Watch: Kate Mulgrew & Sonequa Martin-Green Say Female Star Trek Captains Are Inspirations, Not Sex Objects

Earlier this month Star Trek: Voyager’s (and Prodigy’s) Kate Mulgrew joined Star Trek: Discovery’s Sonequa Martin-Green in London to help launch Paramount+ in the UK. While there, the pair did an interview where they talked about what it’s like to be a female captain in Starfleet.

“These are not Kardashian women”

In the following video interview with the AP, Mulgrew and Martin-Green talk about how their respective characters of Captain Janeway and Captain Michael Burnham would get on well together. They also talked about how important it was for these two captains to be inspirations and how they were “not aspiring to be beautiful, sexy, attractive to men,” calling that idea “absurd.”

Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Prodigy (and Voyager) are now available in the UK on Paramount+.

Sonequa Martin-Green and Kate Mulgew in London for the launch of Paramount+UK

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

SMG is way over the top and exaggerating as usual. And who ever said women captains were supposed to be attractive to men? I do agree with what they’re saying, just not HOW they’re saying it. And the reference to the Kardashian women as if this is a bad thing is downright rude. You can say what you will about those women, but some of them are multi-millionaire and even billionaire business women.

Dude, seriously? Besides, Mulgrew did most of the talking here in regards to your critical remarks — what did SMG herself specifically say in this video that is “way over the top?” This makes we wonder if you even watched the video?

PS: The Kardashian’s are embarrassing to all humankind…my opinion. And they aren’t self-made millionaires — they started out rich…fact.

Yes seriously. Did YOU watch the video? I respect your opinion, and I didn’t say I don’t share it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to blurt it out in a public interview. Not cool. And yes Mulgrew did most of the talking. SMG did the twitching and mannerisms.

Please stop with the hatred of SMG it’s getting real tiring at this stage. We get it you don’t like strong women who aren’t afraid to speak their mind.

Christopher, yea, completely agree. Silvereyes just admitted that Mulgrew did most of the talking, but his initial post was all about SMG going “way over the top.” That makes no sense for anyone watching the video?

I mean, if you want to be critical of a public person making a statement, at least comment on the correct person who actually made the statement you are being critical of. Sheesh!

I did, your 4th grade English reading skills just prevented you from understanding. My statement was very clear.

I think everyone knows that most of the bashing that Sonequa receives is tinged with undertones of racism.

They think we don’t see it. But we do.


Pulling the race card now… if you think I’m going to pull my punches because the person is black or any other ethnicity… people who think like you are the racist ones.

It always has been. Those fools have been hating on her from before they started filming the show.

Wow no you don’t get it and you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m actually married to a very strong woman who is certainly not afraid to speak her mind. Being rude is not being strong. And you’re right, I don’t like SMG. Sorry if you can’t take opinions different than your own.

I think where you went wrong here was, through I assume your dislike of SMG, jumping all over SMG for making remarks that were actually made by Mulgrew. So your comment was not factual and looked a like a petty takedown of SMG for no reason other than to reinforce your incessant negative remarks on SMG here.

You really should watch the video next time and get your facts straight.

God can you even read? I acknowledged that Mulgrew did most of the talking. I never attributed the comments to SMG. I said SMG was over the top and exaggerating (referring to her beginning comments on how people were so appreciative of her), then I commented on her twitching and mannerisms.

As I did watch the video, you’re the one who needs to straighten your facts. I don’t know what you can do about your inability to understand basic English.

Since you seem to be the type to need to have the last word, I’m going to give you that opportunity and stop wasting my time answering your posts.

This !!!

Found the incel

Enough. Let’s all move on. Thread closed.

Several Bajorans just stood up and applauded at that video. Although I think they may have slightly misunderstood…


The. Future. Is. Female. I’ve been a huge fan of Mulgrew ever since shaking her hand at the cast and crew premiere of Voyager in the theatre on the Paramount lot before the show aired in TV. So glad that she is still going strong and that Sonequa has carried the torch. We’ve come a long way since Yeoman Rand in her miniskirt when women were seen as eye candy for men. At a time when government forced birth is the law of the land again in many states, we need the radical notion that women are people more than ever. How about an Enterprise C series with Capitan Rachel Garret? Boldly go, girl!

Well said!

