Online Series: Star Trek: Discovery - Topic II

[Ducks in a row]

If she were in the heat of battle and made a mistake and did something stupid, I'd be forgiving, but she could have taken a few minutes here to determine whether her plan was even viable. She suffers from the same problem I had with Burnham in the pilot, the way they had her act in this episode makes it unbelievable that she obtained the rank and senior position she held in the most ruthless meritocracy that is the world of Star Trek.

I don't like how it went either I would of like her character to be part of the show longer and have a better death then that if they still wanted to have her die. The only kind of defense I could say for her getting to that position while being so stupid is she never experienced wartime conditions before.

 

[Cloned]

I don't have the same problem with the Klingon scenes. I think they're generally well done, and these are actually interesting Klingons. Starting to care about the "enemy" was probably one of the writers' goals, and so far so good.

 

[Blender]

I don't believe that I remember that episode, but I was thinking to myself that it seemed very much like the kind of episodes that Voyager had.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Equinox_(episode)
It's a two part episode and generally pretty highly regarded and ranked as one of the better episodes of the series. Essentially, there is a second ship in the Delta Quadrant that is on a smaller and less equipped vessel than Voyager, and when they are desperate they stumble upon a creature summoned from some other dimension of space, and accidentally kill one, but they discover that the energy its body emits can greatly increase the efficiency of their warp core and increase their speed. So they begin intentionally trapping these creatures to power their warp core with, until one day they run into Voyager who discovers what they are doing and tries to stop them.

 

[Tawnos]

Episode 4 may be the worst yet. Once again, Miss Know-It-All has the answer for everything and single-handedly saves the day while no one else on the ship appears to donate anything helpful.

Spoiler

Of course, the security officer, the one person on the ship who ought to know better, decides to let the monster out with nothing but a phaser rifle, even though half a dozen rifles couldn't even slow it down just the other day. Later, Burnham decides to let the force field down, herself, with Tilly behind her, potentially dooming her to death, all on a hunch. Predictably, the hunch turns out to be spectacularly right, even though the monster can barely see and can't sense the spores because she hasn't opened the container yet.

Of course, the monster turns out to be a kitty cat that only Burnham is smart enough to tame. We're led to believe that it attacks only in self defense, even though, in the very last episode, it attacked a Klingon from behind, chased the Discovery officers down a long corridor before grabbing one of them from behind and then busted through a wall just to try to get at them. Naturally, that doesn't seem to matter to the writers, making it an aggressive killer when they need it to be and then a docile pet when that suits their storytelling.

Even dumber than that is the notion that this space monster has a chart of the galaxy in its head and can talk to the spores to get them to travel anywhere that they want. Even if you can somehow buy that, was it at all explained how they utilized it? No. They established that it can talk to the spores, but, if so, wouldn't that require the humans to gain the monster's cooperation in some way? They just hooked it up and, instantly, they were ready to fly anywhere, as though it were a missing crystal. It also looked ridiculous in the chamber and I guess that we're meant to use our imagination about how they got it in there.

There are, of course, many other issues that have been complained about in previous episodes. Burnham is still smug and a jerk, the Klingon scenes are still extremely tedious and boring and so on. I'm becoming more convinced that these writers don't know how to write a good show. It's like they're stumbling around, trying to copy other shows, like Game of Thrones (ex. killing off a character every other episode) and doing it all wrong.

My god. Did you even watch the episode?

1.) Landry thought she sedated it. She didn't decide to let it out. The computer even told her it was sedated.
2.) The thing's space chart in its head is the result of the research the crew of the Glenn had already done. It was the result of the interface they created for it. It was plug and play and adjustments made by Stanmets based on the work his friend had already done. This is explained.
3.) They transported it into the chamber. They said so in the damn episode.

Along with several other problems with what you saw... or failed to see and understand.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

I thought that was the best episode of the series so far but I still don’t like how the Klingons talk. Was it at the beginning they were talking about Georgiou and her being eaten because I might have missed that part. My favorite part of the episode was everything dealing with the Ripper and Burnham’s relationship with it, and the torture it is going through as navigator. Those aspects do make this feel like Star Trek because it is a scientific discovery.

Looking forward to next week and I’m very interested to see where this goes.

 

[Tawnos]

Burnham was making mistakes long before there was any battle.

