But both of these behaved way less nasty on a personal level, and weren't shown to enjoy torturing and eating people as much as she did. This is really disgusting on a level I never thought fathomable in any mainstream IP franchise - let alone Star Trek of all places!
Rahul, I'm going to take step on the optimistic side for just a moment. I'm going to ask that the "Space Cannibal Hitler" emotional filter be removed for just a moment. I appreciate your passion but I'm going to attempt to offer a different point of view.
First of all, Star Trek has not portrayed humanity as perfect or even above genocide in the future, unfortunately. The darker aspects of human nature still very much reside, as illustrated by Archer's actions on "Dear Doctor," Kirk's orders in "A Taste of Armageddon," Picard's response to the clone civilization in "Up the Long Ladder". Not to mention Starfleet's attitude towards the Borg, the Klingons and the Founders.
Now, all that said, what Star Trek has done is present an optimistic portrayal of humanity, that they can put aside their darker impulsives and, as Kirk said, "choose to not kill today." Star Trek presents a society where that is possible for a human being to grow and to change and to become better.
Now, I might eat these words, but I prefer optimism as my main course so I'll take the risk. This show could be a demonstration of that evolution from someone who is "irredeemable" and transitions to someone more morally aware.And, in all honesty, how is this any different than Mirror Spock's path set up in "Mirror Mirror"?
Star Trek offers the optimistic idea that humanity can survive and move past this nature. Now they have an opportunity to utilize a "savage human" and possibly demonstrate that growth. Now, this is all optimistic spin on my part and for all I know this show will turn into little more than spy action show stuff. In which case, I'll stop watching and let it go on its way. But, if "Mirror Mirror" demonstrates the idea of one person changing can alter the course of an empire then I will hold on to a hopeful idea that a hopeful humanity can turn the heart of evil towards the positive side of humanity.
In contrast, while Michelle Yeoh is a great actress, she has not played Georgiou as if she believes she is heroic. If I get anything out of her role aside from hammy "evil for evil's sake" it's basically just that she did what she had to do in a dog-eat-dog Terran Empire to claw her way to the top. Unlike Dukat, this doesn't seem to come from any sort of complicated set of desires - to have power and yet also be recognized and loved while holding the whip. Someone had to end up on top, and she had will to power - hence it was her. And now that she's deposed, she's basically just out for having a good time.
Does that mean she must remain that way?
