I feel like I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I think that the issues with Burnham's character are mainly three.
1) She's Vulcan. Techinically she's only raised by Vulcans, but that's the same, because she behaves and functions like a Vulcan, especially in season one. She's incredibly intelligent, efficient, strong, determined, organized and she suppresses all of her emotions. And when she can't or doesn't want to suppress them, then she can't control them. We all love the Vulcans, but they don't make for good protagonists, because they're not very relatable. Imagine watching hundreds of episodes focused on Spock, Tuvok or T'Pol as the protagonists of their respective shows. I'm surprised at how well DSC works, given that it's even more focused on its protagonist than any of the previous Trek shows.
2) A lot of the time she seems to be just a product of everything that happened to her. Her upbringing, her trauma, her difficult familiar situation, her mistakes. If you take all of these things away, it's hard to imagine what kind of person she would be. I think that it worked well in season 1, because there was a general sense of lack of agency and uncertainty throughout all of the episodes. It doesn't work so well now in my opinion, even if, as someone mentioned, Burnham finding herself is a big part of what the show is about. But it's hard to make that process last for seasons. It worked well with Seven of Nine on VOY, but Seven was not the protagonist. She slowly became the center of most episodes, but she was introduced in season 4 and there still was a bigger focus on the other characters than in DSC, even when she started to be more important.
3) There is a certain tendency in sci-fi for boring female characters, but I don't think that Burnham really fits into that group. The general amount of unrelatble female protagonists in the genre (with no real personality and goals or with completely exaggerated qualities and sometimes flaws too) may be part of why people dislike her though.
I know that there are male characters of that kind too, but not that many, which is why it might be less annoying. And I'm more surprised by the hate that the female characters who do have some moral complexity and plausible flaws often get from part of the fans.
Because on the show she’s always crying like a sensitive delicate little flower
Please please please don't take this into that whole "Mary Sue" territory! I just mean I think that's her default "act like you're making a really tough choice" face.
It's tough to not go into Mary Sue territory when you're talking about Burnham because love or hate her she's the literal definition of a Mary Sue
Any Simpsons fans out there might remember when Homer was trying to improve people's liking of Poochie he said "When Poochie's not around, everyone should be saying 'WHERE'S POOCHIE!?'"
DSC heard Homer loud and proud and made that a true thing with Burnham
I have said it before and will say it again, “Mary Sue” is a sexist term in which male main characters can solve problems with no criticism but female main characters can not. Kirk solved almost every problem, got the alien women to fall in love with him, and use logic to destroy robots and computers. Picard was always right putting many superiors in their place. Sisko was a demigod. Archer founded the Federation single-handedly. Where is the criticism for Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Archer? Why have they never been called Mary Sue or a male equivalent which is never used?
Marie Sue isn't the correct word here, but she's a bit too much of a superhero here. She's almost never wrong, she's a martial arts experts, tactician, never lost a fight, xenoantropologist, quantum physicist, test pilot and more. When there's a problem she always has the solution. All she's missing is banging the alien of the week to become Kevin Sorbo's character Andromeda lol.
Never wrong? We saw her be wrong in the very first episode when she attacked her captain. She does know martial arts but she was raised by Sarek and studied martial arts for years. She trained against Vulcans who are much stronger than humans so she has learned to fight against a stronger opponent like Klingons. Even still she has not won in hand to hand against many Klingons, mainly just holding them off for a few minutes for the plan to succeed. We have seen Kirk fight and knock out many Klingons in hand to hand. Sisko as well. Spock knocks out opponents in a second and has martial arts skills too. Spock fights Khan hand to hand and wins in the JJ movie. In the second episode of Discovery Burnham fails as well.
Her mission to capture T’kuvma fails when Georgiou is killed and Burnham in anger kills T’kuvma.
Multiple times throughout the series Burnham has been tricked.
By a mirror universe captain, by her boyfriend and by Control tricking her onto the section 31 ship. She would have died had Spock not been along and stopped Control.
