Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[BillJ]

But, Garak, and Kor and them can join the heroes at any time, so long as they are not show leads.

In the vein of forgiveness, should Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or even Charlie Manson be given "second chances"? If we are supposed to forgive Georgiou, shouldn't she stand some kind of trial and serve punishment for her crimes against sapient beings across the galaxy, including the Talosians? For me, saving her own ass on Discovery isn't some kind of repayment for the wounds she inflicted on her empire and others.

It seems like Georgiou is merely an extension of Garak and Into Darkness Khan, an outside monster the Federation needs to do its dirty work. Except neither of Garak nor Khan were being turned into good guys and given their own shows.

 

[Doctor Bombay]

Pike, definitely. Not that interested in a Section 31 show.

 

[Alan Roi]

In the vein of forgiveness, should Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or even Charlie Manson be given "second chances"? If we are supposed to forgive Georgiou, shouldn't she stand some kind of trial and serve punishment for her crimes against sapient beings across the galaxy, including the Talosians? For me, saving her own ass on Discovery isn't some kind of repayment for the wounds she inflicted on her empire and others.

It seems like Georgiou is merely an extension of Garak and Into Darkness Khan, an outside monster the Federation needs to do its dirty work. Except neither of Garak nor Khan were being turned into good guys and given their own shows.

That's a strawman argument and you know it. And no one is telling you you have to forgive a fictional character for fictional crimes against fictional sapient species.

However,

What does the Federation justice system have on her that would put her in jail? What crimes has she committed where the Federation has jurisdiction? Are you claiming that the Mirror Universe is Federation jurisdiction now? And what about all the actions of TNG era characters who just do it outside Federation. Was all the crap that Worf got up to not worth putting him in jail, or at least drummed out of Starfleet? And there are many more. And that happened in the universe where Starfleet actually exists in.

And please, saving her own ass wasn't her the be all and end all and that much was obvious to even a casual viewer. Why was she on the ship at all if all she cared about was her own ass? Why risk her own ass ever? I get it that you don't want the character to be around, but there are enough precedents in the franchise to yes, allow her a second chance according to the reality she now lives in.

 

[BillJ]

I get it that you don't want the character to be around, but there are enough precedents in the franchise to yes, allow her a second chance according to the reality she now lives in.

The character is fine, I just would prefer its handling be done in a more realistic manner considering what it projects.

Not "eating Kelpians last week" now the leader of a Federation organization for "reasons". Which the only reason is that she is internationally popular. Give Yeoh a role that fits her stature as an actor.

 

[Alan Roi]

The character is fine, I just would prefer its handling be done in a more realistic manner considering what it projects.

Not "eating Kelpians last week" now the leader of a Federation organization for "reasons". Which the only reason is that she is internationally popular. Give Yeoh a role that fits her stature as an actor.

Maybe watch some of her movies or shows she's been on. She's played all sorts of characters in stuff both good and bad. And she has repeatedly stated she loves the role. Some actors, even well regarded ones, aren't so obsessed over their 'statures' that they don't like having some fun every now and then. After all, she could have said no to the role, and she didn't. And it couldn't be that there's no work coming her way these days as her IMDB page tells us.

I'll get off your lawn now.

 

[Rahul]

I think the main issue is there's a difference between a strategic partnership, and actual honest partnership. The Allies worked together with Stalin to defeat the Nazis, because that was the only way to win against the Nazis, and Stalin was not a nice dude.

I think nobody would be set against Georgiou continuing to work together with the heroes like that. The same way Gul Dukat did. The same way Battlestar Galactica worked together with some Cylons against the others. The same way the Starks on GoT would have worked together with the Lannisters to defeat the White Walkers.

What is not okay is her getting the keys to the good-guys intelligence machine, trying to paint her character as sympathetic when just one week before she was gloating about eating Kelpians and commiting genocide, and promising viewers a more "fun", "lighthearted" show with her as a lead. That's just fucked up. I mean I can totally understand Yeoh's appeal for the role - sometimes as an actor you just wanna' have fun chewing the scenery. This one is squarely on the writers.

 

[Vger23]

Since we have no idea about the plot of the show, what Yeoh's character's role will be in it, what Section 31 will become, etc etc etc...it seems like people are getting really wound up over nothing but absolute sheer speculation.

Not that that doesn't happen every other day out here.

But honestly, everyone should take a breath. We're arguing about something we know virtually nothing about.

 

[Alan Roi]

I think the main issue is there's a difference between a strategic partnership, and actual honest partnership. The Allies worked together with Stalin to defeat the Nazis, because that was the only way to win against the Nazis, and Stalin was not a nice dude.