She makes the one on the planet by misjudging the speed of the storm. As far as she is concerned, they're already in battle when she commits the mutiny, as the way the Vulcans dealt with them was by treating them as if they were always in violent conflict.

 

[Caeldan]

I don't have the same problem with the Klingon scenes. I think they're generally well done, and these are actually interesting Klingons. Starting to care about the "enemy" was probably one of the writers' goals, and so far so good.

My only issue with the Klingons is that I swear the voice modulators they're using they borrowed from Star Wars. Feel like the one guy talks like Jabba the Hut, and the others talk like random bounty hunters.
They should just switch to english when speaking in Klingon-only scenes, use Klingon with subtitles just when they're addressing humans.
Also that font is ridiculous.

 

[Cloned]

@Osprey

I don't really know what it's going to take to win you over.

I thought this was very good Star Trek. Allegorical without being overly preachy and hammer-the-nail-on-the-head direct with its themes.

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

This episode was better than the first three but still not very good. The Klingons bore me to tears and there is not a single likeable character on the Discovery. There is some potential but I fear they won't fulfill it. For now I will continue tuning in and hoping for the best.
It occurred to me that if the producers came out and said that the show takes place in the mirror universe, I might be more accepting of it (although the Klingons would still blow).

 

[Osprey]

1.) Landry thought she sedated it. She didn't decide to let it out. The computer even told her it was sedated.

If you're going to nitpick my language, I'll nitpick yours. The computer didn't tell her that it was sedated. It told her that the sedation protocol completed. She didn't know whether the creature was sedated or not--she could've easily, like a competent Starfleet officer, had the computer report vital signs--yet she lowered the force field, anyways, and, yes, she let it out.

2.) The thing's space chart in its head is the result of the research the crew of the Glenn had already done. It was the result of the interface they created for it. It was plug and play and adjustments made by Stanmets based on the work his friend had already done. This is explained.

Yes, it was plug and play, which was my point. Also, Stamets had no clue that the creature was even related to navigation just hours earlier and needed less than 10 seconds to initialize the interface, comprehend how to use it and then input the coordinates. On top of that, he somehow knew that it would be that quick and easy because he waited until only 15 seconds before the captain was ready to engage the drive to transport the creature.

3.) They transported it into the chamber. They said so in the damn episode.

Sorry, I'm not used to site-to-site transporter use because it's not part of Star Trek.

Along with several other problems with what you saw... or failed to see and understand.

I also fail to understand why Landry didn't simply use the transporter to remove the creature's claw. Since you have an explanation for everything, perhaps you'll explain that for me.

 

[Cloned]

Sorry, I'm not used to site-to-site transporter use because it's not part of Star Trek.

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic here. Is this your actual criticism? This is literally the exact type of thing I was talking about earlier.

As for your other complaints, most of them seem to fall into the "leap of logic" lazy plotting category. That I can understand, but it's not like the other Treks didn't have these same issues. TNG was notorious for this. Episode 4 was still generally well written I thought. Overall, episodes 3 and 4 are leaps and bounds more coherent and well made compared to the pilot.

 

[Osprey]

I thought this was very good Star Trek. Allegorical without being overly preachy and hammer-the-nail-on-the-head direct with its themes.

It's being pretty direct and preachy with its themes, IMO. The monster from the last episode became a pet and caged animal meant to evoke sympathy in this episode, for one, with Burnham acting as the mouthpiece for everything from "don't judge a book by its cover" to animal rights. Then, of course, the officer who represents military strength is portrayed as incompetent and unenlightened compared to the scientific minds and gets killed off. Lorca's aversion to light is also a none-too-subtle metaphor.

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic here. Is this your actual criticism? This is literally the exact type of thing I was talking about earlier.

If you think that it's a ridiculous criticism, what's your explanation for why Landry didn't simply transport the creature's claw off of its body? That's the problem. Once you establish that something as powerful as that is possible, you open up all manner of plot holes. In fact, all that Discovery has to do is transport the creature to the chamber and, in less than 15 seconds, can be anywhere in the galaxy, thanks to the spore drive. Weren't you telling me earlier that being unrealistic takes the drama out of the show? Where's the drama in instantly appearing anywhere in the galaxy within 15 seconds? If only Voyager had had this technology, 7 seasons of drama could've been avoided.