Completely agree with exception to Burnham carrying the torch…her character is a complete mess. One extreme to another.

2 great captains and i agree with everything they both said. I’m glad that they said this as it needs to be said though i find it sad that in the year 2022 that they still have to make statements like this.

Agree 100%

One great captain and Burnham.


I will say although I never loved Burnham as a character I’m enjoying her more as Captain. It’s still a bit ridiculous she’s even a Captain being the first mutineer in Starfleet history and all, but when you’re 900 years away from your past, it’s easier to start over. ;)

I have never warmed to her. Her character arc makes no sense, as she does not deserve to be in the center seat. Plus, SMG is a terrible actress, in my opinion.


I literally LOLed at SMG’s satirical rendition of “let’s fly”! Just great!

Who said they have to be sex objects? Who stated this claim? I have never ever heard of such a thing.

I think they are just trying to stir up nonsense to get attention for future work.

Women were, essentially, sex objects always ready for action

  • – Gene Rodenberry (from Herbert Solow, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story)


Yah great quote from a man who was actually cheating on his mistresses.

That only strengthens my point in bringing up this horribly disappointing quote of his. Thanks!

Well yes, we agree on that point. The treatment of women especially in Hollywood has been horrible, by those disgusting pigs that have been exposed by the Me Too movement.

See One Lion, just because we disagreed on one point doesn’t mean I’m going to disagree with everything you say after that…

Sounds good. BTW, it wasn’t so much disagreeing, as it was reacting to you assigning all of your blame on SMG for comments that were obviously made by Mulgrew, and then doubling-down when I called you on it, plus then personally insulting me.

But that’s water under the bridge. I respect your opinion and look forward to future conversations with you here. I won’t have any more comments on this, but felt a need to close the loop here given you referenced it. If you need the last word, go for it.

I think the OP may have meant who said this recently, like in the past decade or so. There’s quite a few stances from the 60s that are easy to point to as being absurd.

That dude specifically said he “never heard of such a thing,” then proceeded with a second sentence that was just as ignorant and insulting towards women in my opinion: I think they are just trying to stir up nonsense to get attention for future work.

His post speaks for itself, and I am not impressed.

Alright, I’ll ask it then. Who recently has been saying this? Is this a thing now from a certain segment of fans?

It’s pervasive in Hollywood. Here’s a recent article on it:

It’s pervasive in Hollywood. A recent article:

“JANE, 28, athletic but sexy. A natural beauty. Most days she wears jeans, and she makes them look good.”

So reads a tweet by film producer Ross Putman, who’s taken it on himself to draw attention to the way women are described in scripts.

“These are intros for female leads in actual scripts I read,” states Putman. He changes the names to Jane but keeps the descriptions unaltered.

“JANE stands next to it (30’s) dressed in a paramedic’s uniform – blonde, fit, smokin’ hot,” reads one tweet. “JANE (late 20s) sits hunched over a microscope. She’s attractive, but too much of a professional to care about her appearance,” reads another.

Eliana Dockterman at Time calls the descriptions “startlingly ageist, sexist, and objectifying.” Charlie Jane Anders at io9 writes that it feels “creepy and weird” when the best descriptions writers can come up with for major female characters are “leggy” and “sexy.” Juliet Bennett Rylah at LAist notes it’s unsurprising the descriptions are “laughably focused on the character’s looks.”

The descriptions are “a reminder of Hollywood and society’s obsession with women’s looks” and “women that are sex objects first and characters second,” writes Carolyn Cox at the Mary Sue. Time reports this could explain why it’s hard for actresses to find “roles where they’re treated as more than sexual objects.”

Ah gotcha. I thought it was some dumb fan thing. It’s just a dumb Hollywood thing. Sad but expected.

I have never heard of such a thing. I have always heard of women being described and portrayed as non-sexual as possible, with men expected to have the most incredibly fit masculine bodies and chiselled jaws imaginable. I rarely see women depicted as being attractive. I do think they are stirring up a non-existent problem, it is common for actors to do this to get attention focused on them for work opportunities.

Got Troll?

A full account of history shows that Gene Roddenberry was a lecherous drunkard. It also shows that he was a visionary who created a show that has helped tens of millions of people envision a better future for humanity and genuinely inspired important technology.