I think nobody would be set against Georgiou continuing to work together with the heroes like that. The same way Gul Dukat did. The same way Battlestar Galactica worked together with some Cylons against the others. The same way the Starks on GoT would have worked together with the Lannisters to defeat the White Walkers.

What is not okay is her getting the keys to the good-guys intelligence machine, trying to paint her character as sympathetic when just one week before she was gloating about eating Kelpians and commiting genocide, and promising viewers a more "fun", "lighthearted" show with her as a lead. That's just fucked up. I mean I can totally understand Yeoh's appeal for the role - sometimes as an actor you just wanna' have fun chewing the scenery. This one is squarely on the writers.

I'm sure there will be plenty of viewers clutching their pearls in anticipation of her making a quip that will entire ruin their enjoyment of the show by not always being the perfect boyscout characters they demand from all their Star Trek protagonists. And we will be hearing them here talking about how fucked up the show is and that no one should enjoy the series because how inappropriate it is. It will be just like Sunday School when I was six (except for the swearing and constant references to Hitler, cannibalism and genocide - my upbringing wasn't via the 21st century internet)!

 

[Vger23]

I'm sure there will be plenty of viewers clutching their pearls in anticipation of her making a quip that will entire ruin their enjoyment of the show by not always being the perfect boyscout characters they demand from all their Star Trek protagonists. And we will be hearing them here talking about how fucked up the show is and that no one should enjoy the series because of it. It will be just like Sunday School when I was six (except for the swearing and constant references to Hitler, cannibalism and genocide - my upbringing wasn't the 21st century internet)!

Sounds like how some reacted to Star Trek: Discovery.

 

[Rahul]

I'm sure there will be plenty of viewers clutching their pearls in anticipation of her making a quip that will entire ruin their enjoyment of the show by not always being the perfect boyscout characters they demand from all their Star Trek protagonists. And we will be hearing them here talking about how fucked up the show is and that no one should enjoy the series because how inappropriate it is. It will be just like Sunday School when I was six (except for the swearing and constant references to Hitler, cannibalism and genocide - my upbringing wasn't via the 21st century internet)!

The absolute opposite, actually. The problem is that they made cannibalistic Hitler the boyscout main character, that protects Burnham because awwww she has a heart after all.

They just don't get the character. Because they treat her like a reformed villain from a superhero show. Not an actual, human being that has commited these acts. If anything, we need more ambiguous characters. But there is a very clear cut line: Garak was an ambiguous grey guy. Gul Dukat was a monster. Giving Garak his own spy-adventure show would have been fine. Givin Gul Dukat one would be highly fucking inappropriate.

 

[fireproof78]

Garak is no better than Georgiou . Giving Garak the lead on a show would be just as inappropriate as his crimes were committed against powers that The Federation does communicate with

Georgiou us not being boyscouted. She still has an entire season of development to do and we have no idea how that will go or how the S31 show will go.

This is all posturing and arguing for the same of arguing and not approving of the decisions made by the production team. So, if individuals feel so strongly then let's get a petition going so Star Trek can be preserved.

 

[Alan Roi]

The absolute opposite, actually. The problem is that they made cannibalistic Hitler the boyscout main character, that protects Burnham because awwww she has a heart after all.

They just don't get the character. Because they treat her like a reformed villain from a superhero show. Not an actual, human being that has commited these acts. If anything, we need more ambiguous characters. But there is a very clear cut line: Garak was an ambiguous grey guy. Gul Dukat was a monster. Giving Garak his own spy-adventure show would have been fine. Givin Gul Dukat one would be highly fucking inappropriate.

Except they haven't. Lots of nasty people care about their kids, or those they see as their children. And she took some serious relish from the killing of Control/Leland, so no its not at all like you are talking. Or is it that you are clinging to your first impression and refuse to give it up no matter how much new information is thrown out there?

I can see that characters have more than one side, and that first impression hot takes aren't always the full story. We also know that Garak killed a whole lot of people before DS9 started and a whole lot in unscrupulous ways during the show. But he seemed mysterious in a fun way at first glance. It seems that people can't make the connection in reverse and entirely rely on their first impressions they refuse to change in any way even as new information is provided.

And that's really odd to me. All anyone is isn't often what they appear to be at first glance. Why should TV characters be that way? I take new information about a character as that, new information that expands on what I know. I find it really odd to hear that any new information is rejected by some others for seemingly no reason except they prefer their first impression only.

 

[Vger23]

So, if individuals feel so strongly then let's get a petition going so Star Trek can be preserved.

Yes! We must preserve the SANCTITY of Star Trek!!!