Burnham has been far from perfect throughout the series and far less perfect and accomplished than any of the main characters in the other trek series. You are correct that Burnham is an excellent tactician. Sisko, a Captain, was put in charge of the whole Federation war planning against the Dominion and people did not complain. Burnham gets criticized for being smart but no one had a problem with Picard being an expert in literature, architecture, science, and morality. Burnham does often come up with the solution as most main characters do but there have been multiple times that others did instead. I just do not believe that objectively compared to the likes of Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and Archer that Burnham can be criticized. One could argue that people criticize Burnham because she is a commander and not captain. But Captain Janeway was frequently criticized by fans as well. More than any other trek main character until Burnham came along. It is hard to see the repeated attacks on Burnham as anything but sexism. If Michael Burnham was a man instead of a woman would people complain? And not just occasionally complain but incessantly complain every time her character is mentioned? I think not.
But, was she "wrong"? A "Vulcan Hello" may have averted a galactic war.
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
Because on the show she’s always crying like a sensitive delicate little flower
Please please please don't take this into that whole "Mary Sue" territory! I just mean I think that's her default "act like you're making a really tough choice" face.
I wasn’t going there. Merely pointing out a fact. When she gets all weepy and overly emotional on the show I roll my eyes. If this is First Officer material with huge command numbers and even some security in the future then we prolly won’t survive into that future. The Klingons will have us for lunch and the Romulans will have us for desert.
Michael Burnham was a human raised on Vulcan. Raised to suppress all emotion. As the series has gone on she has slowly been expressing more and more emotion as she discovers herself. That was one of the key tenets of Discovery. Not only would the crew discover the universe they would discover themselves. Sonequa Martin-Green does a masterful progression of emotion over the first two seasons. I think only once has the emotion been over the top, in the season 2 finale, and I believe that to be the directing. Wanting Burnham to convey the emotion of the entire crew to the gravity of the finale.
Showing Burnham to be overwhelmed by emotion and unsure what the solution to the problem is and having Spock fully assert his rational side finally and help Burnham with the problem.
Except then we found out she wasn't actually a child there, somewhere between 12-13 and VSA graduate. So her formative years would have already occurred with her parents.
There are a lot of 🌟 Trek series now, and 13 movies so far. Not everyone is going to like all the same ones. We can agree to disagree civilly. And this thread has been doing that. Thanx on behalf of our sick 😷😷😷 Moderator for the civility.
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
Didn't we just have an event with Stranded Odo as the existing 4*, or am I hallucinating that?
Wasn't it Trader Odo?
You're right, Trader Odo was the existing crew for the January 16th event. (The Admiral Maxwell Forrest one.) It looks like we last had Stranded Odo for the Scientist Degra re-run last May. No wonder he felt a little familiar.
Didn't we just have an event with Stranded Odo as the existing 4*, or am I hallucinating that?
Wasn't it Trader Odo?
You're right, Trader Odo was the existing crew for the January 16th event. (The Admiral Maxwell Forrest one.) It looks like we last had Stranded Odo for the Scientist Degra re-run last May. No wonder he felt a little familiar.
That explains why I had a duplicate hanging out in the freezer.
Ok, someone want to tell me why Lt. Commander Icheb, who is wearing a bloody Starfleet uniform and has the words “Lieutenant” and “Commander” before his name has the Civilian trait and NOT the Starfleet trait?! Looks like another copy/paste mistake. Please fix this, DB.
I guess because he did not go to Starfleet but was trained on Voyager.
I’m not sure that’s enough...a rank suggests he’s been given a field commission, rather than just being given an undefined yet significant amount of authority as Seven was given after joining the crew. No Seven variants except Indulgent Seven should have Starfleet (although it could be argued that Temporal Agent Seven would qualify as well) but LtC Icheb should based on his rank.
While looking up information for this reply, it appears that EV Suit Seven does have the Starfleet trait. I recall nothing from that episode (One Small Step) that suggests it’s a valid trait...I do recall that we definitely need Lt. John Kelly in the game, however.
He is a later version of Icheb who is a civilian so they continued his civilian trait as he is a field commission officer but not an official Starfleet officer. If while commanding Voyager they made it back to Earth his rank would not be recognized by Starfleet. I think it works and I certainly do not want DB removing traits.
For another parallel in-game, 3* Wesley (*ducks*) was field-commissioned, but he's listed as Starfleet and not Civilian; he even had to then go to the Academy later. With Icheb, the plan presented in-show was that he would basically be attending the Academy by correspondence, so he would have officially graduated and been commissioned.