For some reason sexism and misogyny was one frontier the original Star Trek very much didn’t progress past in spite of all the other things it saw through.

Thankfully it is a lot better now, but that doesn’t mean it’s fully addressed. In some ways I think revisiting/remaking the same setting and era in the form of Strange New Worlds has been quite important as a step towards making it right.

I don’t see the word captain in there. Try again.

Roddenberry did.

Lets see….
Mini skirts and go go dancer boots
I’ll never get used to a woman on the bridge.
Spock leering at Rand, insinuating she like it rough, after being raped by evil Kirk
Evil Kirk getting away with raping Rand
Virtually every female guest being costumed in just enough fabric to get the episode by the censors.
Shall I continue? TOS Trek remains very misogynistic.

It’s another reason why TOS is no longer a higher ranking show for me today. It just has too many of those issues that I can’t look away from in this day and age. When I was younger I didn’t even notice them to be honest. But today TOS is just sooo outdated in so many ways, especially its treatment of women. It’s still an inspiring show of course but in many ways it was still a show for its time even back then.

See you just unintentionally made another great case for why a revised TOS series of some kind is needed. I mean if you and other fans feel this way and it makes you no longer want to even watch TOS eps, then they kind of have to revise what is considered the greatest Trek series of all time that started the franchise. Otherwise, many fans stop watching it. And then you have the other issue we have already discussed here in length regarding the growing list of canon issues that fans who do still watch TOS care about — this would fix all that and bring those great TOS stories and characters to life again, plus add new TOS adventures.

This reasoning of yours more than reinforces why I am confident that this TOS 2.0 is coming (my opinion). Thanks!

There are plenty of old shows with these issues. They don’t all need to be rebooted. I don’t see the weird obsession to push for another TOS show. SNW is TOS enough for me now. I rather just have something new. And we have the Kelvin movies for that or probably another TOS movie series after that if and when those are done. Even if one came, it’s probably at least 7 years away if SNW ends up going that long.

In relation to captains, never.

Mulgrew is SO much better an actor than SMG.

Disagree. I don’t care for Mulgrew’s acting style and her irritating mannerisms and affectations as Janeway drove me mad. I especially couldn’t stand the way her eyes dart from side to side eye when she’s looking at someone up close. SMG is actually a superb actress, without the over the top mannerisms and stylising and the gravel, smokes-40-a-day drawl.

Yeah, I also think SMG is a superior actor to Mulgrew. Mulgrew frequently plays the same person in every role. I remember when Voyager premiered thinking, “she’s just repeating the Ms. Columbo performance as a starship captain.” The one exception I will grant was her spooky role in Orange is the New Black.

I think both are good actresses in different roles.

I love Kate Mulgrew so much! So well spoken and eloquent she could’ve written a lot of Janeway’s dialogue. I loved Captain Janeway in the very first episode. In fact unlike Picard and Sisko which took a few seasons to really love Janeway was the Captain I instantly loved outside of Kirk. And over 25 years later still love her. She wasn’t just the first woman Captain but also the first science Captain as well. That was a brilliant decision to do and it really paid off as a character.

I am so happy we have her back in Prodigy. That was such a no-brainer. And it’s pretty obvious she’ll show up again in live action soon too. The character is just too loved not to bring back as a contemporary Janeway in the 25th century. I’m crossing my fingers she will show up in Picard but even if not there will still be opportunities. Why not have her show up in the 32nd century in Discovery or even on SNW! I like to see her and Pike share a few scenes and maybe Pike can actually teach her to cook lol. They keep suggesting we are getting more crossovers, might as well go big with the legends! ;)

When did Sisko kick in as a great captain for you? I watched the DS9 pilot again recently and thought that Sisko was pretty great from the start.

Picard took a couple seasons for me to warm up to him. He is a real jerk in some of the early episodes.

I agree that Janeway was great from the start.

