Star Trek Discovery: The Trouble With Edward

[clearspira]

Yes Barclay was treated much better, given much more support and etc but Barclay was also on the flagship with a veteran captain, a counselor, with Guinan etc and Barclay was only messing with the holodeck in the episode he was introduced.

Just a thought. But was Barclay treated better till Guinan and Picard came around? He was transferred off his last ship for not 'fitting in' and Riker's initial thought was to toss him to another ship as well. Picard stopped that. When Geordi was at a loss, Guinan humanized the issue. Between this episode and Barclay's appearance it makes you wonder how 'good' most of Star Fleet really was.

This reminds me of VOY ''Future's End'' where Chuck comments on just how vanilla and conformist the future must be if the diversity of a 20th century beach can make Janeway swoon.

The Federation has been compared to the Borg by many people and this is good evidence for that: you ''fit in'' with the whole or you are gone. Barclay's next stop after the Enterprise was probably going to be some obscure Miranda-class somewhere.

[Gekired]

Like in Chuck's recent Black Mirror reviews of the "take that" at Star Trek's toxic fanbase, the protagonist is not a nice person but that definitely doesn't excuse how others are treating him. Borcher (Bob/Archer, people who know the actor will understand) isn't even that bad of a guy. Not a nice guy but in all honesty I cannot blame him in that situation, he's Reg Barclay surrounded by d-bags and no understanding people, a Reg Barclay who has his talents squandered and gets chewed out for having the nerve to complain about it. Not a nice guy it seems like but certainly not mind raping people, not worthy of that level of hatred by his captain.

Captain Alita seems like an incompetent idiot. Doesn't use her crew's talent to its fullest because of some strange personal problem, shows favoritism and ostracizes a member of her crew, doesn't recognize when problems arise from the supposed problem member of her crew, is so lacking in respect to that crewmember they don't follow her orders, and gets a crew member killed and her ship lost. Her excuse was "he's an idiot" falls short and seems petty, throws the dead guy under the bus as a last middle finger. She is jock idiot Riker for Reg but without any redeeming qualities.

I think Chuck was too easy on Captain Alita, it was her fault what happened because she created the situation to allow Borcher to destroy the ship, was so petty and self centered she I think allowed through inaction and negative actions him to get to where he was, helped push him there. Thats not defending Borcher's actions but he should have never been allowed to get to that level of destruction. She is like a parent who verbally abuses their kid and treats them like garbage but then wonders why little Jimmy has turned into a little monster setting things on fire and erasing the Tivo.

Also disappointed there was not one Archer joke (unless I missed it) at Edward. He plays a guy named Archer with the codename Duchess, must have been too low fruit.

Oh lord Captain Alita really wasn't a good captain or even character here... then again no one was. Closest was Borcher and that cause... you can't blame him for going the way he went. I mean he refuses to leave the ship. OF COURSE HE DID. Why the heck would he want to stay in even more confined space with people who basically mocked. belittled and put ya down all the time. I'd rather die then face that as well.

Also yes........ I too was disappointed by the lack of Archer jokes. I'd say Chuck hasn't seen Archer but I know he's made references.. or i think he has to the show before.

[Hero_Of_Shadows]

Exhibit A for anyone who wants to argue that Star Trek writers have no idea what a leader is supposed to actually do.

What makes it worse is that it seems as if the audience is expected to take her side. I mean, Chuck's right that comedy is subjective, but there's a difference between dark humor and lazily mean-spirited.

Okay, I'm about to engage in armchair profiling, so take it for what it's worth.

I think Chuck hit the nail with a nuke when he described this as not a ship, but a hermetically sealed High School. I'm not sure if Edward was their idea of what Trekkies are like, but it certainly comes across that way.

The writers expected the audience to take their side, because this was how they saw it. All of them, the popular ones, "having do deal with" that "strange awkward kid in the corner" and the "adults" (Starfleet) demanding we have to include him on a group project.

And just like them in High School they had no idea, and less patience, for dealing with someone not as socially adroit and pleasing as them. And they expected Edward to be as loathed by the audience for his strange likes and hobbies, and no sympathy for his own trouble.

The whole "we're scientists we learn new stuff all the time" reasoning is just so WTF I don't even know how to process it, I've worked in research labs with scientists and managers who work with those scientists no one thinks like that.

You know who does think like that ? Writers, they'll have a character be a biologist and then have them build lasers, hack computers, etc because "it's all science". People love to complain lately about the writing on every show but to me it does feel that with mystery boxes and etc there is less focus on tight believable world building.

Someone else who thinks this way? Managers, this captain is Starfleet's "Pointy Haired Boss" from Dilbert. How many had a boss like that? Maybe another reason for the dislike for the captain, anyone who had a bad boss like this had at least an unconscious flashback to a boss that was petty, clueless, and given too much power.

My problem with the bad boss hypothesis is that biology to climatology is just too much of a stretch I've dealt with managers in both academia and industry and even they aren't that daft to think the move would make sense especially with the flimsy rationalization that was given to us.

I think it's not intentional commentary on bad bosses, it's just people (writers) who are so far removed from those fields that they thought it wasn't that unreasonable.

[Mickey_Rat15]

Ok, I have not seen this except for reviews, but the research ship assigned to deal with a famine has no biology department save one person? And then that person is assigned to a completely different field because he does not fit the org chart? That just seems that Starfleet has made a poor choice in ship mission assignments.

