"Our heroes" aka the stars of the show. Burnham is "our hero" in DISCO.
Spoilers 1st openly gay character.
- Thread starter steam235
- Start date
Sure she is. She's done heroic things. She's also done bad things. I assume in the future she will continue to do both. Life, even that of fictional characters, can be complex.
But we've had this conversation before.
Mutineers can be heroes in real life and fiction.
Mutiny on the Bounty
Battleship Potemkin
Amistad
shes gonna have to do more than episode three to be a hero to me. she has one foot in hero land and the other in anti-hero land.
she is inching her way though.
Mutiny on the Shenshou starring Michael Burnham and Captain Phillipa Georgiou er.. R.I.P. Our valiant hero, Michael, boldly gives the Klingons their martyr, starts a war, attacks her Captain and friend and ends up stripped of her rank and sentenced. I feel a stirring song coming on, lol.
Works for me. Most people in real life aren't heroes 24/7. Most of the time it's for a split second.
I'm sure that sounded clever in your head. But in no way refutes my point.
Not grumpy just amazed.Oh don't be grumpy, and it does,
And it in no way refutes my point that mutineers show up as heroes in fiction and real life.
Yes it would be a massive call in my opinion to define Michael as 'a' hero. She's screwed up too much, but if she's capable of following orders and looking Star fleet here and there that has to be an improvement.
It's pretty clear that the writers do not think Burnham is a hero. Burnham doesn't even think she is a hero. She hates herself for what happened on the Shenzhou. Now Burnham is on a path to redemption. Not sure what's wrong with seeing a character fall from grace and then pick themselves up again?
I have one question for people who worry about representation of LGBTQ folks or other minorities being "forced."
I'm trying to think of an example of when including such a character has ever resulted in a bad show. Even when you could argue that it was done for the most "PC" reasons, whatever you'd like that to mean. When has making this kind of effort ever resulted in ruining the story, that otherwise might not have been ruined?
I'm trying to think of an example of when including such a character has ever resulted in a bad show. Even when you could argue that it was done for the most "PC" reasons, whatever you'd like that to mean. When has making this kind of effort ever resulted in ruining the story, that otherwise might not have been ruined?
For me, it isn't a worry about a gay character being forced. I would just rather the character be there and allow the story to be told as things progress.
It's more annoying when it gets heralded and trumpeted in the media about it, whereas I'd rather just let it proceed and let the audience know on their own. I think a Trek viewing audience is smart enough to realize it without a giant announcement.
Considering where we are as a society right now, I can't can't begrudge a little trumpeting about it, TBH
But my question was more about the actual quality of the show itself. I keep reading that it's being "forced," and I'd like to know of an example where a gay character's inclusion ruined the narrative of a program.
But my question was more about the actual quality of the show itself. I keep reading that it's being "forced," and I'd like to know of an example where a gay character's inclusion ruined the narrative of a program.
So was Spock. Who was a hero.
Anyway Jonathan Archer was the first openly gay character in Trek. Hernandez was his beard until he got his promotion and then used regulations to dump her like plasma out a conduit. He faked his way through a few more attempts at relationships, but the true love his life, Degra, died, and with it his heart went cold.
Similar threads
- Locked