 

[Cloned]

It's being pretty direct and preachy with its themes, IMO. The monster from the last episode became a pet and caged animal meant to evoke sympathy in this episode, for one, with Burnham acting as the mouthpiece for everything from "don't judge a book by its cover" to animal rights. Then, of course, the officer who represents military strength is portrayed as incompetent and unenlightened compared to the scientific minds and gets killed off. Lorca's aversion to light is also a none-too-subtle metaphor.

Well I'm glad you were able to infer all of that. Guess you can't complain the show is empty thematically, at least.

We should be reminded of what we're comparing this to, though. If you call this presentation "direct and preachy", what do you call Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer making grandiose preachy speeches every 2nd episode? Or was that OK because that was what Trek "should be?"

If you think that it's a ridiculous criticism, what's your explanation for why Landry didn't simply transport the creature's claw off of its body? That's the problem. Once you establish that something as powerful as that is possible, you open up all manner of plot holes. In fact, all that Discovery has to do is transport the creature to the chamber and, in less than 15 seconds, can be anywhere in the galaxy, thanks to the spore drive. Weren't you telling me earlier that being unrealistic takes the drama out of the show? Where's the drama in instantly appearing anywhere in the galaxy within 15 seconds? If only Voyager had had this technology, 7 seasons of drama could've been avoided.

Well, never mind the fact that site to site transport is a part of Star Trek: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Site-to-site_transport

If you're going to make nitpicky criticisms about canon, at least make sure you understand the canon first.

 

[Osprey]

We should be reminded of what we're comparing this to, though. If you call this presentation "direct and preachy", what do you call Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer making grandiose preachy speeches every 2nd episode? Or was that OK because that was what Trek "should be?"

Authority figures are welcome to get a little "preachy" because it's their job to make decisions and give orders and it rarely lasts long because they don't tolerate much questioning. That's hardly similar to a junior officer doing it repeatedly throughout episodes because no one will listen and always being proven right. This is more like Wesley Crusher having the answer for everything and going around to everyone to tell them so, and those were some of the most annoying TNG episodes.

Well, never mind the fact that site to site transport is a part of Star Trek: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Site-to-site_transport

If you're going to make nitpicky criticisms about canon, at least make sure you understand the canon first.

You knew what I meant. As you can see, it was used very sparingly and hardly at all to beam around a starship, at least until Voyager (the latest in the timeline) started abusing it. How many times have the Shenzhou and Discovery used it in only 4 episodes in the series that's meant to be the second earliest in the timeline?

Since you chose to take a cheap shot at my fan knowledge, instead, am I to infer that you don't have a good answer for why they could transport the whole creature and not just its claw?

 

[Cloned]

Authority figures are welcome to get a little "preachy" because it's their job to make decisions and give orders and it rarely lasts long because they don't tolerate much questioning. That's hardly similar to a junior officer doing it repeatedly throughout episodes because no one will listen and always being proven right. This is more like Wesley Crusher having the answer for everything and going around to everyone to tell them so, and those were some of the most annoying TNG episodes.

That's some bizarre justification you have for "excusing" it in the Trek you liked vs. not excusing it in the Trek you don't like.

I don't find Burnham anything like Wesley. And since when has she been preachy?

You knew what I meant. As you can see, it was used very sparingly and hardly at all to beam around a starship, at least until Voyager (the latest in the timeline) started abusing it. How many times have the Shenzhou and Discovery used it in only 4 episodes in the series that's meant to be the second earliest in the timeline?

Since you chose to take a cheap shot at my fan knowledge instead of answering my question, am I to infer that you don't have a good explanation for why they could transport the whole creature and not just its claw?

Well, you were quite direct with your initial comment about it not being a part of Star Trek. That was your actual criticism. Don't backtrack on it because you were proven wrong.

And how have they used it in a way that doesn't fit with the canon of it being only used when necessary? When they transported the security chief to sickbay when she was mortally wounded? When Lorca transported both he and Burnham to the spore bay so that Burnham wouldn't just refuse his offer to walk with him there? Is that really your criticism here? "I don't like it because even though it exists in Trek, it doesn't happen as much as it has happened in this series?" Do you realize how ridiculously nitpicky that sounds?

