Likely not, but how do you compare her crimes to Sisko's - and is he a just hero in your eyes?
The age of the antihero
- Thread starter Refuge
- Start date
I haven't watched much of DS9. I see Burnham's crimes as what they are without comparison.
I think it depends on the character. I mean I think we all think that Darth Vadar, killing the emperor was a great moment where you see that he has chosen his son and found his way back to the light.
With Lorca, like I mentioned above I think he is someone who does care but his trauma has made him compromised and he lets his fear and anger overide his empathy at times, but not all the time. I also felt really bad in that scene where he woke up choking the Admiral and having a gun on him. You could see real terror in his eyes. The actor did a great job in that scene. In fact I think that scene, defines the character more than any other scene on the series. He is a broken and scared man just barely holding it together and in denial as well.
Jason
VOYAGER's cast had a convict and fugitives. I don't see the issue with DISCOVERY featuring such questionable characters.
Cornwell's reaction to Lorca was correct in that scene. She didn't react to him like he was some compelling, kick arse Captain who was fighting a Klingon war. The anti-hero who goes his own way and whose tortured past is forgiven because he's interesting and gets results. She saw a damaged man who had manipulated his previous psych tests to become Captain of Discovery. This is a someone she knew when he was at the same level as her, a friend and a man she had just had sex with. He threatened her. That is not interesting, or cool, or admirable, or excusable. So what if he was scared? It's not all about him. What does he do next? Pleads for his job. Then all but throws her under the bus when she is captured. That she ends up being dispatched somewhere for medical treatment and he is offered a medal is almost laughable. A decent moral character is sidelined while Lorca in all likelihood sets a course to nowhere, running like a coward.
Demonstrably untrue. See flying into the path of Klingon torpedoes.
His whole crew dead and him still alive, speaks to his arse being saved and theirs not.
That's a good point. I think anti-hero might not be the right label. He might be the troublemaker who both helps and hurts the hero at times. Someone like Spike on "Buffy" or Baltar on "Battlestar Galatica." I'm not sure if I have ever seen that role be played by a character in a position of authority. Which is why I can see him at some point loosing his job but still staying on the show, if they can keep the actor that is.
Jason
Of course we have no idea of the real circumstances of that. We do know that he risked his own life to save the Gagarin. But the confirmation bias here is pretty impenetrable.
Han Solo was an anti-hero.
Here is how I would look at the difference between him and Luke;
Luke earnestly wants what is best for society; things like truth, justice and democracy. He has a feeling that these things are wiser ways toward a healthier world than the Empire's prejudice, violence and hypocrisy. He knows expedient solutions leads to new tyranny. He is able to see imperial crimes and quickly empathise, understanding the feelings of the downtrodden intuitively, and understanding wisdom intuitively.
Han is a realist, who looks out for himself and his close friends before any high ideals like democracy, because circumstance has forced him to be scrupulously rational and practical to survive in such a hostile galaxy, and ignore his conscious about the empire because acting on it would get him killed. He distrusts authority; religion or state. But he isn't above showing kindness to people when he can, and sympathising with others.
So I guess Han has the discernment of a top scientist; probably greater analytical discernment than Luke.
He isn't a conventional hero, but neither is he a bad man; being like that gives him the power to act cunningly.
But Luke has the wisdom of a peacemaker, able to see the bigger picture, like Martin Luther King or something.
And terrorist fugitives at that.
Yeah, totally new and inexplicable concept. Glad we didn't have complicated heroes in the past like Oedipus or Henry V or Gilgamesh..
Why does it matter how Dukat sees himself? If he thinks he's a hero (which I'm sure he does, actually), he's simply wrong.
And anyone who thinks there are no heroes in Trek...well, I should think Jim Kirk would fit the bill. Perhaps where no other Trek captain would.
The only character on the show who fits the definition of anti-hero might be Lorca. Certainly not Burnham.
Burnham made a grave error, but she did so following a very familiar piece of logic: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. She knew what she was doing was mutiny. She isn't stupid; she knew she was risking her career. But she did what she did because she wanted to save lives, prospectively innumerable lives. We should be able to respect her deep regard for life while also recognizing that she made an exceptional poor choice.
But she's not an antihero. Tom Paris, another convinced criminal, is closer to antihero status than Burnham.
Burnham made a grave error, but she did so following a very familiar piece of logic: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. She knew what she was doing was mutiny. She isn't stupid; she knew she was risking her career. But she did what she did because she wanted to save lives, prospectively innumerable lives. We should be able to respect her deep regard for life while also recognizing that she made an exceptional poor choice.
But she's not an antihero. Tom Paris, another convinced criminal, is closer to antihero status than Burnham.
With Lorca one thing to consider is even if we don't see him as a antihero it doesn't mean he can't become that character. I think his secrets would need to be revealed first before that happens. If he is exposed or even undergoes a private transformation I could see it happening.
For example in the alternate universe or universes he doesn't have Starfleet to look to for support. He has no Klingon War or threat to him loosing command. He could get really focused on the goal of getting them home and setting a plan in emotion to do it, even if the plan puts risks on him and him alone.
Jason
For example in the alternate universe or universes he doesn't have Starfleet to look to for support. He has no Klingon War or threat to him loosing command. He could get really focused on the goal of getting them home and setting a plan in emotion to do it, even if the plan puts risks on him and him alone.
Jason
If it were Kirk or Picard disobeying orders? No one would bat an eye.
How many stories exist out there that create that hero rising from the ashes? How about Les Miserables?
Has that for a cameo?
Yes.
Because that's what makes him a character with depth and personality, rather than a one dimensional cartoon bad guy. He's not a faceless 'evil force' for our heroes to fight against (as some of Trek's less interesting villains are), he's an interesting and engaging character in his own right.Why does it matter how Dukat sees himself? If he thinks he's a hero (which I'm sure he does, actually), he's simply wrong.
What makes a story watchable is to be able to empathize (i.e. root for, care about) characters. If all they do is behave badly, then few well-adjusted individuals can do that. If you can't care about characters, well, you stop watching.
We're living in a nihilistic age in which "realistic" seems to be equated with evil, and when everyone's evil, the concept of good and evil no longer has any meaning. That's a perfectly valid world-view but it's not one people associate with Star Trek.
This is more like it.
I agree entirely. However I assume your hidden point is that Discovery is a nihilistic viewpoint in which everyone is evil, with which I very much disagree.
The movie in which all our crew commit a series of crimes to further their own agenda? Indeed, shades of grey presenting interesting character dynamics are present in that movie. However, I swear if Lorca said the line "The word... is no. I am therefore going anyway" Refuge would be touting it as unassailable proof that Lorca is a corrupt amoral villain.
Thank you!
