Tony Soprano is from 25 years ago, hardly "now."
"Star Trek:Admiralty"
- Thread starter Laura Cynthia Chambers
- Start date
Vic Mackey is from the same time period (more or less) while Walter White is from 15 years ago, approximately. So, they aren't really "now" either.
Last edited:
This is so now I've been seeing the trend for the last 25 years.
Weren't Han Solo and Indiana Jones considered antiheroes? Moving the clock up to 40 years now. Granted, not a trend yet by that time, but perhaps the embryonic beginning of it.
Then there's also Dirty Dozen and Kelly's Heroes from WAY back. Where Eagles Dare, The Eagle has Landed, A Bridge Too Far, etc. A bunch of the old WWII movies from the 60's and 70's were full of non-"wholesome" hero types.
Then there's also Dirty Dozen and Kelly's Heroes from WAY back. Where Eagles Dare, The Eagle has Landed, A Bridge Too Far, etc. A bunch of the old WWII movies from the 60's and 70's were full of non-"wholesome" hero types.
Yes, but he also bucked the trend a little as he was not as cynical by the end. Post Vietnam era saw an upswing in antiheroes.
I didn't think of that, but, now that you mention it, VanguardSounds exactly like Star Trek: Vanguard.
really did scratch a lot of my Trek itches and I think something similar would be fun to see.
No, it will be like the Expanse. If you watch it, you would know that the war between Earth and Mars scenes were focus more on the Presidents plus Admirals sit around the table watching TV scene, and not inside a Star Ship's command bridge.
Sounds like a cross between Liam Shaw and General Patton.
Well, maybe he's even worse than Liam Shaw. But he's indeed a General Patton.
Maybe I need to change this character a little bit. Basically my idea come from the idea of Protagonist from an old Wuxia novel; called "The Duke of Mount Deer". I'm sure that almost none of you have watch the drama or read the novel. Yes, I based my character on the character of Wei Xiaobao. But with a very brilliant stategic mind like General Patton.
This character is a coward. He's bad in everything about the so called Personal Combat ability. From shooting a phaser, hand to hand combat, and even in his CQB combat course in the academy. He's also bad in Athletic capability. But his military strategy mind is brilliant. Not only brilliant, he's a maniac to it. You can compare him to the most famous general on Earth. But I based him to an old Chinese general called Han Xin. A general who care only about how to test his strategy in battle. And because of his maniac in military warfare, you can name a lot of historical generals to be his idols. Name them Guderian, Napoleon, Patton, McArthur, etc.
He's some kind of playboy. Adore beautiful women, but never popular with them. Basically because women think that he's not man enough to make them feel attracted to him. His survival ability based mostly on his ability to talk, and his fast thinking to trick the enemy. So basically he's a Trickster.
He hates to put himself in danger. But most of the time, danger come to seek him without his consent. His character is a contradictory as a battle addict who want to test his strategy in real battle with his coward nature who dislike to put himself in danger. But because of his job nature, so like it or not, he must face them, even if he is frightened to it.
But he is correct nonetheless.Whatever ...
Antiheroes are not "trendy now."
There are heroes and antiheroes in current fiction just as there have been for ages.
And you're mistaken if you think that they can build a Trek series around an antihero protagonist.
Last edited:
Trek has a way of making a mockery of "It'll never happens":
Woman leading a series? It'll never happen.
African-American leading a series? It'll never happen.
African-American woman leading a series? It can't happen.
"Things are only impossible until they're not." -- Jean-Luc Picard
Talk about apples and oranges...
Yeah, no. While we do see the perspective of heads of state and flag officers on The Expanse, there was also plenty from the perspective of "inside a starship's command bridge" as you put it. As well as that of soldiers on the ground in the midst of battle.
Thing is, by the time Star Trek got around to these concepts, they were hardly revolutionary anymore. There were TV shows with African American leads before DS9 premiered. There were TV shows with female leads before Voyager premiered. And there were TV shows with African American female leads before Disco premiered.
Yep. Trek rides on the notion that it's progressive, but it's really always played it quite safe. This was particularly true during the Berman era. Kutzman era has gone farther than any others, granted, but it's really old news. Moving on...
It doesn't matter with those "Inside a starship's command bridge in the Expanse. Because the focus still in the round table where the President and the admirals sit together to discuss the war. The command bridge scene is just about the captain received the order to do the deed.
Don't put the Rocinante and her crews battle into the argument. Because it is outside the context of my post. I only gave you the example of the Admirals war in the Expanse. Not the whole Expanse series matter.
Plus, even when Star Trek admiral tell a story about the Flag officers in Star Fleet, we can still see direct ship to ship battle or even combat action in the story. With, like the protagonist Admiral ride a ship to go somewhere and they got ambushed by, for example Klingon Ship and a direct ship vs ship battle occur.
No. The focus was the Rocinante crew as they were the lead characters of the series. With the exception of Avasarala, no one in the "Presidents and Admirals" scenes were in the main cast.
Whatever ...
Where in the blue blazes did I say that basing a Trek production around an antihero won't happen?
Shooting on the film Star Trek: Section 31 starring Michelle Yeoh as Mirror Philippa Georgiou has wrapped! If Mirror Georgiou doesn't qualify as a Star Trek antihero, I don't know who could.
What @The Wormhole and I said was, the trend you're talking about (granting it's a trend) happened two decades ago, give or take. It's not a part of current events.
Last edited:
Decades before in all cases.
I think quite a few "fans" still have a problem with this one.
Similar threads