Why are you even asking these nitpicky type questions? I could come up with a technobabble answer if you want (something to the extent of the claw being part of the creature's DNA and not being able to separate it in a transporter beam), but that's the kind of Trek we all hate. Isn't it? Are we going to analyze every episode/movie like this?

Why is Locutus able to destroy the entire fleet at Wolf 359 but can't detect and destroy a small shuttlecraft approaching the Borg ship?

Or how about in TWOK: "When the Genesis device was activated, the Enterprise should have used the transporter. As established in Star Trek: Wolf in the Fold, the transporter can be set to disperse the atoms and thus render the object essentially non-existent. Alternatively, it could have been left in the pattern buffer where its pattern would degrade and no longer be possible to reintegrate."

I can keep going.

Honestly at this point it seems like you're just making stuff up to criticize about the series because you don't WANT to like it.

If you actually watch with an open mind and are open to liking something you don't go about an honest critique this way. Did you watch TWOK with this negative mindset going in? Or were you able to watch and enjoy it despite its inconsistencies because, on the whole, it's good Trek and good entertainment? It seems like you're watching this series, and the entire time you're just waiting for an inconsistency or minor issue to pop up so that you can go "A-ha!"

When you begin your initial statement with "this was the worst episode yet" when even some of the series' detractors on here have said it was the best episode to date, it really reveals your bias. It feels like you're nitpicking the series instead of watching it. If it really irks you that much - and to me it seems like you absolutely hate it - then why are you still watching? It couldn't possibly be because you want to catch more errors and mistakes, could it?

Honestly, this mindset is a terrible way to approach viewing. You should watch TV because you WANT to enjoy yourself and WANT to like a series - then if it really is trash you can just stop watching it. When you watch TV because you already hate something and just want to justify the hate in your own mind - that's wasting your own time.

I'm fairly confident nothing this series does from this point on will change your mind about it. I'm not sure there is a point for me to continue debating the merits of this series with you because not only do we disagree on the merits of the series, we disagree on our approaches to viewing Star Trek in general.

 

[Blender]

Why is Locutus able to destroy the entire fleet at Wolf 359 but can't detect and destroy a small shuttlecraft approaching the Borg ship?

It can both detect and destroy the shuttle, as it does when it tries to leave. If you remember the scene when the shuttle approaches though, Riker is spraying the area with some kind of energy burst to mask the shuttle, which also cuts power to drift in.

Or how about in TWOK: "When the Genesis device was activated, the Enterprise should have used the transporter. As established in Star Trek: Wolf in the Fold, the transporter can be set to disperse the atoms and thus render the object essentially non-existent. Alternatively, it could have been left in the pattern buffer where its pattern would degrade and no longer be possible to reintegrate."

Yup, that's maybe an oversight. It's also plausible that the Genesis device couldn't be transported once activated. That wasn't his point though, almost every TV show ever has errors in it. He was talking about how they used a site to site transporter multiple times within this episode and the episodes before to further the plot or fix problems, but then couldn't use it for what they wanted to do when they needed it. That is a much bigger issue than not remembering exactly how a piece of technology functioned in an episode 20 years ago. A lot of poorly written shows and movies fall into this trap where they use something as a quick way to resolve problems, but then it conveniently doesn't work when they don't want it to.

 

[Tawnos]

Except going in and simply cutting off the claws was probably a lot easier in Landry’s mind than using the transporter, if such a thing is even possible to do with that kind of precision in the 23rd century.

 

[johnjm22]

Watched episode 4 last night.

This show seems more interested in its tech than it is in its characters.

It's boring. Poorly written. Our lead actress lacks charisma and has subpar acting abilities.

We live in a new golden age of television. There's tons of extremely well written dramas with great characters, dialog and acting. Discovery so far can't hold a candle to the quality shows of today in terms of its writing. Despite it's massive budget, it feels cheap.

Discovery has lush sets and overstuffed visuals (if you're into that), but that's all it's got going for itself thus far. Maybe it will get turned around, but the show is testing my patience.

 

[Guardian17]

I.....can't.....stand.....how.....slow.....the.....Klin...gons.....talk.

 

[Cloned]

It can both detect and destroy the shuttle, as it does when it tries to leave. If you remember the scene when the shuttle approaches though, Riker is spraying the area with some kind of energy burst to mask the shuttle, which also cuts power to drift in.


