So you have problems with a cannibal space nazi being presented as a protagonist today. Did you have problems with an amoral cannibal space communist twenty years ago being made a lead on Voyager?
Huh? Who? What are you talking about? FWIW, I consider VOY to be hands-down the worst series in the Trek franchise, and I gave up on it at a fairly early stage, for a whole host of reasons.
(ETA: from later posts I gather that you're referring to 7 of 9 here. For the record, I stopped watching VOY before she came aboard, so I really don't know enough about the character to comment.)
As for the ep not explaining everything to you, again, Discovery's seasons are single stories, not a series of distinct episodes and by now everybody knows this by now, like chapters in a book. Did you used to get upset when everything wasn't revealed after the first 15 minutes of one of the serial eps in the old days? When you read a novel do you expect to be given all the answers a quarter of the way through? Yeah, i understand that there's a whole generation of viewers who were spoon fed everything they needed to know, but I do wonder how many seasons of a Star Trek show not doing this its going to take before people actually accept that they are going to have to figure some things out for themselves.
Do you always ask condescending rhetorical questions full of implied insults, rather than simply offering your own views on the substance of what others have said? I'm not even sure what part of my post you're responding to here.
And you annoyed about Star Fleet officers involved in deniable missions? You mean like what happened in The Enterprise Incident and Chain of Command?
You're doing it again... and positing a flawed straw-man analogy in the process. At no point in my criticism of DSC's handling of S31 did I suggest that covert activity can never be necessary, or that it should be categorically prohibited in Starfleet.
Worked as a decent sum up for me. Of course I was able to follow what was going on in the episode from beginning to end, so perhaps having that as a benefit helped I suppose.
And you're doing it
again, to other posters besides me. You really seem to be going out of your way to be personally antagonistic and escalate conflict. Surely you can disagree with others while still being respectful?
It kind of interesting that Star Trek's Utopia appears to be viewed by some as a world of where there are no second chances and no actual possibility of real redemption allowable not to mention any possibility of forgiveness for past deeds that contradict this Utopias ideals. Where exactly is the Goodness in that?
When anyone actually posts something to that effect, we can talk about it. Until then, you're just straw-manning again. Why not try arguing against the
best versions of others' positions, rather than the most extreme and caricatured versions?
I've asked this question elsewhere but I am genuinely curious to your reaction-is Vader redeemable?
No, I don't think he was... and despite lots of money, energy, and screen time dedicated to the effort, I don't think Lucas succeeded in the attempt. (It's a quixotic thing, to create one of the great black-hat villains of popular fiction, then turn around and decide that your larger goal is to make him sympathetic to the audience!...)
Given the humanistic framework I find it very difficult to accept this categorical rejection of any redemption arc for Georgiou. The point of narrative is to demonstrate that change is possible, and Star Trek is about humanity improving beyond the base nature. So, here we have a perfect opportunity for the "nature vs. nurture" debate within Star Trek and it is rejected out of hand because this character is "too evil." ... I am genuinely curious as to where the line is for redemption in terms of fictional narrative.
It could make for an interesting story arc in that sense. I'm not saying it's impossible.
For instance, the show
Man in the High Castle managed to do a story that basically made you want to stand up and cheer for Hitler at one point... although it benefited from the fact that Hitler wasn't actually a central character. (The American Nazi character John Smith is, but he's been presented from the start as more morally conflicted, not utterly black-hearted. The contrast in S3 with the utterly despicable Lincoln Rockwell (derived from a real-world American Nazi) underscores that distinction.)
Similarly, and even more effectively, I think the redemption arc of Jaime Lanister in
Game of Thrones is brilliant and fascinating. It's certainly not something one would have expected from his depiction in the first season... and he
is a central character throughout.
However, I honestly don't think the level of writing talent on DSC, nor for that matter the structural constraints of the Trek franchise, not to mention the character's origins as already discussed, leave the show able to (re)develop Georgiou as effectively as either of those examples. So I remain skeptical.