Sisko became, and still is, my second fav lead officer in a Trek series/movie of all time, with Pike at #3. Janeway I think is overrated, and I can never forgive her for her deal with the Borg that got multiple worlds and billions of people assimilated just so she could get her crew back home. My full ratings:

The Great Captains:

  1. 1. Kirk
  2. 2. Sisko
  3. 3. Pike
  4. 4. Picard
  5. 5. Burnham
  6. 6. Rios

The Good Captains:

  1. 7. Saru
  2. 8. Sulu
  3. 9. Dal R’El

The Mediocre Captains:

  1. 10. Janeway
  2. 11. Freeman
  3. 12. Archer

For me, I would say third season is when he started to grow on me. The first two seasons he was fine, but it was more about Brooks acting as a whole. I can’t explain it but it just felt off to me. But by third season I gotten use to his character and liked him.

BUT, it was fourth season when I became a bonafide Sisko fan. I don’t know what it was but the goatee and shaved head was a huge change. And I think Brooks was just more comfortable in the role. And even Ira Steven Behr admitted in an article discussing the show they knew Sisko as a character wasn’t being defined enough and they made bigger changes starting in fourth season and making him a Captain as well. And you can tell there was a change in the character. From Way of the Warrior on, he just became a total badass lol. I still liked Janeway more but Sisko just became a more prominent figure and you can tell Brooks got more comfortable in the role in the later seasons. So from fourth season on I really grew to love the character! He’s now my third favorite Captain after Picard* and Janeway, so I really love him today. ;)

*TNG version of Picard

Supposedly the reason that Brooks was not allowed to shave his head and have his goatee in the early seasons was because the studio did not want people to confuse him with his previous role as Hawk on Spenser for Hire, or some such nonsense. As you note, it took a few years for Brooks to have full control of his look.

Oh yeah I know. I think they even talked about it in the documentary “What We Left Behind”. And I remember the reason was because they didn’t want people to associate him with his character on Spenser for Hire which he was mostly known for at the time. I thought it was a silly reason, but whatever. And I also think Paramount just didn’t want two bald Captains at the time. ;D

You’re probably right about the two bald captains! I never thought of that. By the time Sisko had his iconic look Picard was only appearing in occasional movies.

Once he did, I confused him with Hawk…

Brooks’ vocals were odd. He over emphasised words/phrases even more than Shatner.

I couldn’t imagine Avery Brooks taking a lead role where the character was undefined. He put his stamp on Sisko from day one. It’s a shame the suits left him as a commander early on instead of starting him off as a captain.
Archer, by reputation, bears no resemblance to the character played by Bakula. That Archer was conflicted, emotionally constipated, and riddled with self doubt. If the powers that be want to revisit the pre-Federation era, I’m perfectly good with them pretending Enterprise doesn’t exist.

If the powers that be want to revisit the pre-Federation era, I’m perfectly good with them pretending Enterprise doesn’t exist.

AMEN TO THAT! And that’s the butt-ugliest lead Trek series starship of all time.

Well we definitely have to agree to disagree on Enterprise Phil lol. I love Enterprise, it’s currently my fourth favorite show in fact and even when I didn’t like it I always loved Archer. But I know he’s like Burnham and divisive within the fanbase who I’m also growing to like. But I never had an issue with him and hoping there is an Enterprise continuation of some kind. Not holding my breath but crossing my fingers. ;)

because he was commanding a space station.
promoted to captain in time of war

Don’t forget Captain Carol Freeman, another awesome strong female starfleet captain.

Freeman is definitely on my lower list of Captains lol but like Burnham I am liking her more too. I think second season improved her character a lot and really loved her in First First Contact. Can’t wait to see how they resolve her story in season 3.

Janeway would be a good mentor to Burnham. She would teach her how not to be a crying whiney mess whenever she has to make a hard decision. Is that unfair? I feel like after four seasons that Burnham is still stuck in that state.

Granted, Burnham is overly emotional. However, the important decisions she has had to make I think have been much better calls than the ton of questionable decisions that Janeway made.

Getting good results from making the right calls on tough decisions matter more to me than a Captain showing too much emotion. And I personally would much rather serve on a ship with Burnham over Janeway, — Burnham would have my back, while Janeway would give me over to the Borg for assimilation if it meant she could get the Voyager back to Alpha Quadrant.

Excluding TOS from the sixties, which women of the main cast in modern post-TNG were portrayed as sex objects?
Pretty much NONE, except maybe a 5-second shot of Kelvin Carol Marcus in her underwear and Voyager 7of9, whom they still managed to develop into a really strong female character.

So there’s definitely no problem on Trek’s side, Kate and Sonequa are just commenting on female quality in general.