There are a lot of 🌟 Trek series now, and 13 movies so far. Not everyone is going to like all the same ones. We can agree to disagree civilly. And this thread has been doing that. Thanx on behalf of our sick 😷😷😷 Moderator for the civility.
10 movies if you don't count JJ-verse, which I consider a completely different franchise, which it technically was from the studio's point of view.
I just checked other crew, Tactical Neelix has the Starfleet trait and is missing civilian. Given both Neelix and Wildman have been like that for a while, Icheb should be modified to be consistent.
You are wrong. Icheb’s civilian trait is correct and it is consistent. Stop trying to get DB to remove traits.
On Icheb's status as Starfleet or Civilian -- Keep in mind that by this stage in the show, Voyager was in more regular contact with Starfleet, and young Icheb was studying to take entrance exams so he could be a long-distance cadet. Then in the episode when Voyager is split into different time frames, he's from a future where he's achieved the rank of Lieutenant Commander. All of this clearly establishes that he's become a Starfleet officer.
I think keeping his Civilian trait (from his other in-game variant) was an unintentional error by DB, and hopefully they correct it after his event. I presume it would be difficult to correct immediately as he's featured crew for a galaxy event and trait bonuses matter and that design is probably already complete or nearly complete.
I just checked other crew, Tactical Neelix has the Starfleet trait and is missing civilian. Given both Neelix and Wildman have been like that for a while, Icheb should be modified to be consistent.
You are wrong. Icheb’s civilian trait is correct and it is consistent. Stop trying to get DB to remove traits.
Why should Icheb be different from Naomi Wildman and Neelix? They are all people on Voyager who began as civilians. After being stuck on Voyager for years they ended up wearing Starfleet uniforms. Naomi and Icheb are literally from the same episode/scene. Are you really suggesting that Janeway decided that Naomi Wildman would be in Starfleet and no longer a civilian while Icheb would stay a civilian while also wearing a Starfleet uniform and working on the crew?
What is consistent about treating crew in identical situations differently? I am also suggesting modifying the new card added to be consistent with the existing cards. I wouldn't want to remove Starfleet from Naomi Wildman and suddenly remove her eligibility from MWF cadet missions.
The new Icheb and the alternate future Naomi from the same episode both presumably graduated from Starfleet Academy, after attending remotely while aboard Voyager. They should both have the Starfleet trait, but not the Civilian trait.
The older Icheb character was still a civilian who had not yet attended Starfleet Academy, so he should have the Civilian trait, but not the Starfleet trait. If a young Naomi were ever to be added, she should also have the Civilian trait, but not the Starfleet trait.
Tactical Neelix, from a different alternate timeline, was given a field commission due to dire circumstances (Year of Hell), so it makes sense he should have both Starfleet and Civilian traits (similar to Commander Kira, who was given a temporary Starfleet commission to go aid the Cardassian revolt against the Dominion).
The problem with this line is that DB will correct it by neutering multiple characters’ traits which just ruins the utility of them. DB is pretty consistent on most traits. Remember also that DB tries to not give all characters all traits so that you need to collect different versions that have different traits.
Remember also that DB tries to not give all characters all traits so that you need to collect different versions that have different traits.
And this Icheb, if he were Starfleet, would have a different trait than young Icheb, who is a Civilian. I think you helped make the argument for the change.
But, as I noted earlier, I assume that even if DB agreed with us, they wouldn't make the change until after the event as they've probably already programmed it and traits do get a bonus in Galaxy events.
There are lots of inconsistencies. But I wouldn't have them change it. The reason for citing him is due to that trait. Remove it, and few will cite him.
There are lots of inconsistencies. But I wouldn't have them change it. The reason for citing him is due to that trait. Remove it, and few will cite him.
Can you explain the appeal of the civilian trait? Is it just for Voyages? I can't think of a collection or other reason to care that Icheb doesn't have civilain trait.
There are lots of inconsistencies. But I wouldn't have them change it. The reason for citing him is due to that trait. Remove it, and few will cite him.
Can you explain the appeal of the civilian trait? Is it just for Voyages? I can't think of a collection or other reason to care that Icheb doesn't have civilain trait.