Yup, that's maybe an oversight. It's also plausible that the Genesis device couldn't be transported once activated. That wasn't his point though, almost every TV show ever has errors in it. He was talking about how they used a site to site transporter multiple times within this episode and the episodes before to further the plot or fix problems, but then couldn't use it for what they wanted to do when they needed it. That is a much bigger issue than not remembering exactly how a piece of technology functioned in an episode 20 years ago. A lot of poorly written shows and movies fall into this trap where they use something as a quick way to resolve problems, but then it conveniently doesn't work when they don't want it to.

This is the kind of justification I’m talking about though. People are willing to jump through hoops or use their own speculation to excuse an “oversight” in something they wanted to like, but can’t do the same in something they’ve already concluded isn’t worth liking.

No series or movie is perfect. If you’re watching something with an open mind to the possibility of liking it, you can acknowledge potential oversights without letting them destroy the viewing experience for you because you want to enjoy the whole rather than pick the whole apart into a million nitpickable pieces. If you go into something already convinced it’s trash and that everything that happens must somehow be wrong or have an oversight, then you see the type of overall critiques like the ones above. It seems like some of you guys are hyper-obsessed with over analyzing all the minutiae in every episode.

Can we not watch the series as Trek fans instead of acting like guardians of the Trek mythology at every turn?

 

[Osprey]

Why are you even asking these nitpicky type questions?

I'm asking because I'm having to defend my opinion. You're the one who challenged my opinion of the episode, not the other way around. If you would've left me to my opinion as I left you to yours, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Why is Locutus able to destroy the entire fleet at Wolf 359 but can't detect and destroy a small shuttlecraft approaching the Borg ship?

Every series has some head scratchers, but, in the case of TOS, TNG and even DS9, there's so much that's good that the few flaws are forgivable. There also generally weren't major head scratchers in nearly every episode.

Did you watch TWOK with this negative mindset going in? Or were you able to watch and enjoy it despite its inconsistencies because, on the whole, it's good Trek and good entertainment?

Yes, that's exactly it... and if Discovery ever becomes good Trek, I'll grant it the same leeway.

If it really irks you that much - and to me it seems like you absolutely hate it - then why are you still watching?

I could ask you the same thing when it comes to reading and criticizing me. Perhaps we both care amd don't like how we see Star Trek being treated.

 

[Cloned]

I'm asking because I'm having to defend my opinion. You're the one who challenged my opinion of the episode, not the other way around. If you would've left me to my opinion as I left you to yours, we wouldn't be having this conversation.



Every series has some head scratchers, but, in the case of TOS, TNG and even DS9, there's so much that's good that the few flaws are forgivable. There also generally weren't major head scratchers in nearly every episode.



Yes, that's exactly it... and if Discovery ever becomes good Trek, I'll grant it the same leeway.



I could ask you the same thing when it comes to reading and criticizing me. Perhaps we both care amd don't like how we see Star Trek being treated.

My issue with your comments is that seems like you’re not even giving the series a chance to be good. Like you’ve already become convinced that it’s bad - that everything about it is bad and that it has no redeeming qualities. Every post from you since this series started has been overwhelmingly negative, from nitpicking small details to viewing the entire series through a pessimistic lens because it doesn’t feel enough like Trek to you.

Frankly I don’t think you’ll ever give this series any “leeway” because I don’t think you can get past your preconceived notion that the series, and everything associated with it, is trash. Never mind that I can’t understand how you can continue to watch the series with that mindset - you’re admitting that you won’t give the series any leeway until it becomes good; how can it ever become good in your mind if don’t want to give it a chance?

Further to that point though: why are you still watching? Most people who hate a series after the first three episodes will stop watching it, and now that you’ve declared that episode 4 is the worst one yet, there really shouldn’t be a reason to put yourself through the obvious discomfort of having to watch a series you hate.

 

[Osprey]

He was talking about how they used a site to site transporter multiple times within this episode and the episodes before to further the plot or fix problems, but then couldn't use it for what they wanted to do when they needed it. That is a much bigger issue than not remembering exactly how a piece of technology functioned in an episode 20 years ago. A lot of poorly written shows and movies fall into this trap where they use something as a quick way to resolve problems, but then it conveniently doesn't work when they don't want it to.

