You may feel this way, but saying it about a dozen times a day still doesn't make it factual. I love all of you guys, the BBS is like one big family where everyone can disagree or simply just think 'wtf?!' sometimes...
Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons
- Thread starter Jedi_Master
- Start date
If a man shot you and others, you are laying among corpses playing dead, and the very same people who shot you, not the army but the same EXACT people within the same exact moment start to collect their dead, and you're only way to escape considering your own injuries was to booby trap one of the corpses in hopes it kills the very same men...
That isn't a war crime.
:: edit ::
Lorca leaving Mudd behind? that may be.
Read back okay, I never claimed to know what is or what is not considered a war time today. It wouldn't change my perception on the specific scene either.
G
Gonzo
Guest
If a spy is captured they have no rights whatsoever and often they are just executed, whereas a soldier is granted POW status and will be simply held in an internment camp until the end of the war.
Spy's who get caught by their enemies don't live very long.
War crimes are a separate matter that is decided at the end of a war by whomever wins, if the Axis powers (specifically Germany) had won WW2 its highly unlikely there actions would have been considered war crimes (even though they obviously were).
The victors get to decide these things and what to do about them.
Whether or not a spy has rights may be more of a question of acknowledgement.
If a nation will not recognize one of it's own spies if said spy was captured, a foreign nation usually gains nothing advertising it has caught a spy.
If it were however publically revealed that a nation, say, the USA was torturing a captured "spy" it would likely be found that we were violating said spy's rights.
To me, I feel that the writing has not been consistent and has lacked a focus. In going with one theory, that once the Bryan Fuller ideas were cleared away via the episodes, something more coherent started to show through and point more of a way toward what's been established in ENT and TOS.
And I agree, the BBS here is great, because I can talk about Trek (good or bad) and be understood with the references and history of it.
That was my argument as well, that the light bomb was a weapon of last resort because they had exhausted all their options and the enemy was closing in. So I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.
So, if you feel you can't trust him to act in his own best interest and help you escape, let him out of the cell and tell him to find his own way off the ship. But leaving him locked up to suffer and die is inhumane.
That's an out-of-universe explanation. We were dealing with purely in-universe explanations.
G
Gonzo
Guest
True but that rarely if ever comes up, if you capture an enemy spy on home turf they wont see the light of day again anyway and no one will know about them, there is no advantage to telling your enemy that you have one of their spies.
You would try to turn them first, that's when it can get complicated with double agents and triple agents.
Even if an enemy says they have captured one of your spies your government will just disavow them anyway, standard practice in the UK (MI6) and USA (CIA).
It still goes on today with a greater emphasis on hacking and smuggling of information.
Spies don't have any rights which is why they are either great spies or dead ones.
G
Gonzo
Guest
I was agreeing with you.
Lorca suspected that he would not be harmed as he was in league with the Klingons, the fact he didn't even have a scratch on him and seemed well fed supported this, having Ash Tyler there beaten to a pulp only reinforces that view, you could argue that the Klingons did that on purpose to ensure that Lorca would take Ash Tyler not Mudd, I would do the same.
It happened that way because the script/plot in the future requires it, sometimes in universe explanations are not enough, eventually we will see why the events played put the way they did.
We're still trying to figure out what constitutes a war crime in a fictional world set over two hundred years in the future.
I'm not sure that "war crimes" apply when the survival of your entire species in an intergalactic war is at hand.
Seems absolutely ridiculous...and nothing but a reason to nit.
Isn't that like a core trait for trek fans,
nitpicking?
nitpicking?
That's evading the point.
None of that is actually happening, of course.
The writers make this stuff up, you know? The writers decided that it would be a good idea for the characters to commit crimes and other cruelty. They have an absolute choice. They clearly believe that meanness is what will attract the most viewers. That is the only consideration.
Frankly, it's despicable.
You're assuming the writers want us to root for some of these characters in the sense they're good guys like all the other casts from previous shows.
Portraying a character in a "mean" fashion as a way to attract viewers isn't despicable.
You seem to think they believe "people are mean, and they want to see mean things, so we'll make a mean character that they like"
I don't think it's so specific, they created a type of person, this is how that person acts, and there is an environment around that person. People want to see the show because they want to know what the characters will do, not necessarily because they "revere" the character.
Reality is life aint fair and the world is mean and I'm not even sure the "mean-ness' being discussed is even out of line.
There's nothing admirable about being "a fan" of an unremarkable show like Discovery.
Only TRUMP SUPPORTERS would like these characters and this show,
cause the Klingons are brown, and the captain is mean.
/srcsm
No.
They believe - with reason - that people like to watch violence on television. They like to watch cruelty on television. They like to watch terrible people doing terrible things on television. So if the studio is spending eight million dollars an episode on Star Trek in order to get people to pay to watch it, it will be a war story filled with violence and cruelty and meanness.
They're being rewarded for that, to a point. They don't need to create a great show that creates a huge new following, after all. They just need to sign up a few million households, not even enough to keep a network TV series securely on the air.
Similar threads