 

[Rahul]

Except they haven't. Lots of nasty people care about their kids, or those they see as their children. And she took some serious relish from the killing of Control/Leland, so no its not at all like you are talking. Or is it that you are clinging to your first impression and refuse to give it up no matter how much new information is thrown out there?

I can see that characters have more than one side, and that first impression hot takes aren't always the full story. We also know that Garak killed a whole lot of people before DS9 started and a whole lot in unscrupulous ways during the show. But he seemed mysterious in a fun way at first glance. It seems that people can't make the connection in reverse and entirely rely on their first impressions they refuse to change in any way even as new information is provided.

And that's really odd to me. All anyone is isn't often what they appear to be at first glance. Why should TV characters be that way?

"Commited genocide", "slaughtered sentient beings to eat them" and "gloated about that in their victims' faces" are really a few things were the first glance is absolutely enough to know what you're dealing with and judge accordingly.

 

[Alan Roi]

"Commited genocide", "slaughtered sentient beings to eat them" and "gloated about that in their victims' faces" are really a few things were the first glance is absolutely enough to know what you're dealing with and judge accordingly.

And yet, when I watched Marco Polo, I enjoyed the depiction of Ghengis Khan as a complex individual, despite all the horrors he has been attributed by history. I guess I'd be like the crew of the Enterprise when talking about Khan Noonian Singh and not be Spock going "That's not... logical!. And yes, I know how things turned out. Doesn't make him anything less of a compelling character,and I didn't think it wouldn't be out of place for him to be expanded on as a character in a Khan series if it was ever made showing him to be more than just what we saw in Space Seed and Wrath of Khan (yeah, you won't get me to talk about Into Darkness).

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Except they haven't. Lots of nasty people care about their kids, or those they see as their children. And she took some serious relish from the killing of Control/Leland, so no its not at all like you are talking. Or is it that you are clinging to your first impression and refuse to give it up no matter how much new information is thrown out there?

I can see that characters have more than one side, and that first impression hot takes aren't always the full story. We also know that Garak killed a whole lot of people before DS9 started and a whole lot in unscrupulous ways during the show. But he seemed mysterious in a fun way at first glance. It seems that people can't make the connection in reverse and entirely rely on their first impressions they refuse to change in any way even as new information is provided.

And that's really odd to me. All anyone is isn't often what they appear to be at first glance. Why should TV characters be that way?

If Georgiou would've had a major turnaround after a few episodes, the complaint would be: "She's a Mary Sue now!" and "Would Hitler have had a change of heart like that after a few episodes? No way!"

I don't think there's a single viewer who looks positively at her past atrocities, and the whole thing is meant to keep folks off-balance as to what she'll do next (which we call "suspense"). Section 31 is supposed to operate in the gray, and that's where she thrives. Do we want a Mary Sue Georgiou? Because that would inevitably be the very next complaint out of people's mouths.

 

[Rahul]

And yet, when I watched Marco Polo, I enjoyed the depiction of Ghengis Khan as a complex individual, despite all the horrors he has been attributed by history. I guess I'd be like the crew of the Enterprise when talking about Khan Noonian Singh and not be Spock going "That's not... logical!. And yes, I know how things turned out. Doesn't make him anything less of a compelling character,and I didn't think it wouldn't be out of place for him to be expanded on as a character in a Khan series if it was ever made showing him to be more than just what we saw in Space Seed and Wrath of Khan (yeah, you won't get me to talk about Into Darkness).

MU Georgious is not a complicated character. She got the complexity of a wrestling heel-turned face, just WAAAAY more over-the top in regards of her actual evil-ness.

 

[Alan Roi]

MU Georgious is not a complicated character. She got the complexity of a wrestling heel-turned face, just WAAAAY more over-the top in regards of her actual evil-ness.

Ah yes, Star Trek, where characters are allowed to grow to be seen more complicated with time, except when fingers are pointed at one and they shout, "no!" you will always be what my first hot-take decided you are.

 

[Mudd]

Hey, I don't care whether it's been done before. The premise sucks.

To be honest, it never occurred for me to tie the Terran Empire into the Third Reich at any point when I watched.

That's sad.

 

[Alan Roi]

In the vein of forgiveness, should Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or even Charlie Manson be given "second chances"? .

Actually, I was once commissioned to write an interactive time travel story about going back in time and "Killing Hitler" with kindness. So I did my job and wrote five sequences where you could fix history by simply doing nice things for him at crucial times in his life (although you could fuck them up and make things potentially worse). And I had no trouble with the undertaking, and that is akin to giving him a "second chance" in my books. Because, hey, it was science fiction, and it was never actually something I'd seen done so it was good exercise of my imaginative faculties.