That's exactly it. It's a dangerous trap to fall into (and this series has jumped in, rather than just fallen into it) because it means not only that they can get out of just about any situation by employing it, but, when they suddenly don't use it, it looks like a big plot hole. I imagine that that's why it's used sparingly in earlier Trek: the writers knew better and resisted the temptation to solve every problem on the show that way. I'm not sure if in-universe reasoning has ever been given, but I've always imagined there to be an increased risk of complications associated with site-to-site transport, perhaps related to all of the walls that it would have to pass through (like how a WiFi signal quickly degrades with each wall), great enough that it was used only in emergencies. Limitations such as that help ground the show in a little bit of realism (i.e. "it's the distant future, but not all inconveniences have been overcome yet") and keeps the writers honest.

That said, if this show were taking place after Voyager and site-to-site transport were presented as something that's now so safe that it can be used any time one wished, that'd be one thing. That would still be playing with fire, from a writing standpoint, but it would make some chronological sense. What doesn't make any sense is why, years after this series, Kirk and Picard and crew had to take the elevator and walk down long corridors to get to the transporter room in order to beam anywhere. It's understandable to not want to be shackled by the constraints of old TV shows, but, in that case, set it after those shows and you'll have a lot more freedom.

Our lead actress lacks charisma and has subpar acting abilities.

I complimented her acting a few weeks ago and felt that, if her role were written better, she could pull the character off better, but I started thinking last night that you might be right. Her character being insufferable could be as much her inability to make her likable as it is the writing. As you said, she lacks charisma, which is apparent in how she just stares off into space whenever she doesn't have a line to speak; then, she lights up and over-acts when she does have a line. It's OK to be respectful of the actor who's speaking and deliver your own lines with energy, but the bouncing between such extremes feels artificial.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

I thought it was a solid episode. The writing still leaves a lot to be desired in some instances, but so far, the last two episodes feel more like the Star Trek I'm accustomed to.

A few thoughts. Sorry if they've already been touched upon;

- I don't remember the Klingon language being this clunky and awkward in any of the other Trek series. I don't know if it's due to the dental prosthetics or just the way the language is written, but it is incredibly slow and doesn't sound like what I'd expect a Klingon to sound like. A lot of valuable screentime that could be devoted to other things is being wasted on their drawn out dialogue.

- Doug Jones continues to be a bright spot for me. A lot of potential with this character if the writers choose to develop him properly and don't shy away from solid characterization. It felt like his makeup was a lot lighter in this episode as he was able to emote better and we could see his visceral disgust with Michael during the scene in the turbolift.

- The augmented alien, Airiam, I think is her name, is just lazy. Instead of adding an Andorian or Tellarite to the bridge crew, I don't understand the decision to phone that one in with such a generic choice.

- I want to know what the bug face looking Alien is. One of the more interesting species I've seen on Star Trek.

- I don't have much of a problem with Landry's death scene. Death from stupidity on the part of redshirt's is as intrinsic to Star Trek tradition as anything else the series is known for.

- On another board, I pointed out that it looked like they were putting nipple clamps on the Tardigrade when the spore machine activated. You're welcome for that mental image.

- Curious to see how the show tackles the ethical debate regarding the Tardigrade. We've seen sentience and the enslavement of others as major themes before with The Doctor and Data but there's always been a level of empathy for the characters who are encompassed in the debate. The Tardigrade is decidedly alien and other without the ability to communicate so it will be interesting to see how the crew of the Discovery goes forward on this front.

- Hopefully we get some episodes that are lighter and more fun in nature this season. So far the 4 episodes have all been pretty dark in tone and Star Trek has always done a good job of throwing in a decent mix of the two.

 

[johnjm22]

I complimented her acting a few weeks ago and felt that, if her role were written better, she could pull the character off better, but I started thinking last night that you might be right. Her character being insufferable could be as much her inability to make her likable as it is the writing. As you said, she lacks charisma, which is apparent in how she just stares off into space whenever she doesn't have a line to speak; then, she lights up and over-acts when she does have a line. It's OK to be respectful of the actor who's speaking and deliver your own lines with energy, but the bouncing between such extremes feels artificial.

She always seems like she's trying really hard. Good actors make the profession feel effortless.