• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Would it be cool if Captain Angel become a recurring character?

... But it is the job of a villain to annoy everyone :D
Perhaps you jest, but I think that villains whose main attribute is "annoying" are more plot devices rather than characters in their own right, mainly there as a challenge for the protagonists to overcome. Generally I think it makes for better drama if the antagonist is shown to have some kind of motivations that the audience can connect with. Captain Angel just came off as a predatory pirate, the kind of villain we are meant to "love to hate." That can be fun in small doses, but I hope we get a little more complexity with this character.

Kor
 
Perhaps you jest, but I think that villains whose main attribute is "annoying" are more plot devices rather than characters in their own right, mainly there as a challenge for the protagonists to overcome. Generally I think it makes for better drama if the antagonist is shown to have some kind of motivations that the audience can connect with. Captain Angel just came off as a predatory pirate, the kind of villain we are meant to "love to hate." That can be fun in small doses, but I hope we get a little more complexity when it comes to Angel's background, motivations, and so on.

Kor
Seem, if I'm annoyed by a character I consider that a credit to the actor and the writing. I may not like it, but it usually means that are imbued with attributes and a personality rather than plot devices.
 
Perhaps you jest, but I think that villains whose main attribute is "annoying" are more plot devices rather than characters in their own right, mainly there as a challenge for the protagonists to overcome. Generally I think it makes for better drama if the antagonist is shown to have some kind of motivations that the audience can connect with. Captain Angel just came off as a predatory pirate, the kind of villain we are meant to "love to hate." That can be fun in small doses, but I hope we get a little more complexity with this character.

Kor

I dunno, I think there was already some complexity to Angel. They're someone who is fundamentally motivated by love, and who recognizes and calls others out on having the same motivation even when folks pretend not to. They challenged Spock to think more clearly about his own identity and moving beyond the Vulcan/Human binary, and they forced Spock, T'Pring, and Christine to all confront the reality of their relationships (even if all three of them subsequently went into denial about the situation). And even in spite of their manipulations, Angel seemed to genuinely hope Spock might come to a healthier understanding of himself. I think they've got some complexity already, and they're just primed for an anti-hero redemption arc.
 
Or a planet of Captain Jack Harkness. We'll "dance" with anyone.

I'm not sure I agree with that...

I mean, of course acceptance of all manner of orientations/identities will become the norm, but individual people will always have preferences. I doubt it'll be like Brave New World where everyone is supposed to be into everyone.

Even in the future, there'll still be a Kinsey scale.

(indeed, there was even a DSC episode where, upon learning that the Mirror Universe Culber had a thing with MU Georgiou, Stamets kinda goes out of his way to point out that his Culber is gay. He even uses that word.)
 
Last edited:
In answer to thread title, hell NO. It was my least favourite performance of the season by a mile in my least favourite episode.
 
Heh ... was one of my favorite guest performances of the season. I would definitely welcome more Captain Angel.

In any event, more Captain Angel would be way more entertaining and engaging and even thought-provoking than another empty-uniform performance from Kirk. :techman:
 
The episode was practically doing everything except giving the title and airdate of Captain Angel's next appearance, so I'm sure we'll see her again. I'm not particularly looking forward to it, though, as I thought that Jesse James Keitel really overacted in "The Serene Squall." I'm not very eager to see
Sybok
again, either. I'd prefer to just quietly forget about him.
 
The episode was practically doing everything except giving the title and airdate of Captain Angel's next appearance, so I'm sure we'll see her again.

"Them" again. Captain Angel is nonbinary, though Jesse James Keitel is a trans woman.

I'm not particularly looking forward to it, though, as I thought that Jesse James Keitel really overacted in "The Serene Squall."

I thought her performance was pitch perfect. :bolian:
 
Angel was fine, but I'd rather see the crew deal with Disco's psychotic version of Mudd more.

And of course Sybok. But most of all I want a Young Spock show, basically Young Sheldon but in the Sarek household with Michael, Sybok, Amanda and Sarek. And lots of chaos.
 
Frankly, I think an inter-species coupling is way farther out there compared to any particular combination of sexual orientations. No matter where on the LGBTQ/straight spectrum two humans lie, they're still the same species. Once you're banging someone of an entirely different planetary origin, it really stops mattering what their preferred naughty bits and chromosomes happen to be.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top