Categories
Politics

La broma de la silla Discoverys Rayner Captains tiene inspiración en la vida real

[ad_1]

Advertencia: contiene spoilers de Star Trek: Discovery, temporada 5, episodio 9, “Lagrange Point”.

resumen

  • La evolución de Rayner desde que evitó la silla del capitán hasta finalmente tomar el mando refleja una verdadera inspiración de Sonequa Martin-Green, quien esperó un momento importante del personaje.
  • La actitud sensata de Reiner y su trágico trasfondo lo convirtieron en un líder respetado y eficaz en la quinta temporada de Star Trek: Discovery, ganándose la confianza de su equipo.
  • La interpretación de Callum Keith Rennie de Reiner como un gran líder en la temporada 5 de Discovery es lo más destacado, ya que muestra sus habilidades de redención y liderazgo a través de misiones difíciles.

Una broma sobre el comandante Reiner (Callum Keith Rennie) evitando la silla del capitán. Star Trek: Descubrimiento La temporada 5, episodio 9, “Lagrange Point” tiene inspiración del mundo real. en Descubrimiento La temporada 5, episodio 9, “Lagrange Point”, escrito por Sean Cochran y Ari Friedman, y dirigido por Jonathan Frakes, termina con Reiner finalmente colocado en el asiento del medio a bordo del USS Discovery. Desde su degradación en Star Trek: Descubrimiento temporada 5 episodio 2, “Reiner ha evitado la silla del capitán.”como la plaga“, prefiriendo en cambio deambular por el puente durante las misiones..

La negativa de Reiner a sentarse en la silla del capitán es un reflejo de sus temores de que la tripulación del USS Discovery no sea “suya” y que sus acciones pasadas signifiquen que no merece la silla. Afortunadamente, al final Star Trek: Descubrimiento En la temporada 5, episodio 9, Reiner finalmente supera esto y toma el asiento del medio. Será el comandante Reiner quien lidere el USS Discovery en una misión de rescate para rescatar al capitán Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) en el mar. Descubrimiento el fin. Además de las motivaciones del personaje de Reiner, también hay una verdadera inspiración detrás de su negativa a sentarse en la silla del capitán.

Relacionado

Star Trek: Discovery Temporada 5, elenco que regresa y nueva guía de personajes

Mientras Burnham busca el tesoro más grande del universo en la temporada 5 de Star Trek: Discovery, necesitará la ayuda de una gran cantidad de personajes nuevos y recurrentes.

Star Trek: el chiste de la silla del Capitán Discovery Reiner se inspiró en Sonequa Martin-Green

Reiner evitó la silla del capitán. Star Trek: Descubrimiento es una referencia a una decisión tomada por Sonequa Martin-Green durante las tres primeras temporadas del programa. Sonequa Martin-Green evitó deliberadamente sentarse en la silla del capitán durante tres añosPensó que el momento tendría más impacto si esperaba hasta el ascenso oficial del Burnham. En una entrevista con la Academia de Televisión (trad. Emmys.com), Sonequa Martin-Green explicó su decisión de evitar el asiento del medio del USS Discovery:

Recuerdo haber pensado: “Cuando sea el turno de Michael, será mi turno”. Entonces me sentaré cuando ella lo haga. Nunca se me ha escapado lo importante que fue ese momento para el personaje, para mí, como actor, y para la historia y Star Trek en su conjunto. Quería probarlo cuando lo hizo Michael y estoy muy feliz y satisfecho con eso.

El momento al final Star Trek: Descubrimiento Ciertamente, la temporada 3 en la que Burnham finalmente se convierte en capitán es un momento satisfactorio que demuestra que Sonequa Martin-Green hizo bien en esperar. Callum Keith-Rennie no tiene el mismo lujo de tiempo Descubrimiento Temporada 5, pero no resta valor al impacto de la escena de la silla del capitán. El momento de la silla del Capitán Rainer Descubrimiento Es increíblemente divertido de ver, ya que asegura a la audiencia y a la tripulación del barco que el mando del USS Discovery está en manos muy capaces.

Por sugerencia de su director Jonathan Frakes, Callum Keith Rennie realiza la “Maniobra Picard”, levantando la parte delantera de su disfraz antes de sentarse en la silla del capitán.

Star Trek: Discovery demostró que Reiner es un gran líder

Si bien Reiner pudo haber cometido errores como capitán del USS Antares, se redimió muy rápidamente. Star Trek: Descubrimiento Quinta temporada. El estilo sensato de Reiner puede haberlo puesto en desacuerdo con la tripulación del Discovery inicialmente, pero fue una forma eficaz de comprender a cada miembro de la tripulación del puente. La trágica historia de fondo de Reiner también sirvió como una fortaleza más que como una debilidad durante la crisis diplomática con el Imperio Breen. Ocupe el lugar de su capitán en el descubrimiento, Reiner rescató la ISS Enterprise del universo de bolsillo y lanzó un atrevido ataque contra el Breen Dreadnought..


