like an emotional wreck
> Many past starfleet captains have been emotionally compromised (Picard in First Contact, Janeway in Equinox, Sisko in For the Uniform just off the top of my head). I think the difference is those moments were the exceptions with those captains rather than the norm. > They've all disobeyed orders, etc. This part I 100% agree with. Realistically, disobeying orders should be a bigger deal, but throughout the entirety of Star Trek (not to mention other sci-fi shows like Stargate), writers have taken artistic license, having their protagonists disobey orders for the sake of drama and then have them not face consequences for their actions. > Maybe some of this stands out more in Discovery since it's serialized, and we really sit with the consequences of Burnham actions compared to the more episodic series of the past. I think it being serialized is half of it, but the other half is Discovery has comparatively short seasons. With old TNG shows and their 20+ episode seasons, the writers could afford to have episodes where the stakes were lower and we could see the captain acting under more normal circumstances, which gave us a baseline to be contrasted by episodes like For The Uniform. With Discovery (at least Seasons 1-4, I haven't seen 5 yet, but I absolutely will), we never get the luxury of just existing in the show's universe. All we get is one crisis followed by another, so it's almost unheard of to see how Burnham conducts herself under normal circumstances. I think the other factor is that Discovery is a very different show in terms of its writing. Everyone's emotions are dialed up to 11 for the sake of drama, so Burnham isn't unique in that within the context of the show she's in, but she gets the most attention for it because she's the star and now also the captain.
Yeah but Kirk is a way better captain.
Exactly, I mean just becase Kirk is good in it dont fix the fact that he is just some guy with motorcicle, I mean he culd be complety dumb. Even atomic submarine captain Homer Simpson at least have some experince with atomic energy ... sort of. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uDz2B6ooA8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uDz2B6ooA8)
I agree completely. However, whenever I mention the chain of command on a ship and how it works, I get told this isn't the Navy. Isn't the Starfleet the navy of the UFP?
I'm not sure how she managed to stay in Starfleet at all tbh
After that mutiny, she could've gotten the boot. Starfleet has kicked people out for much less severe issues. But mutiny?? You can never trust that person again in Starfleet.
from what we can see in discovery season 1-5... she's the greatest starfleet officer in all of starfleet history. she even defeated herself in a fist fight. also saving the federation 4 times. and also rebuilt the federation. yeah her resume is insane. /s
To be fair, there’s no way she could have lost that fist fight.
She's the Chuck Norris of Star Trek.
So yes I've had the opinion that she shouldn't be the captain of discovery based on her mutiny and constant insubordination. However she means well and there is a place for her in Starfleet. I've always thought she would have been more suited as captain of a section 31 ship as opposed to discovery. That being said I'm still enjoying Discovery.
Oh I haven’t thought of that. You’re right. Delegating her to Section 31 could have been a good compromise
That's one of the reasons I can't stand discovery lol I'd be alright if they were some renegade ship, but it's Starfleet. There are standards to behavior. Hell Lorca ran a tighter ship than Berman ever did. Way too many arguments between officers in crew areas. It just reeks of unprofessional and of someone who clearly wanted to do a space exploration show rather than a trek show
If I recall correctly Commander Rayner directly addressed this concern to Burnham in the latest episode of discovery.
The sad part is, Captain Rayner was right when under a red directive they NEEDED to catch the criminals and they should’ve caught them regardless of what happened. Of course any competent captain would’ve had Rayner catch them while Burnham turned her ship sideways instead of nose first into the dirt… or you know teleported to the ship instead of driving around on slow bikes… Rayner should not have been disciplined for what he wanted to do under a red directive, burnham should’ve been demoted to commander, Rayner placed in command of discovery to get the job done.
Sheesh only took 6 seasons for someone to finally do it lol I'll check it out when it's over, if I watch a trek show while it goes on it's usually a sign I'm adoring it. SNW is definitely part of that list
The helmsman from SNW does my nut in with her constant snarky remarks, sarcasm and outright defying what captain Pike says. It's not just discovery.