Voyages, yes. Future event potential is possible. We've not had a Civilian mega event. It could be a bonus trait in some random future event. Can't remember if there are any story nodes that are locked by that trait.
There are lots of inconsistencies. But I wouldn't have them change it. The reason for citing him is due to that trait. Remove it, and few will cite him.
Can you explain the appeal of the civilian trait? Is it just for Voyages? I can't think of a collection or other reason to care that Icheb doesn't have civilain trait.
How often does Civilian come up? I know I have seen it for SEC and MED slots but cannot recall seeing it for other skills. And let’s be honest - 25 extra AM is not going to move the needle that much anyway.
I wish there were more eng+sci slots in this event.
I am finding the shuttle combos difficult to finagle even with a ton of event crew
Yes, one can finagle it given enough crew but not crush it as much as you would like for collecting so many astrophysicists.
The thing is I will not going against the skill order, or as many have called it, the AND bug. If the seat calls for DIP AND SCI, I will not fill it with someone that is SCI primary, DIP secondary
I wish there were more eng+sci slots in this event.
Yeah DB's game designers could put a little more thought into shuttle seats, it's an astrophysicist mega and a majority of slots are some variation of cmd/dip/sec. Over two thirds of the roster is sci/eng, sci/dip, sci/sec and sci/cmd, which means that my Odos are seeing more action than anyone else. I'm also using tactical and fugitive Burnham instead of all my T'pols, Spocks and Jadzias. I guess you need guns and not telescopes to be a good astrophysicist in the 23rd century.
Comments
Obviously, being commissioned into an organization makes you a part of that organization.
1) She's Vulcan. Techinically she's only raised by Vulcans, but that's the same, because she behaves and functions like a Vulcan, especially in season one. She's incredibly intelligent, efficient, strong, determined, organized and she suppresses all of her emotions. And when she can't or doesn't want to suppress them, then she can't control them. We all love the Vulcans, but they don't make for good protagonists, because they're not very relatable. Imagine watching hundreds of episodes focused on Spock, Tuvok or T'Pol as the protagonists of their respective shows. I'm surprised at how well DSC works, given that it's even more focused on its protagonist than any of the previous Trek shows.
2) A lot of the time she seems to be just a product of everything that happened to her. Her upbringing, her trauma, her difficult familiar situation, her mistakes. If you take all of these things away, it's hard to imagine what kind of person she would be. I think that it worked well in season 1, because there was a general sense of lack of agency and uncertainty throughout all of the episodes. It doesn't work so well now in my opinion, even if, as someone mentioned, Burnham finding herself is a big part of what the show is about. But it's hard to make that process last for seasons. It worked well with Seven of Nine on VOY, but Seven was not the protagonist. She slowly became the center of most episodes, but she was introduced in season 4 and there still was a bigger focus on the other characters than in DSC, even when she started to be more important.
3) There is a certain tendency in sci-fi for boring female characters, but I don't think that Burnham really fits into that group. The general amount of unrelatble female protagonists in the genre (with no real personality and goals or with completely exaggerated qualities and sometimes flaws too) may be part of why people dislike her though.
I know that there are male characters of that kind too, but not that many, which is why it might be less annoying. And I'm more surprised by the hate that the female characters who do have some moral complexity and plausible flaws often get from part of the fans.
But, was she "wrong"? A "Vulcan Hello" may have averted a galactic war.
Except then we found out she wasn't actually a child there, somewhere between 12-13 and VSA graduate. So her formative years would have already occurred with her parents.
Wasn't it Trader Odo?
I wanna say Trader. I got him Immortalized then, IIRC.
You're right, Trader Odo was the existing crew for the January 16th event. (The Admiral Maxwell Forrest one.) It looks like we last had Stranded Odo for the Scientist Degra re-run last May. No wonder he felt a little familiar.
That explains why I had a duplicate hanging out in the freezer.
For another parallel in-game, 3* Wesley (*ducks*) was field-commissioned, but he's listed as Starfleet and not Civilian; he even had to then go to the Academy later. With Icheb, the plan presented in-show was that he would basically be attending the Academy by correspondence, so he would have officially graduated and been commissioned.
10 movies if you don't count JJ-verse, which I consider a completely different franchise, which it technically was from the studio's point of view.
Sorry - had to...