Star Trek: Descubrimiento

La temporada 5, episodio 7, “Erigah” reveló que Breen Imperium invadió el mundo natal de Kellerun, matando a toda la familia de Rayner.

Desde las promesas de puré de cítricos de Kellerun hasta el reconocimiento de los logros de su tripulación, Reiner se ganó la confianza de todos los oficiales del USS Discovery. Ésta es la marca de un gran capitán, y sólo los grandes capitanes pueden convencer a su tripulación de estrellar su nave directamente contra la bahía de lanzadera del Brain Dreadnought. Reiner fue la mejor incorporación a Star Trek: Descubrimiento Fue elegido para la temporada 5 y es muy decepcionante que la cancelación de la temporada 6 signifique que no tendremos más de Reiner, Capitán, etc.


Star Trek: Descubrimiento

El final se transmite por Paramount+ a partir del jueves 30 de mayo.

MV5BNjg1NTc2MDktZTU5Ni00OTZiLWIyNjQtN2FhNGY4MzAxNmZkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ@@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_
Star Trek: Descubrimiento

Star Trek: Discovery es un spin-off de la legendaria serie de ciencia ficción, ambientado diez años antes de los eventos de la serie original de Star Trek. El espectáculo se centra en el comandante Michael Burnham, asignado al USS Discovery, mientras la tripulación intenta evitar una guerra klingon mientras viaja a través de la inmensidad del espacio.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

Divas, captains, ghosts, ants and bumble-bees: collaborator attitudes explained

[ad_1]

Two cubic and sphere shaped avatars made out of multi-coloured fabric against a grey background.

It takes all sorts: different collaborators approach projects in different ways, and managing relationships between them is a crucial challenge.Credit: Andriy Onufriyenko/Getty

As a psychologist, I’m equipped with a theoretical understanding of emotions, attitudes, beliefs and behaviour – and, because of this, I might reasonably be expected to manage relationships with collaborators effectively. Some of my best memories of collaboration involve teamwork in which we have made space to speak explicitly about our emotions, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours with empathy and compassion. But it would be naive of me to think that all my collaborations will flow smoothly and easily.

Some time ago, I found myself venting about a difficult collaboration by capturing my emotions on paper. I created personas with whom to have imaginary dialogues, and used humour to detach myself from the situation and gain perspective. I then reflected on how everyone in the team had contributed to the mess we were in, and I made an effort to take responsibility for my own reactions in the situation. Finally, I reflected on what I could do differently in future.

My research looks at the meaning we give to the use of silence in our everyday lives, and to the promotion of mental health and well-being through writing groups. Therefore, taking the time to write about the challenges I faced in one of my projects felt natural.

The personas I created fitted five collaborator attitudes. The list is far from comprehensive and often veers into stereotype, but I’ve found it helpful, and sometimes funny, to think about academic collaborations in this way, so as to better manage interpersonal relationships.

Five collaborator attitudes

Which of these personas have you encountered in your collaborations?

• The ‘diva’ brings visibility to a project because they have already published on the topic, or are on the cover of magazines. However, they often expect to be a co-author by default, because they are enrolled in the project, present themselves as immensely busy, expect others to adapt to their calendars, show little room for compromise or rush into sketching bullet points that others need to decipher and elaborate on. When they do share their knowledge, they can quickly help the team become unstuck.

• The ‘captain’ gives a sense of direction to a manuscript, and can bring the whole team with them when at their best. Their authoritative style fits the conventional supervisor–supervisee dynamic, in which the supervisee receives a to-do list of corrections. And if the manuscript contains a typo, the captain comments on it rather than correcting it themselves.

• The ‘ghost’ appears and disappears. Sometimes they’re available and committed, but occasionally they’re hard to find, slowing decision-making and confusing the rest of the team. Getting this person on a call or to a meeting might be difficult. They do eventually attend to their tasks, even if delayed. If there is active conflict, their quietness might inspire others to pause and reflect.

• The ‘ant’ is reliable and available. Even when busy, they find time for a short call or to answer a crucial question by e-mail. Their egos are small, and both their contributions and their feedback are constructive. They are also conciliatory when conflict arises. But their neutrality can be frustrating, and sometimes it doesn’t help to resolve a conflict.