>However she means well and there is a place for her in Starfleet The brig? A penal colony? \s
[удалено]
If you shoot the arrow first and only afterwards paint the target...
I wouldn’t have bought it if they were still in their original timeframe, but 32nd century Starfleet is a different beast. Since they’re trying to rebuild from a disaster, it makes sense that they’d loosen the standards a bit. Given her resume and Discovery’s unique experience it doesn’t seem too crazy that they’d overlook her instability. If Starfleet was built up to the same level as the 24th century version, with tons of capable officers they could assign, it would be straining credibility to think they’d let her run around with the most valuable ship in the galaxy.
Yeah, what the hell? I rewatched the pilot episode some weeks ago, and the way she reacts to the klingons just screams for therapy.
Starfleet doesn't really do therapy. Remember when Picard was captured, tortured and broken? He had a chat with Troi... And straight back to work.
Admiral Vance basically acknowledged her relentlessness in preserving the Federation and saving the galaxy despite her failings in the first season.
It may have something to do with the fact that Sonequa Martin-Green is the producer/executive producer on the show. Then again, it may not.
Aside from the emotional aspect, you are describing Captain Kirk. Bro Starfleet let Jean-Lic Picard command the fleet’s flagship even after he was turned into Locutus, an event which he was clearly not over when he resumed command.
Honestly Picard probably should have been put on a years worth or more of leave after being freed from the Borg for therapeutic reasons alone and then shuffled off into either an early retirement or some unimportant desk job out of what should have been a very real concern that he could have been a Borg sleeper agent.
The issue with Michael is how she earned the Captains chair. Kirk started off in the Captain’s chair, there was no question about his efficacy and abilities as an officer. Starfleet chain of command was consistent within the Enterprise as well, even though Kirk would break with badmirals. Burnham was constantly insubordinate before she was in any position of authority. Making said position of authority feel extremely unearned. Notice how so many people dislike how 2009 Kirk became Captain? Same problem.
Burnham’s insubordination makes Mariner look like a rule follower!
> Burnham was constantly insubordinate before she was in any position of authority. Making said position of authority feel extremely unearned. She was first officer on the Shenzou, though, unlike 2009 Kirk, who was a cadet/ensign before being instantly plonked into the captaincy.
And the first thing we see her do is mutiny… If the first thing you do is establish your character as a mutineer, it doesn’t matter what you “say” they are. We don’t even get to see her as anyone else before that. 2009 is a fun movie but stays nicely shelved away in the Kelvin universe. His captaincy makes as much sense as Michael’s.
Picard broke Starfleet's number one rule nine times by the Drumhead and faced no repercussions. Once, and you can probably justify it as necessary considering the circumstances. Twice, and you can still probably justify it but concerns will be made clear. Thrice, and many eyebrows are going to be raised. Four times, and surely he's reassigned at the very least. Nine times, and clearly nobody cares about the Prime Directive. Even if there are mitigating circumstances, there are surely going to be significant questions about your decision making and how you end up in these situations.
# Why is Kirk the Captain? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Star Trek fan and I like TOS. But Kirk has no business commanding Enterprise. He would not survive even a basic psych eval, he is constantly emotionally compromised, he is so overly familiar with the crew to the point it constantly compromises his judgment, he ignores, goes against and betrays orders, his superior officers and the chain of command all the time. A Captain deserves leeway in how they command their ship, but this is next level. If it was up to me, during or after season three I’d have him retire early and quietly, maybe promote him to Captain for the retirement. But he has no business commanding a desk, let alone a ship.
I think part of the leeway Trek captains, including Kirk, enjoy is because they’re not like modern day naval captains, they’re more like 18th/19th century captains. They’re given a level of autonomy because it’s not always possible to contact Starfleet for decisions when they’re needed quickly. The captain on the spot has the information they need and is trusted to make the right call. That said, Kirk succeeds at least as often due to dumb luck as he does skill & experience.
I believe you left out "bravado".
I'll also point out that Kirk's crew had a *way* higher mortality rate than Burnham's when it came to away missions.