Also, can’t wait to see Janeway back in live action, I can feel it happening soon!

It wasn’t until Discovery that they finally got rid of the catsuits that stood out like a sore thumb from the rest of the cast.

As much as I hate saying negative things about my beloved ENT, I think that show may have even took some steps backwards [from 90s Trek] where this issue is concerned. The decon chamber scenes for example, or when T’Pol’s clothes used to slide off.

Look again at how Seven and T’Pol are dressed.

You missed all the catsuits in TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT?
The various dominatrix costumes in most of the mirror universe episodes?
Near naked aliens in the early days of TNG? Almost exclusively white people as well?


T’Pol Decontamination Chamber Scenes (00’s)
Busty Klingon babes in Trek movies (80’s/90’s)
Troi regularly wears a tight, form-fitting outfit that shows some cleavage (80’s, 90’s)
Enterprise kind of supporting Sex Trafficking with Kamala from “The Perfect Mate” ep in TNG (90’s)
Khan’s busty babes/crew (80’s)
Seven (90’s)
Dom looking costumes in pretty much all the mirror universe eps (all timeframes)


I would say Janeway has been an inspiration to many women AND men. strong female, captain in male dominated tv shows of the 90s she broke the mould. It wasn’t about sex appeal it was about how Mulgrew just owned the part and delivered amazing work and showed what she could do.

Burnham, less said the better…can anyone really claim to be truly inspired by her character? Quivering mess to arrogant action hero and back again.

Agreed 100%, Commander. As to both.

Burnham is a much better character. She’s actually had more character development than Janeway would in 20 seasons. The writing for Janeway was horrible, inconsistent and insulting (hooking up with holograms when she’s horny—Really? Inspirational). Burnham has had inconsistent writing too, but nothing ever approaching the horrendousness of Janeway murdering a man just to bring back her friend (Tuvix). I still get shivers when I think about that. Inspirational? Nope, terrifying.

I never understood the Tuvix issue. He was an accident. He never was suppose to exist. Janeway saved two people over the life of one. And he was just a combination of both of them. But yeah people are really divided over it even now lol. It’s also why I love Star Trek! The fact it’s still so highly debated is what makes these shows great for me.

Oh, thank heavens! I thought I was the only fan who thought Janeway made the right decision.

Tuvix was a great guy, but he doesn’t get to consume two people’s lives to create his one life. It was clear to me from Janeway’s face at the end of the episode that it tore her heart out to have to disassemble Tuvix into his component parts, but she did it because she thought it was right. Making the hard decisions — even when they’re unpopular — is what captains DO!

Yeah I was never bothered by Janeway’s decision. Now of course I understand why others were. No matter what, someone’s life was being sacrificed. And yeah Tuvix was great but I’m sorry I just can’t agree his life was worth more than the two lives before his. He was a transporter accident, no one gave birth to the guy. MAYBE if it was one life for another, it would be a harder decision and that would still be a big maybe for me.

And yes it tore Janeway up but as you said this is the crazy decisions captains have to make…at least in Star Trek lol. But another reason why I love her so much!

And another reason I love Mulgrew in the role; her FACE towards the end of that episode, when she was off to do what needed to be done. Wow.

he was a new life form who should not have been sacrificed this way.
totally against the prime directive

I disagree.

Hey girl fancy bumping into you here!?😄

It’s weird to be talking to you here and not from the other spot! I been coming here a few times last few weeks. Just randomly.

Anyway also agree about Tuvix! Janeway definitely did the right thing (but I agree with Janeway like 99.999% of the time. The .01% I disagreed with her was her decision to keep Neelix onboard). And what’s that Vulcan saying? Oh yeah, the needs of the many….

It was basic math! 👍

And my girlfriend was happy with this episode because it brought Neelix back. 🙄

Hi, there! Yeah, I read here every day. I usually comment at the other place because people are generally more polite there. :-)

I’d say that your girlfriend’s taste is questionable, but she loves YOU, so she obviously has good taste; Neelix must just be an aberration. :-)

Glad to have found someone else who agrees with Janeway about Tuvix. It’s an interesting moral dilemma, one that we can only have in science fiction, which is one of the many reasons that I love it.

but he did exist and thrived.
and should not have been put to death by a starfleet captain

We’ll agree to disagree Tony. This has been debated for 25 years now lol. It’s kind of like the abortion topic, everyone has drawn their line in the sand over it, especially right now and minds are rarely changed. I’m not trying to change yours, only telling you mine. ;)

Well said!

lol.. they just trashed the Kardashians.

