The age of the antihero

[zar]

I feel sorry for new viewers the ones 'Discovery' was apparently trying to win over with paid TV and a with modern approach. Did anyone tell them they needed to do homework to make sense out the Science fiction they are watching? That Discovery is not stand alone? That it still won't make sense but other examples that they haven't seen that also may not make sense will somehow magic away plot holes.

Worse than relying on past episodes, your convoluted attempts to force the story into not making sense rely on completely imaginary rules. It would have been impossible for anyone to do "homework" to prepare to see it your way, when the so-called evidence of why it was "obviously" a mistake wasn't present until an episode that only aired two weeks into the future that no one predicted.

Guess who's failing to win people over? The new viewers don't have any of these problems. It's your "plot holes" that aren't stand alone. They depend on a number of assumptions that don't appear in the show. And now it's been suggested that Starfleet characters shouldn't act as people do in real life. Incredible. You can only get this far through dishonesty in deliberately trying to justify negativity. That's something new viewers don't do.

 

[Refuge]

Worse than relying on past episodes, your convoluted attempts to force the story into not making sense rely on completely imaginary rules. It would have been impossible for anyone to do "homework" to prepare to see it your way, when the so-called evidence of why it was "obviously" a mistake wasn't present until an episode that only aired two weeks into the future that no one predicted.

Guess who's failing to win people over? The new viewers don't have any of these problems. It's your "plot holes" that aren't stand alone. They depend on a number of assumptions that don't appear in the show. And now it's been suggested that Starfleet characters shouldn't act as people do in real life. Incredible. You can only get this far through dishonesty in deliberately trying to justify negativity. That's something new viewers don't do.

That's not true. There are a fair few people who think there are plot holes in Discovery - in this very thread. In reviews I've read - lots of them. Not everyone sees it the way you do for example.

 

[Refuge]

Again, it was only a bluff to get the occupiers to leave the ship. He never had any intention of actually doing it. He told them the rest of the crew were already dead, too...which they weren't. Deception. Trickery. Clever ploy.


She was transferred to Discovery in the previous episode, a move for which Lorca had already gotten Starfleet's approval beforehand. So yes, her address was updated, and it was not a coincidence that she received the package at that particular time and place. I don't know why you think it's so dumb, or why you ever thought someone went back and got the telescope off the Shenzhou after she was abandoned—which would be dumb, but didn't happen. Did you ever consider that maybe you just misunderstood what was shown the first time around? (It could happen to anyone, myself included.) Perhaps you should go back and re-watch to see if all your initial impressions still hold up? Your critiques would be more credible if they were at least accurate to what was actually presented to begin with, and beyond that weren't apparently based on expectations contrary to what was portrayed in the overwhelming bulk of previous Trek, which this show has from its inception been intended to fit in with and complement, despite deliberately putting a bit of a different spin on certain things in terms of its point of view.

-MMoM

The telescope arrived neatly packaged and you don't wonder how it got there and nicely found Michael. When we last saw it, it was on a conveniently abandoned ship. Either someone got it later or somebody decided it was a... necessity to evacuate. That is dumb. Please don't ask me to watch that again, it was stupid the first time. Are you suggesting that if we watch something poorly executed a number of times it will make sense? That I have to watch every Trek episode in creation to justify plot holes in Discovery? That isn't going to happen,

 

[Refuge]

... but didn't happen. .. Your critiques would be more credible if they were at least accurate to what was actually presented to begin with.

-MMoM

The Mighty Monkey, to be fair I will re-watch or at least check the transcripts. Point me to what DID happen regards the telescope and what was presented in story. Scene/s references will do and if my interpretations are contrary to what actually happened and was screened then I will accept that.

 

[Megapolis]

That was entirely a bluff, was it not?

Not so sure due to the existence of Starfleet Order 2005:

Starfleet Order 2005: Orders the destruction of a starship by allowing matter and antimatter to mix in an uncontrolled manner. This was a last resort for a captain that allowed them to prevent their ship or crew from falling into enemy hands. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)​

 

[Refuge]

Not so sure due to the existence of Starfleet Order 2005:

Starfleet Order 2005: Orders the destruction of a starship by allowing matter and antimatter to mix in an uncontrolled manner. This was a last resort for a captain that allowed them to prevent their ship or crew from falling into enemy hands. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)​

I read that yesterday. I guess Lorca decided his ship and his crew fitted such a protocol just not his cowardly-arsed self...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So is this an example of old Trek, (pre-Discovery) where a ship could be destroyed to prevent the enemy from exploiting a ship? I was under the impression from all the examples of comparisons given that it didn't happen!

It didn't. Archer's "I'll destroy the ship" involved flying the ship into some sort of gravitational space eddie thing... a "crazy eddy" you might say. The would-be hijackers lost their nerve, though, and left the ship, and Archer veered off.

This is another of those examples we mentioned earlier of the threat of destruction being purely an anti-theft measure. In Shenzhou's case, theft of the vessel was not a possibility.

