Since when are we supposed to interpret Lorca as a good guy? Just because he's a Starfleet captain that has the actor's name in the main credits?
Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons
- Thread starter Jedi_Master
- Start date
It could very well turn out that he is the bad guy, and Michael must convince Saru to mutinee.
G
Gonzo
Guest
There was no option for it in that situation, the Krill created the situation by their own actions, although better if Ed had not found the children, it will only make things harder in the future knowing they are on-board most if not all large Krill ships but as I said earlier that's the Krills fault.
He was shown to be working with the enemy and so he did in fact pose a threat to escape hence why Lorca disabled him, Mudd's story couldn't be verified at the time and as such he couldn't be trusted, I sure as hell wouldn't have taken him with me, I could have been busy dealing with a Klingon and received a shot in the back for my trouble.
Also we have to take into consideration what the script writers have in store for Mudd, to serve future plot lines Mudd had to stay on the ship, we know he doesn't die so we will see him again.
A very possible route. Fans trying to interpret DIS through the lens of past series dynamics is futile. This is a totally different show where not all is certain. Frankly, I find that refreshing. I don't know if it will ultimately pan out in a satisfactory way, but I appreciate this series doing something new instead of taking the safe route of just riffing TOS/TNG episodic storytelling. I'd like to have that back, but I'll be open to something different.
How original. Michael committing mutiny again! Christ, if they end up doing that, I will cancel CBSAA and not watch any more of this series.
No, it's a war crime because it is objectively a war crime by today's standards (when the writers are writing this) under the Geneva Convention, and there's no indication that Star Trek is supposed to be less civilized or war less regulated than now.
I'm in an ivory tower for opposing the desecration of enemy soldier's corpses by using them as IEDs? It must not be a very exclusive ivory tower. They'll let anybody in here.
Where did I paint you as an immoral war crime apologist? When you put something in quotes that implies that I actually said that instead of you imagining it because you're being overly defensive. I jokingly made the "Earth, Hitler, 1938" reference to another person who said morals have no place in war, which is absurd. Staring in the face of man's brutality to man is when our morals are most important. It's easy to be moral in peacetime.
No, the act is specifically a war crime, legally defined as such on earth now. It’s not a hyperbole thing. The UFP is usually so specifically modelled on the UN that it seems so very unlikely it would t be in the future too. That’s why people are saying it’s a war crime...because if you were to interfere with a corpse in that way on a battlefield now, today, it would be a war crime. Even historically speaking, it’s just not done to interfere with the collection of the fallen.
I think Michael needing to convince Saru to mutiny, considering his desire that he had done more to protect his previous captain, and his uncertainty in his own conduct is a great piece. It wouldn't be unoriginal just because the show HAD a mutiny in it already, rather the setup involved would be fairly poetic.
There are many examples of drama focusing around repeating themes in a story.
I doubt they would do another mutiny. But if Lorca begins doing things that are inappropriate or that endanger the crew, he could be removed from duty.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Yes absolutely, he had to make a call there and then and the way Mudd had acted since he had met him gave him no reason to trust him whatsoever which was Mudds own fault, Mudd recognising Lorca was also very suspicious indeed as well, the bug with a bug added even more fuel to the fire.
It is an imperfect world we live in and we have to make judgement calls on the spot and live with them, Lorca has had his own fair share, even so he didn't hesitate to secure Tyler and had no problems at all with leaving Mudd.
Lorcas mission is to important to risk, he grabbed Tyler as he at least acted like an officer and an ally, does Lorca suspect Tyler may be a spy, we shall have to wait and see.
Yeah I'd leave him there too. The man was too big a risk.
He had evidence - Stuart and the fact Mudd didn't have a scratch on him. Also, it's a time of general and all out war. Do you remember what many people and governments did to collaborates during and after WWII? Similar situation here. Mudd couldn't be trusted to not do something tom sabotage their escape <--- And that would be a real/realistic issue given Mudd's actions in the cell.
Like Burnham was, when the Klingons were ramping up to attack? Jesus, she was allowed back on the bridge after being arrested!
I understand that, but that would be in good drama. The writing here has so far been only marginally good, and repeating the theme would smack of more laziness.
That does not make spyijng a war crime. It's not. Words have meanings.
Yeah I wouldn't call it lazy from one end to the other but I do think it shows a lack of intricacy needed to write compelling drama.
So glad we have an authority on what constitutes a war crime (in fictional worlds no less) in da house....
G
Gonzo
Guest
I never said spying was a war crime, war crimes are defined after the war is over by the victors who get to decide between themselves what the definition of a war crime is, sometimes coming up with new classifications to justly punish the guilty if a crime is particularly terrible as we saw at the end of WW2.
Being caught spying is often a death sentence in most countries, sometimes a spy will just be locked up if they are particularly valuable for interrogation or for prisoner exchange.
In WW1 a soldier that was captured was considered a POW and looked after fairly well by both sides in the hope that their own POW's would receive the same fair treatment by their enemy.
A spy on the other hand is not a soldier and has no rights whatsoever during a time of war.
No, there are some nice moments, and other parts are being carried by the visual spectacle, but the writing is more like a room full of kids who keep changing the story: "OK, now, pretend that we're doing this...OK, now pretend we do this instead!"
Right, because I personally made up the legal and moral definitions of war crimes.
You could learn the little that you'd need to learn, in order to find that you are on the wrong side of this, with about five minutes of your own research. You're not going to do that, because you really don't want to know what's true and what's not.
Similar threads