I agree, Cardassian women are on a WHOLE other level. Mulgrew and MG are classy as frak.

*oh, KardaSHian. whoops*

Kate Mulgrew is such a treasure! I’m so glad we have her for Star Trek. She isn’t just PLAYING a strong woman; she IS one.

I’d believe Sonequa Martin-Green’s words more if she weren’t wearing ankle-breaker heels. Nobody wears those things because they’re comfortable or good for your feet. :-) Did she choose those, or did Paramount dress both actresses for this occasion? If it’s the latter, I’m not wild about this particular choice; I think it undermines the message.

I think Sonequa wears tall heels because she’s very short, but I have to say, I always feel this way when I see women in crazy spiked heels. Lots are now wearing big, cool platforms when they want to be taller that look a LOT more comfortable. I guess many women still like the heels… I never did, and I never understood wearing shoes that weren’t comfortable to walk in. (Maybe they are for some people? I don’t know!)

I agree — I paid for a photo op with her, and she looks shorter in person versus on the screen. What a great and positive person, BTW, and a fantastic smile. Enjoyed my 30 seconds with her!

And she must be truly fabulous to be able to make THIRTY SECONDS a memorable experience for you. Glad you got to have that!

Well, and what’s wrong with being short? I say, “Be PROUDLY short!” :-)

So, SMG needs to be wearing a power suit to be taken seriously? Sorry, but she’s free (for the moment) to dress however she pleases…..

And you’re free to deliberately misunderstand me. :-)

No, SMG wants to look good in photos next to co-stars and other people, so the takeaway from the photo isn’t just “Look at how tiny she is!”

Janeway was a terrible captain!! She violated the prime directive in the first episode.she continued to violate it throw out the series. Mulgrew hated jerri Ryan made sure she knew her presence wasn’t welcome by her. Burnham grew into the role of captain

I’m still waiting for Burnham to act like a captain and not a cadet. She has no commanding presence at all.

I prefer Captains who get results. Burnham’s track record in that regard far exceeds Janeway’s sit on the Bridge all the time and cut deals approach. If that is how you define Command Presence, well then I personally think that evaluation category is overrated. I mean, Putin has command presence, but look at his deeds and results?

Putin? What are you even talking about?

My point is that there a lot of people who can give the feeling of “command presence,” but that by itself doesn’t really mean much. Take Putin for example, one could argue he has command presence, but I would bet he probably fails at most, if not all additional leadership evaluation metrics that we could come up with.

Command Presence and $4 may get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks at best.

So you are comparing Janeway to Putin?

Burnham does not act like any professional Starfleet captain. Comparing any of the other professional acting Starfleet captains that have come before her, and who aren’t mutineers, to a completely unrelated real-world tyrant to make your point, is a really strange comparison and won’t change my mind about “Acting Captain Michael Burnham”.

No, I am talking about about the term you used, Command Presence, and why, in and of itself, it doesn’t represent if a person’s a great leader. My example was illustrative about why you can’t trust using the term by itself to rate a leader.

Now you are bringing up the term, Professional, and you specifically say: …comparing any of the other professional acting Starfleet captains that have come before her, and who aren’t mutineers…

You do realize that Kirk was a mutineer by stealing the Enterprise against direct orders, don’t you? Was that professional?

Everyone can have their opinion on what leadership qualities make a good Captain in Star Trek. I rate Achieving Results and Commitment to do Good as being much higher than Command Presence and Professionalism, which I personally feel are more supporting qualities that I want to see.

That’s true Kirk did mutiny, but he didn’t physically assault his superior and start a war. And he was demoted for saving the planet.

My only point is that Burnham’s lack of command presence and professionalism doesn’t make her a believable captain. Those are not superficial qualities at all. She makes the command structure of Discovery look to be non-existent and not very believable. Saru acted more like a Starfleet captain than Burnham ever did.

You are free to disagree.