You are wrong. Icheb’s civilian trait is correct and it is consistent. Stop trying to get DB to remove traits.
I think keeping his Civilian trait (from his other in-game variant) was an unintentional error by DB, and hopefully they correct it after his event. I presume it would be difficult to correct immediately as he's featured crew for a galaxy event and trait bonuses matter and that design is probably already complete or nearly complete.
Captain Level: 95
VIP Level: 12
Unique Crew Immortalized: 525
Collections Completed: Vulcan, Ferengi, Borg, Romulan, Cardassian, Uncommon, Rare, Veteran, Common, Engineered, Physician, Innovator, Inspiring, Diplomat, Jury Rigger, Gauntlet Legends
Why should Icheb be different from Naomi Wildman and Neelix? They are all people on Voyager who began as civilians. After being stuck on Voyager for years they ended up wearing Starfleet uniforms. Naomi and Icheb are literally from the same episode/scene. Are you really suggesting that Janeway decided that Naomi Wildman would be in Starfleet and no longer a civilian while Icheb would stay a civilian while also wearing a Starfleet uniform and working on the crew?
What is consistent about treating crew in identical situations differently? I am also suggesting modifying the new card added to be consistent with the existing cards. I wouldn't want to remove Starfleet from Naomi Wildman and suddenly remove her eligibility from MWF cadet missions.
The older Icheb character was still a civilian who had not yet attended Starfleet Academy, so he should have the Civilian trait, but not the Starfleet trait. If a young Naomi were ever to be added, she should also have the Civilian trait, but not the Starfleet trait.
Tactical Neelix, from a different alternate timeline, was given a field commission due to dire circumstances (Year of Hell), so it makes sense he should have both Starfleet and Civilian traits (similar to Commander Kira, who was given a temporary Starfleet commission to go aid the Cardassian revolt against the Dominion).
And this Icheb, if he were Starfleet, would have a different trait than young Icheb, who is a Civilian. I think you helped make the argument for the change.
But, as I noted earlier, I assume that even if DB agreed with us, they wouldn't make the change until after the event as they've probably already programmed it and traits do get a bonus in Galaxy events.
Captain Level: 95
VIP Level: 12
Unique Crew Immortalized: 525
Collections Completed: Vulcan, Ferengi, Borg, Romulan, Cardassian, Uncommon, Rare, Veteran, Common, Engineered, Physician, Innovator, Inspiring, Diplomat, Jury Rigger, Gauntlet Legends
Can you explain the appeal of the civilian trait? Is it just for Voyages? I can't think of a collection or other reason to care that Icheb doesn't have civilain trait.
Voyages, yes. Future event potential is possible. We've not had a Civilian mega event. It could be a bonus trait in some random future event. Can't remember if there are any story nodes that are locked by that trait.
How often does Civilian come up? I know I have seen it for SEC and MED slots but cannot recall seeing it for other skills. And let’s be honest - 25 extra AM is not going to move the needle that much anyway.
I am finding the shuttle combos difficult to finagle even with a ton of event crew
Z-Odo, Trader Odo, and Fugitive Burnham have all been helpful for me for those DIP-SEC slots (I still need to level Mirror Burnham).
Captain Level: 95
VIP Level: 12
Unique Crew Immortalized: 525
Collections Completed: Vulcan, Ferengi, Borg, Romulan, Cardassian, Uncommon, Rare, Veteran, Common, Engineered, Physician, Innovator, Inspiring, Diplomat, Jury Rigger, Gauntlet Legends
Yes, one can finagle it given enough crew but not crush it as much as you would like for collecting so many astrophysicists.
The thing is I will not going against the skill order, or as many have called it, the AND bug. If the seat calls for DIP AND SCI, I will not fill it with someone that is SCI primary, DIP secondary
Yeah DB's game designers could put a little more thought into shuttle seats, it's an astrophysicist mega and a majority of slots are some variation of cmd/dip/sec. Over two thirds of the roster is sci/eng, sci/dip, sci/sec and sci/cmd, which means that my Odos are seeing more action than anyone else. I'm also using tactical and fugitive Burnham instead of all my T'pols, Spocks and Jadzias. I guess you need guns and not telescopes to be a good astrophysicist in the 23rd century.