Things you are looking forward to SF Debris bringing up in future reviews

[crankyconner]

I really want to hear his thoughts on several aspects of Into Darkness

I hope he talks about Carol Marcus, as Confused Matthew skipped over her in his review.

[Yerushalmi]

I want his thoughts on the blaming of Michael Burnham for starting the war with the Klingons. To me it's exceedingly obvious that the Klingons came into Federation space with the intention of starting a war, and that they everything they did (from attacking the relay, to planting their religious artifact in Federation territory, to leaving the cloak on the artifact slightly imperfect, to attacking the person who came to investigate it, to bringing an armada into Federation space, to firing first) was their decision. Yet, as far as I can tell, both in *and* out of universe everyone blames Michael, who was in the freaking brig when hostilities started. I want to see where he stands on this.

[Steve]

I only saw the first four episodes, and I'm betting the claim is that her anti-Klingon bias caused her to kill that first Klingon on the artifact, since her suit's recorders were corrupted and there's no proof the Klingon attacked her first. Therefore the argument is: Michael attacked and killed a Klingon, an initial act of provocation, then sought to attack their ship too up to the point of mutiny when her captain refused. If she hadn't killed the Klingon, clearly there would be no provocation and thus no war.

T'Kuvma's plans wouldn't be widely known after all, and she makes a convenient scapegoat for a Starfleet Admiralty having to deal with criticism of how badly the fleet's been faring.

Not that I don't find it infuriating. Granted, I only saw four episodes on a free trial, so I'm not sure what's gone on since.

[Fixer]

There's also the point that Michael recklessly disobeyed orders to land on the beacon instead of performing the quick fly-by.

Afterwards despite describing how under no circumstances should they kill the Klingon leader as it would create a martyr, she shot the Klingon leader.

Compounded with the mutiny there's a lot she did wrong in a very short period of time.

We know from our out of universe perspective that the Klingons were spoiling for a fight but in universe the poorly lit Federation tribunal can only see that Michael:

1 - Disobeyed orders, went on a self indulgent adrenaline trip out of pure ego and a Klingon was killed as a result.

2 - Attempted a mutiny against her captain in a high risk situation in order to pre-emptively attack the Klingons.

3 - Created a situation in where any diplomatic solution to the war is now beyond them.

That's a lot of screw-ups to manage in what was a bare few hours of real time.

[Winter]

I do wonder if he'll make a review for BioWare's upcoming game Anthem, or Mass Effect: Andromeda. I do want to hear his opinion on the ending of ME3 and how it holds up after all these years. Though what I'm really looking forward to most is more Star Wars, I would love to hear his thoughts on The Last Jedi and more of The Old Republic.

[Admiral X]

I'm patiently waiting for his look at The Fifth Element and Ergo Proxy.

[SuccubusYuri]

I would desire, more than anything for Chuck's site, for the Inquisitor campaign for SWTOR to be done as the female ditz dialogue tree. It is the most entertaining of all story/personality options, both in terms of the actual story, and also the implications from a more distanced view, regarding the Force and destiny and "just cuz", not to mention make you feel bad for Thanaton that he's basically losing to a Force-sensitive chipmunk. And I feel that joy should be shared with the world at large.

[Deledrius]

I want his thoughts on the blaming of Michael Burnham for starting the war with the Klingons. To me it's exceedingly obvious that the Klingons came into Federation space with the intention of starting a war, and that they everything they did (from attacking the relay, to planting their religious artifact in Federation territory, to leaving the cloak on the artifact slightly imperfect, to attacking the person who came to investigate it, to bringing an armada into Federation space, to firing first) was their decision. Yet, as far as I can tell, both in *and* out of universe everyone blames Michael, who was in the freaking brig when hostilities started. I want to see where he stands on this.

This bothers me, too. It's one of those dissonances introduced by putting that prologue to the series first, since we know the situation better than most (if not all) of the characters. The trouble I have isn't that the general populace believes the rumors, or that Burnham is too self-destructive to correct the record (in the tribunal or in person), but that the show keeps repeating it without any examination in a way that leads to a feeling that the writers intended a different perspective on it too. It's a pretty major character thread to just take at face value, especially when we know the truth of T'Kuvma's intent, and how little Burnham's actions mattered (which is honestly another relevant aspect to her character's motivations which has been basically ignored). Maybe once someone talks to L'Rell or Voq they'll finally get down to these points, but so far the show is too busy following its plot-driven narrative to let anyone have any real dialogue.

I'm patiently waiting for his look at The Fifth Element

Oooh, is that coming up? Now I'm waiting for it too.

[J!!]

I think that what they're doing on Discovery more than anything else is showing things from Burnham's perspective. Everyone seems to blame her, because she blames herself. I doubt we'll see anything different until she starts to work past her guilt.

[Karha of Honor]

I think that what they're doing on Discovery more than anything else is showing things from Burnham's perspective. Everyone seems to blame her, because she blames herself. I doubt we'll see anything different until she starts to work past her guilt.

I would prefer the promised anthology concept with a new main character.