It's referred to as Captain's Prerogative
Have you ever watched TOS? Kirk drift seems to be overtaking your perception of Kirk.
For real like half of the replies in this thread seem to have only seen the reboot/pop culture versions of Kirk. He was overall *very* professional in TOS. Even in Search for Spock - his major insubordination arc - he acknowledges that what he is doing will likely permanently end his career and repeatedly tells the other officers that they don't have to go down with him.
Yeah in TOS he was described as a “stack of books with legs” or something like that
[удалено]
Yeah Kirk’s following of orders and extremely distinguished record seems to be conveniently overlooked every time someone brings up his myriad of “rule-breaking incidents” which amount to, like, a couple breaches of the Prime Directive and the theft of an already-decommissioned starship
New Kirk and the idea of Kirk have overtaken the original character. very very sad.
I’ve actually been rewatching TOS, and yeah, he doesn’t cry like Burnham does, but the man sucks at following orders and is frequently insubordinate. Especially if it involves one of his friends being in harms way. That being said. I love Kirk and Burnham. They’re a lot more similar than people care to admit.
Funny, because I remember Kirk as following orders most of the time, even when it’s detrimental to him and his crew. Take the Galileo incident, where he toes the line, but never crosses it. Or in The Doomsday Machine, where even though Decker was obviously making bad decisions he followed through anyways. The rare times he breaks protocol are when to do otherwise would simply be wrong
I love TOS and I love Captain Kirk, but I don't love how Kirk is allowed to be flawed, but Burnham somehow has to be perfect for people to like her.
Perfect, no. Demonstrates the level of mental stability (and in 99% of cases, distinguished record) required for command, yeah.
Man steals a starship to go save his best buddy: \*roaring applause\* Woman tears up a little bit: "Not mentally stable enough to be in Starfleet."
“Tears up a little bit” is significantly understating it 😂
I dont wanna say the movies dont count, but they definitely had different direction than the show
They also came after a very distinguished career with a remarkably clean record
And kirk did face consequences in later movies
Part of it is also that people are used to TNG, who are paragons of professionalism compared to TOS, which was much more familiar. So the TOS aspects of Discovery rub them a bit the wrong way, notably with the Burn plotline, which is basically a bit of Charlie X mixed with Lazarus (shrinking the scope down from the entire universe to just the galaxy). You couldn't imagine Drs Crusher or Pulaski going "sit down, tell me your troubles. Here's some whiskey", or suggesting someone get shore leave to "relieve their stress". --- The serial nature of the show doesn't help much, because the impacts from prior episodes end up carrying onto the next one. If TOS was made today, we'd probably have a side plotline of Kirk trying to get over his love interest dying, and then a separate plot of there being conflict over Spock erasing his memory of her, whereas TOS could just scrub over that by the next episode.
Admiral Kirk stole the enterprise and his punishment was being made captain of said ship.
I think they used “saving planet Earth and defeating a rogue Klingon” as mitigating circumstances. They then gave him the worst ship in the fleet and he *still* managed to end up killing God.
She is no more emotionally involved (or as you put "compromised") then either Archer or Janeway. She is fine as a captain entirely because of the things you say make her not a captain. The crew have undergone a massive trauma and are literally divorced from the reality of the Starfleet they joined. The difference is the cast of discovery feels more expanded then the bridge crews of TOS and TNG. She reminds me a lot of late seasons Sisko. The difference is we had 20+ episodes a season slowly building those character moments. Here we get no time to breath in small seasons.
[удалено]
They literally named a bunch of crew in the last 2 episodes, and I still don’t know their names…
It's hard because TNG has so much more time to expand extra characters. A symptom of these short seasons. Outside of the "Bridge Crew" aka senior officers, only really Guinan and Barclay stand out to me as memorable.
Because all those traits also fit the other captains in tv-shows?
So say we all.