I didn’t really like the idea of Burnham being Captain after being a mutineer. And let’s be honest if she was still in the 23rd century I don’t think she ever could be (I mean in-universe, knowing this brain trust she would probably be an admiral by season 6). But it makes it easier to believe when you are so far away from your past and yes she did, once again, help save the galaxy with the whole Burn situation.t So that partly plays into it too.

But the ‘command structure’ of Discovery is a complete joke. They bump her down to Ensign IIRC from XO after she disobeyed Saru in season 3 and then gave the job to Tilly which was just ridiculous. And then of course Burnham is made Captain a month later anyway and Saru is now bumped down to First Officer again for some reason.

I want to like Discovery more as a show, but I can’t take a lot of it seriously when they pull this nonsense over and over again.

I would have liked for them to stick to the ‘new captain of the season’ theme they seemed to be doing for the first and second seasons. I think that would have worked well when they went to the future too. Admiral Vance should have assigned a captain to Discovery to help them get caught up with the centuries of change. But then Burnham is who the show is all about I guess, so she has to be the captain. It’s not really even an ensemble show anymore with Tilly gone and Saru in a reduced role.

I don’t think having a new Captain every season would’ve worked that well by the time season 4 came around. It would’ve felt too much like a gimmick IMO and the show would always feel its in transition if there was yet another new Captain people would’ve had to get use to.

But I do agree in a more realistic universe Admiral Vance would’ve assigned the crew a new Captain in the 32nd century, at least until they got their feet wet enough. It made NO sense no one from the 32nd century had any role on the ship at all; especially since Discovery now became the most important Starship in the fleet (of course). It would’ve also been a more interesting show story wise to have a Captain who doubted these thousand year old Starfleet officers and really see how much has changed from a standard operating perspective. But oh well.

But yes if nothing else Saru should be the Captain. It really makes no sense why Burnham is but I accepted it of course. She is the star as you said but it also defeated another idea Fuller had that the star WASN’T going to be the Captain but an underling. But then they kept serving up stories where she kept saving the galaxy and it felt even more ridiculous she didn’t have more control in the stories I guess so she’s now Captain.

But there is a reason why four seasons later Discovery is still one of my least liked shows. It’s just too scatter brain for me and while I like Burnham now more, she is still one of the weakest leads in Star Trek. I never hated her and I like SMG as a person but they constantly try to make her too much the center of the show but she makes a lot of bad decisions and cries waaaaaay too much for someone who is leading a starship. I agree with you, her professionalism should be much much higher given her rank and position.

That said I did think she was better in season 4 at least but still a lot dumb decisions in that season too. I really really hope season 5 turns the tide for me. but I’ve basically given up on the show and I hate to say that as a Star Trek fan. But sadly the show is still pretty bad.

That’s true Kirk did mutiny, but he didn’t physically assault his superior and start a war.
But I believe he would have if he was certain he could have prevented an Interstellar War (FYI – the war got started because she was stopped – you need to re-watch that ep). In support of this, look at his behavior in Obsession. In fact that’s what I love about Burnham, she’s the most Kirk-like of all the other Star Trek Captains. She’s passionate, trusts her intuitions, is willing to bend the rules, is willing to break orders she knows are wrong, and will do anything to save her crew.

And he was demoted for saving the planet.
And Burnham was put in prison for trying to save the Federation. However, Janeway, who condemns multiple worlds with millions of citizens to Borg assimilation with that inexplicable agreement with the Borg, and who is a serial Prime Directive violator get’s promoted? What’s wrong with this picture?

Janeway stopped Species 8472, who was a much deadlier threat from the Borg from invading the galaxy lol. She only had BAD options. And she was completely alone to make these decisions. She didn’t have a Federation to rely on.

But Burnham tried to mutineer a ship based on a 5 minute conversation with Sarek who even told her just because the Klingons stood down when the Vulcans engaged first doesn’t mean it would have the same approach if a human vessel did it. She completely ignored that piece of advice and tried to do it anyway. And she got her way it could’ve just made things worse. It was impulsive and stupid. Frankly she should’ve still been in jail over her actions.

We will have to agree to disagree on Burnham’s actions. I really believe Kirk would have done likewise had he been in that position. And Burnham was right, so like Kirk so many times, the end would have justified the means had she been successful.

