The age of the antihero

[O_Kav]

If your characters are going to do something that is not the most likely course of action, you should show the audience.

That's like saying that after installing the Transporter onboard the NX, ENT should've shown us which way every single character arrived on the ship, because the transporter was a new technology and most people would still prefer arriving by shuttle instead of having their molecules scrambled through space.

If they tried to explain every little detail to justify every scene we would end up with 3-hour long Episodes. There's things the audience can handle. You don't need to explain everything because there's stuff that is just self-explanatory.

 

[Myko]

You don't need to explain everything because there's stuff that is just self-explanatory.

I agree. In my opinion the stuff surrounding the telescope was not self-explanatory. The existence of the discussion in this thread supports my opinion.

 

[zar]

"If your characters are going to do something that is not the most likely course of action, you should show the audience."
"There's having to read behind the lines and there's having to guess between the lines."

@Myko I agree with your sentiment, which is exactly why we should not assume there was a separate mission returning to the Binary Stars, or that auto-destruct normally occurs after an evacuation, or that Starfleet officers are extensively trained to never take anything with them (I suppose Dukat was a fool for thinking Sisko's baseball left behind was a "message" instead of realizing Starfleet always does that and in fact everything else being taken was the real anomaly!) We're not shown any of those things.

What's happened in this thread is people creating these new, unnecessary assumptions and injecting them into the story in order to create plot holes where none existed in the first place. It's already perfectly coherent if we just take what we were shown at face value. Namely, that no one had standing orders to destroy the Shenzhou and that at least one person took the time to grab an item before leaving. These are immediately apparent and simple concepts that don't contradict anything we've seen before.

 

[fireproof78]

What's happened in this thread is people creating these new, unnecessary assumptions and injecting them into the story in order to create plot holes where none existed in the first place. It's already perfectly coherent if we just take what we were shown at face value. Namely, that no one had standing orders to destroy the Shenzhou and that at least one person took the time to grab an item before leaving. These are immediately apparent and simple concepts that don't contradict anything we've seen before.

I would say /thread but I know that won't be the end

 

[Psion]

The fact that they retrieved the scope but did not disable the power core still shows that it's a plot hole. The only thing that can resolve it is the argument that one of the crew members just happened to be near the captain's quarters or the place where the telescope was found and got it. But since there's no evidence of that, then the plot hole remains.

BTW, there are more plot holes and writing problems in the show, and to remain on-topic, we can connect them to the topic thread. That is, some plot holes involve characters lacking common sense, and the reason for that lack may be one point used to explain why they are anti-heroes.

It isn't a plot hole, it's simply unexplained. Stories often skip trivial details and the reader/viewer is left to fill in the blanks. When Holmes and Watson arrive at remote location to investigate a case after an interview with their client, do you consider it a plot hole if you're not told exactly what manner of conveyance they employed to arrive at their destination? Of course not, such pedantic story telling is left to the reader's imagination. They could have taken a train or a carriage. Perhaps they rode on horseback. Or maybe they just plain walked. In the same manner, Georgiou's telescope was somehow recovered, and there's no need to show that exact scene. It's easy to think of many different paths it could have followed to go from the Shenzhou to the Discovery.

Plausible explanations for the dilithium processor have also been presented. Again ... no hole. You want every eye dotted and every tea crossed, but this isn't a cross-examination or a scientific experiment, it's a story.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I don't remember, was it explicitly stated that Saru or someone recovered the telescope during the evacuation, and not during a later salvage operation?

If it was during the evacuation I think it was bad writing because it is not plausible to recover a telescope during a time-critical situation, without showing us that it happened. If your characters are going to do something that is not the most likely course of action, you should show the audience.

If it was in a later salvage operation I think it was bad writing because they should have destroyed the ship or in some other manner deal with the Klingon ship or give us an explanation on screen as to why either didn't happen.

The answer is yes. It was bad writing.

 

[Refuge]

Well guys to be fair this thread was about the protagonists and antihero status (and qualities) to current Star Trek and how the writers have performed. NOT that I personally have any ownership of it and have any problems with it evaluating behaviour of the characters especially if it illustrates such behaviour (or not depending on one's view).

Of course discussions of the Second World War are every interesting and even other Trek. However clearly Starfleet has protocol to at least have a Captain be able to destroy a ship. In 'Discovery', not other Trek or the Second World War but the show we are watching, the Glenn and the Buran were destroyed. We also know the Shenzhou had resources the enemy used. That was a failing of Starfleet to allow that to happen or poor writing. The crew of the Shenzhou saved a telescope be it in evacuation or later. Yet at either juncture left a floating ship available for the enemy to exploit - dumb. Dumb Starfleet and dumb writing.