• The ‘bumble bee’ is hard-working, humble and efficient. They reply quickly and compromise on dilemmas around deadlines, schedules and tasks. They tend to feel more weighed down than others when conflict arises. If they end up taking on more responsibilities than necessary to keep the boat afloat, they risk overreacting to missed deadlines or misunderstandings.

That reciprocal feeling

We don’t always have the freedom to choose who we work with, so count yourself lucky if your team includes ants, bumble bees or both. Aim to collaborate with people who actively reflect on the potential biases of their scientific thinking, and who can compromise after a discussion, or even admit they were wrong. Pay attention to the words they use to refer to younger scholars, and whether they prefer to give commands than to propose shared responsibilities. Do you feel reciprocity when you approach them, or do you sit with the gut feeling that communication goes only one way, because they sit above you in a certain hierarchy?

We all risk showing attitudes typical of divas, captains and ghosts when we are stressed, demotivated or busy. In addition, burn-out can be around the corner for ants and bumble bees.

This is why, if you want to submit a grant proposal or an article within a given deadline and survive the process, you should make a cooperation agreement with co-authors as soon as possible. Here’s how to do it.

Five people in a conference room co-creating a problem statement at Design Thinking Bootcamp, March 2024, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Olga Lehmann (back, centre) works with her team on a cooperation agreement.Credit: Design Thinkers Academy, Netherlands

Personalize cooperation agreements. Cooperation agreements are contracts between collaborators that lay out some general rules of behaviour. They should be a team effort, and not only the priority of a principal investigator. Make clear at a meeting what you all expect from each other as collaborators. This could, for example, include a commitment that every author reads entire drafts, and not only sections of it, or set out what would happen if the product of the project is commercialized. What seems obvious to you might not be a given for your colleague. Clarify how to deliver and receive feedback, such as pointing to what others have done well, and try to honour and understand that there might be cultural differences in how people express their points of view.

Decide what should happen when. Agree when co-authors are to put their hands on the keyboard (to correct a typo, for example), and when they should make side comments for others to work on (to clarify the meaning of an idea, for instance, or the significance of results in a previous study).

Build meetings into the schedule. I regret the times I did not allocate enough time for meetings. This led to e-mails being the main means of communication, and a fast-track for misunderstandings. The collaborations that have worked best for me included regular check-in meetings, in person or remotely — with actions sent to those who could not attend, along with a short video or written summary. I often returned to these minutes when in doubt, which helped me to feel effective in my communication. Scheduling periodic check-ins to discuss the collaboration process is a worthwhile investment, even if it takes some effort to make calendars coincide.

Make a conflict-management plan. Agreements that focus only on the distribution of tasks are naive. What happens, for example, if co-authors disagree on the interpretation of data, the theories around it, or how tasks are allocated? Don’t wait until conflict jumps into your office uninvited.

Expect conflict to emerge in one way or another, and be prepared for it with a plan of action. Will the entire team be on board to make decisions if disagreements occur? When will an external adviser be contacted? What should be kept in e-mail format, and when should people have a call? Ask all your team members the same questions, and write the answers in a common document. We all have blind spots, and we need one another to gain insight, which is difficult when running against the clock or dealing with chaotic group dynamics when divas, captains and ghosts are on board.

Give people the benefit of the doubt. Show empathy to others, while holding them accountable. Trust that most of the co-authors want to submit a clear, structured and promising manuscript to a journal or funding agency. Perhaps a co-author is going through the break-up of a relationship, or a bereavement, or is closing a book deal. Maybe they are not as familiar as you are with the features of the writing platform you are using. Be kind, rather than officious, when redirecting people to what stands in the cooperation agreement.

Have an emergency exit available. “Don’t take it personally” is often good advice, but sometimes things do get personal in academia. As a young scholar, I have been afraid to be direct when people have undermined my competence or will. Power dynamics are a part of most early-career researchers’ daily lives, and you cannot force someone listen to you if they are committed to misinterpreting your intentions or have a rigid mindset that obstructs working collaboratively.

As passionate as you might be about your science, you do not need to bear disrespect to be published. If you feel that is happening, consider telling someone else at your workplace, arrange to postpone deadlines until conflict is sorted, talk to a counsellor or even report the situation to your institution’s ethics committee or funding agency, if necessary.

Fair’s fair

We need to break free from impractical and unfair co-authoring attitudes that cost us money and time, and threaten our mental health. To do so, we must be more intentional about the relational process that writing a scientific article or application entails. Whether the first author of an article or a grant application is a junior or a senior scholar, all co-authors should honour what writing collaboratively is about. It is fair to expect the actual work that someone has put into a manuscript to be a central criterion for co-authorship status.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link