I wonder if Archer would've have tried escaping and leaving his crew to die without him?

Only if he thought the hijackers were going to rape them to death, eat their flesh, and sew their skins into their clothing (not necessarily in that order). But "Catwalk" wasn't that kind of episode; if the hijackers had called his bluff, he would have veered off anyway.

 

[Refuge]

Nah Lorca is a coward, that is in part why I started this thread. 'Discovery' glorifies someone like him. Captains go down with their ship, they don't escape (his words) to save their own skins.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Don't want to offend anyone but I see more than one instance of bad writing, so my reasons are going to incorporate more than one reaction.

You have five different reactions to the same scene, all of which involve some sort of derisive mockery both of the scene and anyone who enjoyed it. So far the only thing you've been consistent about is that you didn't like it, but even you seem to admit that you don't really understand why.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

That's not true. There are a fair few people who think there are plot holes in Discovery - in this very thread. In reviews I've read - lots of them. Not everyone sees it the way you do for example.

Of course there are plot holes. There are almost always plot holes in just about everything, somewhere. But some of the things people are complaining about in this thread (the telescope for example) aren't actually plot holes.

The telescope arrived neatly packaged and you don't wonder how it got there and nicely found Michael.

It was neatly packaged at Starfleet Command. It says that right on the label. It arrived there because Starfleet knew that's where Burnham was. They sent it to her because that's what Georgiou's will instructed. They may have been holding it until then because prisoners aren't allowed such personal possessions in penal colonies. Or they may have only finished processing it shortly before; that could readily take months as it likely wouldn't be a high priority, especially not while the intended recipient was in prison. Either way, it was in all likelihood taken off Shenzhou when she was evacuated. There is no suggestion it wasn't.

When we last saw it, it was on a conveniently abandoned ship.

No. When we last saw it, it was on a ship that hadn't yet been abandoned. When we next saw the ship after the evacuation, the telescope was not there anymore.

somebody decided it was a... necessity to evacuate. That is dumb.

Only if the evacuation was rushed. Which it wasn't, so far as we saw.

Are you suggesting that if we watch something poorly executed a number of times it will make sense?

I'm suggesting that, just like you did when you got confused over how Tyler and Burnham could board the Klingon ship without their biosigns being recognized (because you missed the line about the pattern simulators), or just like I did when I thought Burnham murdered T'Kuvma out of revenge (because I overlooked that she thought Georgiou could still be saved when she fired) you might have come away with a faulty impression based on only one viewing. I find a lot of art requires more than one viewing to fully absorb everything. And many (perhaps most) serialized shows these days are made with re-watch value in mind.

Not so sure due to the existence of Starfleet Order 2005:

Starfleet Order 2005: Orders the destruction of a starship by allowing matter and antimatter to mix in an uncontrolled manner. This was a last resort for a captain that allowed them to prevent their ship or crew from falling into enemy hands. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)​

No, Kirk didn't order that to prevent the ship from falling into enemy hands. He ordered it in the hopes they could destroy V'Ger before it reached Earth.

KIRK: Mister Scott, be prepared to execute Starfleet Order 2005.
SCOTTY: When, Sir?
KIRK: On my command.
SCOTTY: Aye, Sir.
ROSS: Why has the Captain ordered self-destruct, Sir?
SCOTTY: I would say, lass, because he thinks, he hopes, that when we go up, we'll take the intruder with us.
ROSS: Will we?
SCOTTY: When that much matter and anti-matter are brought together, oh yes, we will indeed.

And anyway, once again it was (effectively) a brand new ship with advanced tech, not an old junker.

-MMoM

 

[fireproof78]

Nah Lorca is a coward, that is in part why I started this thread. 'Discovery' glorifies someone like him. Captains go down with their ship, they don't escape (his words) to save their own skins.

"Glorifies?" I have yet to see him being glorified.

Or is being a starship captain now a "glory"?

 

[Refuge]

Of course there are plot holes. There are almost always plot holes in just about everything, somewhere. But some of the things people are complaining about in this thread (the telescope for example) aren't actually plot holes.


It was neatly packaged at Starfleet Command. It says that right on the label. It arrived there because Starfleet knew that's where Burnham was. They sent it to her because that's what Georgiou's will instructed. They may have been holding it until then because prisoners aren't allowed such personal possessions in penal colonies. Or they may have only finished processing it shortly before; that could readily take months as it likely wouldn't be a high priority, especially not while the intended recipient was in prison. Either way, it was in all likelihood taken off Shenzhou when she was evacuated. There is no suggestion it wasn't.


No. When we last saw it, it was on a ship that hadn't yet been abandoned. When we next saw the ship after the evacuation, the telescope was not there anymore.


Only if the evacuation was rushed. Which it wasn't, so far as we saw.