No matter how unpleasant a person Edward is, the Captain's job is not to make the situation worse. Her calling Edward an idiot may be snarky, but it is unprofessional, especially during her own hearing. One gets the impression, that there are lot of writers getting jobs on science fiction shows who do not have an interest in science. Also, in TOS, Roddenberry and a lot of the other writers and showrunners had personal experience with how a military hierarchy works. What good and bad command decisions look like. I suspect that the current crop of writers were the ones in school that had no interest in STEM or management leadership skills, and so they are thoroughly ignorant of either.

[Darth Wedgius]

Edward and the captain were both failures, but the writers flubbed this almost as badly as the characters. How many science fiction fans are socially awkward? Of course Edward is going to get more sympathy than they expected. Maybe the writers realize the captain wasn't really fit for the position, and the "he was an idiot" line is supposed to make the viewer nod and think, "That's the last time she commands something that won't fit in a bathtub." But I think that may be unrealistically generous.

Traditionally, the captain is responsible for everything that happens on her ship, but that's always seemed unrealistic to me. Edward was an experienced expert in his field and messed up really badly, and violated orders to do so, so I think he wins the Grand High (Low?) Douche Award for this episode. But it doesn't make any of the other characters look better.

Trek has sometimes done comedy well, IMO. "A Piece of the Action", "The Trouble with Tribbles", and "In the Cards" are all episodes I enjoyed from a comedic perspective. And comedy is really subjective, so I'm sure some people liked this one. And that's great, of course. But it sounds like a miss for me.

[SpacePaladin]

I wonder if one can reconcile the Tribble's variable breeding capability with the following timeline:

Tribbles are on their homeworld, reproducing like crazy and being eaten by the local predators.
Enterprising exotic animal tradesman picks up a few and transports them to the wider galaxy.
Tribbles start causing problems in the various environments they spread to.
Mutant tribbles with reduced reproduction tendencies start appearing, no longer wiped out by their native predators, but otherwise outcompeted by their more prolific brethren.
Tribbles causes ecological disasters on various Klingon-occupied planets.
Klingons hunt down the tribbles, go so far as to burn the tribble homeworld.
Surviving tribbles are either hunted down and killed, hunted down and captured, or otherwise escape notice because they are the mutant tribbles and thus don't do things that get them noticed, like reproducing at unsustainable rates.
Edwards acquires mutant tribble.
Edwards accidentally reactivates dormant genes in tribble that activates its prolific breeding capabilities.

[Fianna]

My problem with the bad boss hypothesis is that biology to climatology is just too much of a stretch I've dealt with managers in both academia and industry and even they aren't that daft to think the move would make sense especially with the flimsy rationalization that was given to us.

I think it's not intentional commentary on bad bosses, it's just people (writers) who are so far removed from those fields that they thought it wasn't that unreasonable.

Given how everyone snickers at this, I think maybe the point is that Edward is deliberately being put in a department where his skillset is useless. That way, they won't have to listen to anymore proposals from him, since he'll have nothing to contribute. Sort of a "I can't fire you, so let's just shove you out of the way somewhere" thing.

[chaos42]

My problem with the bad boss hypothesis is that biology to climatology is just too much of a stretch I've dealt with managers in both academia and industry and even they aren't that daft to think the move would make sense especially with the flimsy rationalization that was given to us.

I think it's not intentional commentary on bad bosses, it's just people (writers) who are so far removed from those fields that they thought it wasn't that unreasonable.

Given how everyone snickers at this, I think maybe the point is that Edward is deliberately being put in a department where his skillset is useless. That way, they won't have to listen to anymore proposals from him, since he'll have nothing to contribute. Sort of a "I can't fire you, so let's just shove you out of the way somewhere" thing.

i agree it seems like she is doing it because she doesn't like him. her behavior comes across as a person who has power using it to do things the way she wants not the way that would get the job done. Ive worked with people like this they don't know how to be a leader and spend most of their time sitting in the office texting or chatting up their friends on staff.

And edwards is wrong to do what he did but i can't help but feel this is what happens when you bully people, how many times have we seen people picked on or humiliated do something crazy or stupid that they would never consider doing normally. Plus the way they treat him make me think its a case of age discrimination, hes older than most of the crew, and ive seen younger people do that ignoring older people with experience because they are young and cocky.

But i agree with chuck these people are horrible people and this captain is up there in my worse captains list. She is probably never getting a command again after this screw up.

[clearspira]

Edward and the captain were both failures, but the writers flubbed this almost as badly as the characters. How many science fiction fans are socially awkward? Of course Edward is going to get more sympathy than they expected. Maybe the writers realize the captain wasn't really fit for the position, and the "he was an idiot" line is supposed to make the viewer nod and think, "That's the last time she commands something that won't fit in a bathtub." But I think that may be unrealistically generous.

Traditionally, the captain is responsible for everything that happens on her ship, but that's always seemed unrealistic to me. Edward was an experienced expert in his field and messed up really badly, and violated orders to do so, so I think he wins the Grand High (Low?) Douche Award for this episode. But it doesn't make any of the other characters look better.

Trek has sometimes done comedy well, IMO. "A Piece of the Action", "The Trouble with Tribbles", and "In the Cards" are all episodes I enjoyed from a comedic perspective. And comedy is really subjective, so I'm sure some people liked this one. And that's great, of course. But it sounds like a miss for me.

I can't help but think that the people who bullied Trekkies for being Trekkies in the 80s and 90s are the ones who have ended up with a seat at the Star Trek table rather than the other way around. How else do we explain this character?

[seaswimmer56]

If Chuck was looking for comedy, he could have just waited until after the credits.

That cereal commercial was HILARIOUS.