 

[Refuge]

I agree. In my opinion the stuff surrounding the telescope was not self-explanatory. The existence of the discussion in this thread supports my opinion.

The telescope is the smoking gun to be honest. It is the thing that people can't explain or divert away. The thing that made its way to Michael and proves that there was time to do something else with the Shenhou but no one did.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

You do realize that the main ships featured prominently in the shows and movies are armed?

FLINT: Look at your starship, bristling with weapons. Its mission to colonize, exploit, destroy, if necessary, to advance Federation causes.
KIRK: [to Rayna] Thank you. [to Flint] Our missions are peaceful, our weapons defensive.

The only "main ship featured prominently" that was designed for battle was the Defiant, initially developed specifically in response to the truly extraordinary existential threat of the Borg, but quickly abandoned as soon as that threat subsided somewhat. Then when the new threat of the Dominion presented itself, she was pulled into service...to be used as tool of diplomacy! And Tom Paris may have joked once that Voyager was optimized for combat performance over musical performance, but there was never any suggestion she was built for the purpose of fighting wars.

One of the main themes of "The Vulcan Hello"/"Battle At The Binary Stars" is that Starleet was so committed to lofty ideals of coming in peace and not firing first that they allowed themselves to be led into a slaughter! Yes, Starfleet are inept at waging war...because that isn't their main purpose! It's a role they are indeed well-equipped to play technologically, yet one they are constitutionally reluctant to a fault in actually playing, with an almost pathological need for it to be outright forced on them before they will rise to it. The Klingons did just that, and now the Feds have had to scramble to meet the task. That's how the story of DSC touches off.

Speaking of which, remember how Bryan Fuller described "Balance Of Terror" as a "touchstone" for DSC?

KIRK: What you do not know and must be told is that my command orders on this subject are precise and inviolable. No act, no provocation, will be considered sufficient reason to violate the Zone. We may defend ourselves, but if necessary to avoid inter-space war, both these outposts and this vessel will be considered expendable.

Starfleet has pretty much always been more willing to turn the other cheek than to strike back, until they have no other option. And it's always been foolish of them from the standpoint of a military mindset. But that's how they roll in the good ol' UF of P.

Lorca blew up the Buran too. I guess his crew were valuable resources. Move the goal posts again and again and it still doesn't negate that these ships can and have been destroyed. That Starfleet has no trouble doing it if they choose and twice on 'Discovery' have proven that.

So you now think Lorca was following standard Starfleet protocol when he did that? And here I thought you considered him a cold-blooded sociopathic murderer for it. Talk about moving the goal posts!

Many of the things Lorca does are decidedly un-Starfleet in character, with respect to most of what we've come to know of Starfleet before now. (Or are they?) He represents in extremis the "beast unleashed" of a Starfleet at war, all naiveté cast off...cut loose the anchor, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead into the maelstrom of battle, do or die in the moment, and leave it until later to worry about the trauma and damage it may be causing you and others, as you run the risk of losing your grip on the very ideals you set out to defend in the first place, of finding yourself adrift with the currents of conflict, unsure of your way back to shore.

For good or ill, Lorca is a creature born out of this war with the Klingons, in response to the pressures of it, forged in its flames.

The auto-destruct system (also known as self-destruct or destruct sequence) was a starship system that allowed the total destruction of the vessel. This was typically activated as a last resort, usually to prevent a ship from falling into enemy hands.

Can you remind me when exactly Starfleet ever actually used it for that purpose in a situation akin to that of the Shenzhou, let alone "typically"? Maybe there were a few times in the later shows that I'm not recalling at the moment.

I just re-watched TOS though, and I remember Kirk considering it in "By Any Other Name" and chickening out, and making a deliberate bluff of it in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," and using the abandoned Constellation to take out "The Doomsday Machine" much as he was prepared to do again with V'Ger in (at least some cuts of) TMP. And I do remember "The Adversary" (DS9) where Sisko was prepared to destroy the Defiant in order to prevent a war from being started with the Tzenkethi, and in First Contact when Picard was going to destroy the Enterprise-E after the Borg already had control of it and were about to wipe out the Federation's entire timeline. And I remember when Janeway was going to do it to destroy a Cardassian WMD in "Dreadnought" (VGR), and when her double did it so the real Voyager could survive in "Deadlock," and then when she tried to do it in "Basics" when the Kazon were taking over the ship...and it wouldn't work. And then Picard tried it again in Nemesis to take out the Scimitar...and it wouldn't work.

Hey wait, I remember now! There was that one time in "11001001" (TNG) when Picard said they had to do it to stop the ship from falling into hostile hands! Yet there again, much as in the case of the Glenn, the vessel in question was a brand-new, top-of-the-line model...the Federation flagship no less! And fully-functioning, to boot.