I'm suggesting that, just like you did when you got confused over how Tyler and Burnham could board the Klingon ship without their biosigns being recognized (because you missed the line about the pattern simulators), or just like I did when I thought Burnham murdered T'Kuvma out of revenge (because I overlooked that she thought Georgiou could still be saved when she fired) you might have come away with a faulty impression based on only one viewing. I find a lot of art requires more than one viewing to fully absorb everything. And many (perhaps most) serialized shows these days are made with re-watch value in mind.


No, Kirk didn't order that to prevent the ship from falling into enemy hands. He ordered it in the hopes they could destroy V'Ger before it reached Earth.

KIRK: Mister Scott, be prepared to execute Starfleet Order 2005.
SCOTTY: When, Sir?
KIRK: On my command.
SCOTTY: Aye, Sir.
ROSS: Why has the Captain ordered self-destruct, Sir?
SCOTTY: I would say, lass, because he thinks, he hopes, that when we go up, we'll take the intruder with us.
ROSS: Will we?
SCOTTY: When that much matter and anti-matter are brought together, oh yes, we will indeed.

And anyway, once again it was (effectively) a brand new ship with advanced tech, not an old junker.

-MMoM

Seriously if you can point to how the telescope was 'collected' I will accept it as in story. That is the scene or re-watch that would clear things up.

 

[Refuge]

"Glorifies?" I have yet to see him being glorified.

Or is being a starship captain now a "glory"?

They offered him a medal...

 

[Refuge]

"Glorifies?" I have yet to see him being glorified.

Or is being a starship captain now a "glory"?

Here's another sign of validation and 'glory' he captains er... Discovery.

 

[fireproof78]

Here's another sign of validation and 'glory' he captains er... Discovery.

Yes, that makes sense...
Because no captain has ever been messed up or disobeyed orders and are Starfleet principles personified...

Oh, wait...

Just went crazy

Violated
orders to arrest Captain Kirk, attempted an unauthorized rescue mission and violated the sovereign space of a foreign power.

Self explanatory

Used advanced technology to side with one faction of a planet in violation of the Prime Directive

Violated a treaty with another power and murdered crewmembers to protect his secret project. BTW, he made it to Admiral.

Started a one ship war with the Cardassians despite a standing peace

Used his position to divert weapons and intelligence and other resources to a terrorist organization.

Yup, that's a fine and balanced bunch right there.

 

[AlanC9]

We can't equate what Starfleet does with what the show does; Starfleet glorifying Lorca isn't the same thing as the show glorifying him.. And anyway, Cornwell wants Lorca relieved of command, and she's right to.

My bet is that Lorca goes full Ron Tracey eventually.

 

[Refuge]

Yes, that makes sense...
Because no captain has ever been messed up or disobeyed orders and are Starfleet principles personified...

Oh, wait...

Just went crazy

Violated
orders to arrest Captain Kirk, attempted an unauthorized rescue mission and violated the sovereign space of a foreign power.

Self explanatory

Used advanced technology to side with one faction of a planet in violation of the Prime Directive

Violated a treaty with another power and murdered crewmembers to protect his secret project. BTW, he made it to Admiral.

Started a one ship war with the Cardassians despite a standing peace

Used his position to divert weapons and intelligence and other resources to a terrorist organization.

Yup, that's a fine and balanced bunch right there.

Sigh. I don't write this stuff the show 'Discovery' gives us a man who killed his entire crew (please if you must find the other Trek captains who have done that, not tried to but did it, go for it). Lorca, is a lead, a protagonist. Was he put in rehab? No. He continued to be self-serving and lied on his tests and was made captain of Discovery. Discovery being a special command.

Last seen episode he was offered a medal.

 

[fireproof78]

We can't equate what Starfleet does with what the show does; Starfleet glorifying Lorca isn't the same thing as the show glorifying him.. And anyway, Cornwell wants Lorca relieved of command, and she's right to.

Also, this.

But, apparently being a starship captain means "glory" and can never be questioned-EVER!

 

[Refuge]

We can't equate what Starfleet does with what the show does; Starfleet glorifying Lorca isn't the same thing as the show glorifying him.. And anyway, Cornwell wants Lorca relieved of command, and she's right to.

My bet is that Lorca goes full Ron Tracey eventually.

He's a nutjob. A liar and a coward and he killed his crew.

 

[fireproof78]

Sigh. I don't write this stuff the show 'Discovery' gives us a man who killed his entire crew (please if you must find the other Trek captains who have done that, not tried to but did it, go for it). Lorca, is a lead, a protagonist. Was he put in rehab? No. He continued to be self-serving and lied oh his tests and was made captain of Discovery. Discovery being a special command.

Last seen episode he was offered a medal.

That doesn't make him "glorified." That makes him a person with flaws. There seems to be a very limited definition operating here that "protagonist=heroic" when, especially in fiction, that is not always the case. Especially in military leaders.

He's a nutjob. A liar and a coward and he killed his crew.

Yup. And? You don't think military leaders can't be those things?