Again, I’d rather be a crew member on Burnham’s ship. She’d have my back, for better of for worse. I feel like Janeway would analyze me and determine my cost-benefit value should a deal come up that would get her back more quickly to the Alpha Quadrant…lol Also, Burham’s crew has a heck of a lot more fun than the Voyager crew and seem more like real people…my opinion.

And I also believe that both Kirk and Burnham would have found a more creative solution to the Species 8472 problem that would not have resulted in billions of lives being assimilated by the Borg. Now that sort of solution would warrant a legitimate promotion to an Admiral.

Well you’re also disagreeing with Starfleet Command. ;D

And Kirk would’ve been just as wrong.

And Burnham wasn’t right at all. Why? Because the Klingons were going to attack anyway! That’s why the entire thing was ludicrous. Obviously she didn’t know that but if she fired first it would’ve gave them exactly what they wanted, so how in Kahless name was she right????

That’s the entire problem. Sarek was describing a random run in with the Klingons from 50 years ago or whenever it was. In this situation they showed up looking for a fight. Did you not listen to T’Kumva and why he was even there? So none of that would’ve mattered. If she got her way, all anyone would be talking about is the crazy Starfleet officer who mutineered her own ship, the first in history, and fired on the Klingons that started the war. Please tell me what am I missing?

And on top of that, she had already killed their Torchbearer, which was obviously just an accident, but that already changed entire dynamic of the situation….which again she completely ignored!!!! How can you be a first officer and not even take that into account before you try and fire on them? At that point it comes off like SHE was looking for a fight. You have to admit, I have a point. ;)

No one is telling you you have to like Janeway but trying to pass off what Burnham did as ‘right’ is just head scratching to me. It was a big reason so many people started off hating her in the first place and why many still do.

I will admit that your interpretation could have been one outcome. I personally think the Klingons would have backed down had the Shenzhou fired first with the Vulcan Hello — that made sense to me and the Klingons would not be expecting that aggressive first strike, and would have backed off I think. They backed off multiple times in the TOS and TOS movies once the Enterprise pressed the point aggressively.

Despite all their bluster internally to each other, the Klingons in that era were more comfortable with surprise attacks and hit and run tactics. And regarding her killing Rejac when she was trying to talk to him, if anything, that should’ve made the Klingons more weary of taking on Starfleet given one of their top warriors they can’t even beat a small human female in hand-to-hand combat.

Truth is, we will never know what would have happened should her gamble have been successful. I happen to think the Klingons would have backed down at the last moment. And that’s the kind of gamble that Kirk would have made — and you are right, she was looking for a fight, but a fight that could have prevented an interstellar war — that’s something Kirk would have done.

And Kirk disagreed with Starfleet Command many times, and was nearly always right. Burnham’s nearly always right too. Again, she’s the modern version of Kirk, but she doesn’t get the free pass Kirk got, both I think because the Berman era made Starfleet kind of soft, plus she’s a woman.

Alright man, no worries. I still totally disagree with her being anything like Kirk. But everything else, fine.

Thanks. BTW, I totally get the doubters. I respect the ones like you that bring up these real, legitimate points about her actions, etc.

Agreed. Please see my other post where I rate all the Captains in Trek — I have Burnham at #5 and Janeway at #10. Although she wears her heart on her sleeve, she’s a vastly superior leader than Janeway, and is willing to get involved with the crew to get things done versus just directing things from the bridge.

Frankly, Janeway should have been court-martialed when the Voyager returned for all the millions of assimilations her agreement with the Borg caused, plus the tons of Prime Directive violations. I don’t think she should have been imprisoned for all that, but I do think her rank should have been permanently suspended at Captain, with no promotion available to Admiral.

I think the promotion to admiral is Starfleet’s way of failing people upwards. Most Starfleet admirals are rather dubious people, after all.

You know, that is a great point!

what she did to tuvix was a bad call.
and the number of times she put her single ship and crew up against fleets of bad guys, not caring about safety

Love Kate Mulgrew! Wouldn’t even be a Star Trek fan if it wasn’t for Janeway! You are loved! 🖖

As for Burnham…well it’s nice whenever she’s not crying at least. All I got.

Er ok. Kinda random.

WTF did this come from?

They are in the UK promoting their Trek shows for Paramount+ since it just launched there.