After seeing TOS - Mudd's Women again, I'm actually interested in that they mention in the episode that Mudd was caught for some pretty egregious things in his past and as part of the sentence underwent psychiatric treatment (effectiveness diosputed of course.) The point is: Maybe he was a bit nastier in his 'younger days' (IE 1o years earlier); and the psychiatric treatment did have some effect to make him the 'lovable rogue' he was in Kirk's time - but he may not be so 'lovable' in the ST: D time period (IE They have wiggle room to make him a slightly different, yet still very interesting character for that story.)
Should have named the character Leo Walsh. Fans would get it, it would seem like a new character to new viewers. Not sure how lovable I ever found Mudd to begin with. He was involved in human trafficking and was going to allow four hundred people to die at one point in the episode.
I never understood the "lovable smuggler" trope. But, hey, let's celebrate criminal behavior as long as you're "lovable" while doing it.
It's at the core of American historical foundation mythology. The Boston "Tea Party" was, to a significant degree, about protecting the livelihood of smugglers against an attempt by the state to interdict illegal activity.
Ignore the fans - would be the best advice that I could give to those working on Discovery. As soon as you start pandering to them, or compromising your decisions, you will only make something mediocre. For evidence of this, the case presents: Star Trek V - where Shatner had to compromise on so many things and also Generations, where the writers wanted this conflict between the two crews. ST09 made bold and creative choices - love them or loathe them, they prompted a reaction. In some cases a strong reaction! Same with STID. Now look at Beyond - and look at why it flopped. It wasn't creative, or innovative, or daring. It was just 'meh'. I think in this regard, Jason Isaacs has it spot on - fans will watch anyway. The dude on Ex-Astris Scientia (great site by the way), is likely to completely loose his mind when they start redesigning Klingons or doing something else that is contradicted by TOS and TNG. To be honest, I'm sure there will be moments where I will be that outraged dude. It doesn't matter. Hardcore trekkies aren't the target audience. There are too few of us. I mean look at the tiny number of people who have voted in this thread. Am I positive about the show? Yes. It has clearly got a talented cast and great writers. It should be good. Am I positive that it will appeal to hardcore Trek fans - the type that obsessively watch the episodes over and over (I've even seen the rubbish ones at least 3 or 4 times) - No. Not at all. I even hope it won't be accepted by them/us (getting confused now). They will rage against it. And it will be futile, especially if the show is good.
I guess if I have to point it out to you, you'll never get it. It's not about glorifying truly heinous criminal behavior. It's about the sense of freedom that comes from operating outside of the law. Operating outside of the law doesn't mean you have to go rape and pillage which is why the "lovable" rogues tend to limit themselves to non-violent crimes.
Oh, I get the "Why" its attractive to people, just not how much idolization of that life it gets. Whatever-it never appealed to me or struck me as very "freeing."
I think the appeal of a "lovable rogue" is the desire in most people not to be limited by societies rules. That they can break rules, but still be heroic because their heart is, ultimately, in the right place. It's not a trope that is loved by everyone, but that's generally the appeal, if you ask me.
I'm more into the angry loners such as Wolverine, and the way Magneto has been depicted in the X-Men prequel movies, than the jolly "loveable rogue" type of character. Kor
It's okay. They have clones, alternate versions, offspring and offsprings of alternate versions to pick up the slack. Every X-team gets their own Wolverine!
Hulk was stupid, Wolverine was okay, but Phoenix was excellent. I just wish they explained why this was happening, because right now it's as absurd as that Captain's table series from pocketbooks... A magical crosstime nexus pub were Starfleet Captains from every era meet up and tell tall stories.
I guess I should clarify my point. I understand the desire for no rules, but that never felt "freeing" to me. I guess I never understood the popularity of the rogue archetype, and find them highly annoying and selfish.
Fair enough. I think the popularity probably stems from a widely held desire to break rules and still be respected and considered a hero, rather than viewed as a criminal or or n'er-do-well. Your inability to understand the popularity probably stems from-- if I had to take a guess-- you being someone for whom that does not appeal. You either don't have a desire to break rules, or if you do, don't care what people think of you if you did. Again, just a guess, since I obviously don't know you.
More stems from people who admire that archetype to the point of selfish, or jerkish behavior. But, to your point, I don't, generally have a desire to break rules, but I also don't find the idea of breaking rules very freeing either. To each their own. I certainly won't watch DSC because of Mudd. Personal choice not impacted by entertainment choices.