(Oh, and there was also that other time in "Where Silence Has Lease" when Picard was going to do it to save half the crew from being tortured to death by Nagilum. Holy shit, I guess Lorca's not as un-Starfleet as I thought, after all! And to think how I always used to love Plinkett's spiel about how "there are two Picards...the TV show Picard, who's this enlightened intellectual; he only uses violence as a last resort, and he always follows his conscience and a strict code of ethics...but then in the movies, Picard's a crazed, violent pyschopath." How did he miss this one? Must have been making a pizza roll or torturing someone in his basement or something.)

-MMoM

 

[zar]

Well guys to be fair this thread was about the protagonists and antihero status (and qualities) to current Star Trek and how the writers have performed. NOT that I personally have any ownership of it and have any problems with it evaluating behaviour of the characters especially if it illustrates such behaviour (or not depending on one's view).

Of course discussions of the Second World War are every interesting and even other Trek. However clearly Starfleet has protocol to at least have a Captain be able to destroy a ship. In 'Discovery', not other Trek or the Second World War but the show we are watching, the Glenn and the Buran were destroyed. We also know the Shenzhou had resources the enemy used. That was a failing of Starfleet to allow that to happen or poor writing. The crew of the Shenzhou saved a telescope be it in evacuation or later. Yet at either juncture left a floating ship available for the enemy to exploit - dumb. Dumb Starfleet and dumb writing.

Okay, so you think we should ignore all other Trek and limit our analysis to 9 episodes of Discovery - and in doing so conclude that exactly two examples (Buran and Glenn) constitute clear proof that Starfleet protocol is to destroy defeated ships and therefore any other example of ships not destroyed are anomalies and therefore bad writing. That's some remarkable acrobatics there.

I guess you've accidentally solved the original dilemma of the thread, though: Blowing up the Buran was never Lorca's fault. It's Starfleet protocol!

 

[Refuge]

Okay, so you think we should ignore all other Trek and limit our analysis to 9 episodes of Discovery - and in doing so conclude that exactly two examples (Buran and Glenn) constitute clear proof that Starfleet protocol is to destroy defeated ships and therefore any other example of ships not destroyed are anomalies and therefore bad writing. That's some remarkable acrobatics there.

I guess you've accidentally solved the original dilemma of the thread, though: Blowing up the Buran was never Lorca's fault. It's Starfleet protocol!

I never said that at all. Talk away, it's all good.

 

[Refuge]

So you now think Lorca was following standard Starfleet protocol when he did that? And here I thought you considered him a cold-blooded sociopathic murderer for it. Talk about moving the goal posts!

I think he is antihero and damaged. However I was asked if Starfleet destroyed ships and he clearly has destroyed two and still is a captain. Starfleet seems to have no trouble with him doing that, although he did lie on his psych tests regards how he was coping with the Buran.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

clearly Starfleet has protocol to at least have a Captain be able to destroy a ship...

... under circumstances where the ship is likely to be captured and used offensively against the crew or other Federation citizens. In the case of the thoroughly disabled Shenzhou, there is exactly ZERO chance of this actually happening, so detonating the ship is seen as thoroughly unnecessary.

We also know the Shenzhou had resources the enemy used. That was a failing of Starfleet to allow that to happen or poor writing.

Of the (at least) seven times Starfleet has abandoned whole starships in place without bothering to demolish them, Shenzhou is the first and only time an "enemy" ever salvaged something useful from it, and even in this case, the salvage wound up not actually mattering at all.

So Starfleet's failure to do something that never mattered before and technically doesn't matter now is "bad writing" somehow?

The crew of the Shenzhou saved a telescope be it in evacuation or later. Yet at either juncture left a floating ship available for the enemy to exploit - dumb.

Indeed. Matt Decker, Ronald Tracey, Jean Luc Picard (twice), Balthazar Edison, Ben Sisko, Cathryn Janeway (twice), Jonathan Archer (twice) and Montgommery Scott are all very dumb people who should have self destructed their derelict ships and shuttlecraft on the off chance that some Klingon hobo might stumble on their wreckage and manage to extract something even remotely valuable from it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The telescope is the smoking gun to be honest. It is the thing that people can't explain or divert away. The thing that made its way to Michael and proves that there was time to do something else with the Shenhou but no one did.