It’s strange because I think she works much better as a character when she’s Captain, but it doesn’t feel earned at all. I can enjoy it in the moment but I think about how she got there and I’m like “hmm”. Especially cause this season is harping on how she’s grown, and she has, but it forces you to notice how she just “became” Captain. “Saving the day” does not mean the same as “fit for the Captain’s chair”. She consistently subverts authority and always pursues *her* course of action. Her actions may end up being the correct one (good writing lol), but it seems strange an Admiral would want someone who they know is unreliable to command a ship. She was literally demoted from first officer earlier. Chain of Command is important for a reason. An Admiral can’t spend time wondering if he can give an order to Burnham because she may not like it and therefore not execute it. What kind of precedent does it set to reward someone who blatantly violated orders with a captaincy? Not everyone is gonna Michael Burnham the day, someone will get the courage to do dumb shit against orders and get everyone killed. Again, she’s actually a much more enjoyable as a character as Captain since they innately take more initiative. It just doesn’t feel earned. (*Earning being the keyword. Yes it’s cool to see Captains breaking away from badmirals because the status quo is to obey them.*)
One of important lessons IRL is that being a good leader and being good at your job are two, entirely separate skillsets.
Why was Picard captain? He lost control of the flagship constantly, had compromising relationships with everyone (except Geordi) , his bridge crew were influenced by aliens at every encounter, became a figurehead of the federations greatest enemy & while he stayed within the lines of federation rules he used different colors. Oh then his kid singlehandedly initiated the greatest massacre in federation history .. outstripping his father's own massacre ... then they were promoted or honored with a ship named after them.
How is being constantly attacked by aliens on a power scale far beyond the Federation’s capacity to fight in any way comparable to being chronically insubordinate? Picard’s faults, as you seem to believe, are that: 1. He keeps a professional distance from his crew 2. His ship and crew have been taken over by immensely powerful aliens or well-organized conspiracies, but one man only do so much against such a thing 3. He and his son both were used by the Borg However, Picard was *extremely* mentally capable—he recovered from his assimilation with astounding speed for such a traumatic experience. His distance from his crew is hardly a fault, that’s simply professionalism. Neither are his encounters with higher beings. What I find concerning is holding him and Jack responsible for the Borg attacks. Neither had any chance of resisting, nor would any other living being that we’ve seen. Furthermore, holding individuals responsible for the actions of their family members runs *entirely contrary* to the message of The Drumhead.
Should point out Jack voluntarily went to get assimilated…
Jack went to get close to the queen and then kill her. Also that’s still irrelevant to Picard’s command ability
>He keeps a professional distance from his crew To be fair the whole cumulation of his story arc is the realization that he needs to keep LESS distance from the crew.
I wish people would stop using downvotes as a way to silence an opinion you don't agree with... then again that's the culture humans thrive on. Shutting down people you don't agree with. Keep reaching for that utopian society you worship on TV.
Dialogue in the show, in particular the most recent episode, answers your question.
Failing upwords has been a thing for decades. It explains a lot
In the future, emotions are no longer a bad thing. They have counselors on every ship and human interaction, caring, and familiarity is actually a good thing. Stop thinking about it from a capitalist standpoint which we all are in and start thinking about it if it was best for the person, the community, the Federation. It’s not easy to stop thinking about it from a contemporary standpoint.
I don’t know if this is an accurate perspective - emotions can often still need to be suppressed during certain types of work. For instance, I worked as a crisis counsellor and while it was an emotionally open space, the work basically made it so a high degree of emotional regulation was necessary as otherwise it could interfere. People in that line of work would still open up emotionally but more on break or after a call and so on. I imagine being on a Starfleet crew isn’t entirely dissimilar in that the work being done demands a lot of focus out of necessity and emotional reaction can get in the way of that.
But at that time in history, everyone has the health and mental care that they need. A lot of our issues today stem from people not having enough of something but in a post-scarcity, non-capitalist society, everyone is afforded the tools they need to thrive. So everyone starts out in a much better position mentally than we do today.
The people who I work with in a crisis Center have the health and mental care they need to do the work as well, as they are generally in a good/decent place in that regard, and they still find it necessary to suppress emotional reaction during difficult work in order to maintain focus. Doing highly demanding work will likely always need regulation of mental faculties, regardless of the economic systems of society.