For the last time, it wasn't a question of not having TIME to do "something else" with the Shenzhou. It was their not having a REASON to do anything else to it. The ship, which was already well past its prime, was wrecked and completely disabled; the only thing valuable on the ship would be the data in its computer core, and erasing that would have taken Saru all of fifteen seconds at a science console on his way out of the door. He could have easily done that with the telescope tucked under one arm and then strolled lazily to the escape pod, taking a moment to nostalgically glance around the bridge as he did.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think he is antihero and damaged. However I was asked if Starfleet destroyed ships

No. You were asked to demonstrate with examples your theory that scuttling disabled vessels to prevent them from being captured by the enemy was standard procedure for Starfleet. So far you have failed to do so.

Starfleet seems to have no trouble with him doing that

I'm beginning to see why you keep getting accused of moving the goalposts... where does "We have no trouble with you doing this" become evidence for "You have standing orders to do this every time you find yourself in this or any similar situation?"

 

[Refuge]

... under circumstances where the ship is likely to be captured and used offensively against the crew or other Federation citizens. In the case of the thoroughly disabled Shenzhou, there is exactly ZERO chance of this actually happening, so detonating the ship is seen as thoroughly unnecessary.


Of the (at least) seven times Starfleet has abandoned whole starships in place without bothering to demolish them, Shenzhou is the first and only time an "enemy" ever salvaged something useful from it, and even in this case, the salvage wound up not actually mattering at all.

So Starfleet's failure to do something that never mattered before and technically doesn't matter now is "bad writing" somehow?


Indeed. Matt Decker, Ronald Tracey, Jean Luc Picard (twice), Balthazar Edison, Ben Sisko, Cathryn Janeway (twice), Jonathan Archer (twice) and Montgommery Scott are all very dumb people who should have self destructed their derelict ships and shuttlecraft on the off chance that some Klingon hobo might stumble on their wreckage and manage to extract something even remotely valuable from it.

This numbers game of trying to water down what we have seen on 'Discovery' itself is not relevant to its story. The Klingon/Federation war has given the likes of a Lorca discretion. He's a war monger and now further damaged by the killing of his crew that he escaped. I can't point that out enough, he escaped. Captains don't do that and expect not be a anti-hero. So Starfleet accepted his reasons, endorsed them in fact and gave him Discovery like a reward. He had no problem destroying the Glenn. Note the point here, that either by self-destruct or torpedoes, there is a facility to destroy ships by Captains discretion.

The Shenzhou lost her captain and if the second or third in charge had the ability to destroy her they should have. Because they may have gotten away with resources not being exploited in the past, well the future, or whenever, is not a good argument. It is also not a good argument to discount when they could've done it. That blessed telescope and the time frame of 6 months of the ship being abandoned tells us they could have found opportunity. Honestly, the Shenzhou was not destroyed because it fits with any Starfleet or Captain's discretion. That would make sense story wise. Nah. The Shenzhou needed to exist to explain why the bloody telescope was salvaged. It needed to be there for Klingons to play in. It was a prop. A clumsy writer's prop.

 

[Refuge]

the only thing valuable on the ship would be the data in its computer core.

Good Lord

 

[Refuge]

"You have standing orders to do this every time you find yourself in this or any similar situation?"

Could you provide me with the standing orders then, since you seem to have them??

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Note the point here, that either by self-destruct or torpedoes, there is a facility to destroy ships by Captains discretion.

Yes. It is indeed left to Captain's discretion. It's not standard operating procedure, nor is there any regulation that we know of mandating it.

So Saru -- acting captain of the Shenzhou -- wouldn't have destroyed his derelict ship unless he had good reason to believe it would be used against the Federation in the near future. What reason did he have to believe that?

The Shenzhou lost her captain and if the second or third in charge had the ability to destroy her...

Sure he had the ability. But with no orders to do so, there doesn't appear to be a REASON.

Because they may have gotten away with resources not being exploited in the past, well the future, or whenever, is not a good argument. It is also not a good argument to discount when they could've done it.

They could have done ALOT of things when they evacuated the ship. They could have boobytrapped it, they could have carefully dismantled it, they could have hidden it in the asteroid belt, they could have painted it yellow, they could have written "Your mother sucks Romulan balls!" on the side of the hull.

Did they have any actual reason to do any of these things that doesn't rely on SIX MONTHS of hindsight and an amazing, unforeseen coincidence that ultimately didn't matter anyway?

That blessed telescope and the time frame of 6 months of the ship being abandoned tells us they could have found opportunity...

... to do something they had no actual reason to do. Again: WHY would they have wanted to do this when they never needed to do it before and technically didn't need to do it now either?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Could you provide me with the standing orders then, since you seem to have them??

You're asking me? This was YOUR theory, remember?

But I guess you're conceding that this definitely isn't standard procedure... so can you at least explain what REASON the crew had to think Shenzhou was about to be captured by the Klingons?

Because, again, they left nothing on the ship with any real military value, so I'm not sure why you would have expected them to do anything more than that.