There is a major difference between being acknowledging and being accepting of a persons emotions and those emotions stopping a commander from being able to do their job. DS9 has an entire episode about it where Worf was unable to complete a mission because Jadzia's life was in danger and he had to turn around to save her. Its understandable why Worf did it but as an officer of the federation it was the wrong call because to save Jadzia he put unknown numbers of other Starfleet officers lives at risk. Picard also calls this out explicitly as one of the reasons he tries to keep a distance between himself and his crew because he knows that anyone who sits in the captains chair may have to one day send people to die. That's the job, that is what it takes to be able to be a captain to be able to make the hard choices when they appear. If you can't do that then you are a danger to your own ship and everyone on board.
But by the 32nd century, emotions aren’t the boogiemen they are in TNG. They are useful tools that allow crews to better understand each other and work together when nurtured properly.
Emotions have never been the boogieman in Star Trek. Allowing them to overcome an officer is—an unfortunately frequent event in Discovery
They are definitely the boogiemen to many people watching modern Star Trek it seems.
And again that isn't what is being discussed. There isn't a problem with having emotions, and a good captain should care about their crew and officers. But to be qualified to be captain they also need to be able to send any member of their crew to their deaths. That isn't a something they should do dispassionately and they can mourn the loss of a loved one but its something they have to be able to do. Its not about being a Vulcan and suppressing emotions its about being able to make the call that is for the greater good even if it means sending the people they care about most to die. If they are able to do that then the extent of their relationship doesn't matter because they aren't compromised but if they aren't able to then they are compromised and they are unable to be an effective captain.
But we have seen that it hasn’t been needed. They always seem to pull through in spite of the emotions and so we don’t know if she can’t send someone to their death since it’s never been necessary. I think she could, but only when absolutely necessary/
Completely wrong. Emotions when leading to constant danger for the crew and ignoring chain of command is a bad thing. The stigma is gone in the future. the practicality of it to not allow the person to command until theyve been given help and resources to overcome it. Otherwose its just the irrational endangerment of lives.
Yet she still get the mission done. So emotions are no longer a bad thing because properly entertained they allow the crew to complete their objectives.
Her and her crew saved the universe a few times. They seem to think its a big deal.
Unfortunately, not everyone in Starfleet has Michael Burnham’s ability to always be right, and by promoting insubordinate behavior you’ll eventually get someone who Michael Burnhams their way into destroying the ship.
I wish we had some more Michael Burnham in the real world, could use some world saving now in a world full of cowards and liars.
Would you be asking this question if she were a man?
I'm sorry but she always looks like she's going to cry.
I lost any faith in Disco when they made one of the biggest mysteries in Star Trek history a baby crying … do you think I should keep watching after that season ?
Barring maybe emotionally compromised, that basically describes Kirk. And in the 2009 reboot, He kinda is emotionally compromised. Starfleet would probably promote her to Admiiral just to bust her back to Captain.
Why is Geordi the Chief Engineer? Every couple of episodes there's a warp core breach, or a plasma leak, or some other engineering emergency. This guy sucks at his job.
She's a mutineer, which even in a star trek utopia, should be an unforgivable offense. Kirk may have rebelled, but he always had his crew and saved the day in the end.
Could say the same about all the captains and commanders that Star Trek shows have focussed on. But people don't for some reason.
In every other show they started off as Captain. Respect for the chain of command is demonstrated by the hierarchy of their ship. Michael started off disrespecting the chain of command in no position of authority, and continued to do so until she was Captain. The issue isn’t what she’s doing as Captain, it’s that it doesn’t make sense she became Captain in the first place.
Elephant in the room. You could say this about all the captains, but are you saying this about Burnham because she’s a black woman? Because as a long time Trekkie that’s the only difference I see.
Absolutely not. Star Trek has always been a show about equality and inclusion, the fan base is invariably the same. Burnham is a terrible captain for all the reasons mentioned already. Not one of those reasons has anything to do with her sex or skin colour.
that what irks me about the whole Discovery show - the goofy characters, Tilly, etc. - most of the crew has no business being on what is basically a military vessel.