I don't understand the hate Disco gets / still gets.
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
- Status
As the scene ends there is the clear movement/lights of a vehicle outside and enemy reinforcements.
Icheb likely would have died of blood loss and going into shock after his Borg eye was removed in such violent fashion. He was in pretty dire physical shape when Seven arrived at the scene and I doubt she'd have put him out of his misery if she couldn't tell from the loss of his Borg technology in his cranium that he was doomed to die.
And had Seven not shown up and Icheb lingered a little longer his captors would probably have ignored his agony or even conducted further extractions of tech, which amounts to torture.
And had Seven not shown up and Icheb lingered a little longer his captors would probably have ignored his agony or even conducted further extractions of tech, which amounts to torture.
(highlighting by me)
I mean that is the real point here. You doubt that Seven would do such a terrible thing and therefore you come up with a rationalization for it. So, it is not that you make an assessement based on what is seen, but you started with the assessment "Seven wouldn't be bad" and therefore come up with an interpretation of how what is actually shown can be connected to your opinion of Seven.
I can't blame you for that. It probably even shows that you are a good person - so good that you can't even imagine our "hero" Seven doing such a terrible thing.
But it does not change that this interpretation is already based on your firm believe "It can't be bad, what they are showing Seven is doing." and not on what they are actually showing.
Well, if we can't agree on the Icheb scene: What do you think about the cold blooded murder amok scene?
It seemed clear to me Icheb was dying anyway, all Seven did was euthanize him.
Not sure what any of this has to do with Disco, to be honest.
I mean, it's meant to be morally gray. The episode makes no attempt to condone Seven's actions and makes it clear it's mostly just an emotional impulse in retaliation to Icheb's death.
Not sure what any of this has to do with Disco, to be honest.
The episode was given as an example for "Being part of the Star Trek franchise is "a gift and a burden": [...] It is a burden, because the expectations to it will automatically be a little bit higher." and TedShatner10 wanted to have an explanation why it is an example.
Interesting choice of wording: "condone"
Well, actually, the episode and series does exactly that. Seven runs amok and does not face any consequences at all. Even the person that talked with her before the amok run that basically said that there are other ways to live, to which Seven mendaciously agrees (before doing the amok run anyway), does not even mention it or shows any grudge because of it the next time they meet.
So, if you ask whether the episode condones Seven's actions... that seems exactly the right word to describe what it does! Maybe one can argue whether the episode even sanctifies or excuses her actions, but it definitely condones them.
Worf. I thought of Worf.
Ok, Worf is always a glorious thought.
But yeah, please elaborate on it. (I have a guess, but let's see.)
We're going off tangent here, but how popular is DSCO really with viewers? Is it really hated outside of Berman era die hards?
It understands she's now a rogue element outside of direct Starfleet control and authority and as a Fenris Ranger allows herself to operate largely on instinct and emotion. When she vaporized Bjayzl and then turned her phaser rifle on others in the nightclub it might not have been Starfleet conduct and behavior...but then Seven was never Starfleet. Even under Janeway's authority on Voyager she was not judged on the same level as Janeway's Starfleet crew and the former Maquis.
So maybe she went bat guano temporarily insane and killed a bunch of people complicit in a criminal organization that itself operated outside the law and boundaries of common decency, but at the end of the day she was in emotional agony over Bjazyl's abuse of others and the murder of Icheb and her explosion of frustration and vengeance can't be judged the same way a Starfleet officer's can.
I'll go so far as to say that Sisko in "For the Uniform(DS9)" did much worse just to have one man surrender to his captivity. A man he was personally and at times irrationally angry at for betraying his own uniform and Sisko's trust. Poisoning the atmosphere and environment of a Maquis colony planet to get one man is worse than a grief-stricken Seven whacking a room full of criminals and henchpersons.
So maybe she went bat guano temporarily insane and killed a bunch of people complicit in a criminal organization that itself operated outside the law and boundaries of common decency, but at the end of the day she was in emotional agony over Bjazyl's abuse of others and the murder of Icheb and her explosion of frustration and vengeance can't be judged the same way a Starfleet officer's can.
I'll go so far as to say that Sisko in "For the Uniform(DS9)" did much worse just to have one man surrender to his captivity. A man he was personally and at times irrationally angry at for betraying his own uniform and Sisko's trust. Poisoning the atmosphere and environment of a Maquis colony planet to get one man is worse than a grief-stricken Seven whacking a room full of criminals and henchpersons.
People treat heroes like they will always do the right thing and that every action must be lauded. Trek hasn't done that. It offers us people making decisions based upon lots of factors. This allows the audience to come to it's own conclusions. Was Seven right for seeking revenge? Or Kirk? Worf? Sisko for engaging in many wrongs?Ok, that is always a fun thought.
But yeah, please elaborate on it. (I have a guess, but let's see.)
Trek is not so black and white.
No, you don't.
No indication?
Icheb says, "Go." Seven says, "Not without you, Icheb." Icheb grabs Seven, they look into each other's eyes, and Icheb shakes his head. You must not understand what a head shake is and what it communicates in this instance. Also, that it occurred wouldn't show up in just a dialog transcript, because it's nonverbal.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Yeah, nothing.
I just thought it was worth calling bullshit on the... um... bullshit.
I think we're done here; I'm done with it, anyway.
She euthanized him. She understood what having Borg components violently ripped from one's formerly assimilated cranium meant and she had no access to a proper medical facility to even attempt to stabilize and save him. Seven's not stupid. She's not evil. She didn't "murder" Icheb. She ended his suffering and knew he would die anyways.
@fireproof78:
It is not about a fictional character, but about the moral of the story. Whether an action of a character is part of the moral depends on how the character is presented and what repercussions it gives.
Although the default is that the actions of the protagonist are mostly driving the moral, it does not mean that the "hero" can't have issues and it also does not automatically mean that his bad actions are part of the moral. It depends on what happens in the story about it - it is about what repercussions are given.
For example, our hero Worf kills Duras immediately after he learned that Duras killed K'Ehleyr. But then he get called out by Picard for it. He does not get suspended from his duties, but at least it is made clear by the story (here in the person of Picard), that this was not just ok.
Our hero Seven does not get any such repercussions for running amok 13 years after she killed Icheb in Stardust City Rag.
It is not about a fictional character, but about the moral of the story. Whether an action of a character is part of the moral depends on how the character is presented and what repercussions it gives.
Although the default is that the actions of the protagonist are mostly driving the moral, it does not mean that the "hero" can't have issues and it also does not automatically mean that his bad actions are part of the moral. It depends on what happens in the story about it - it is about what repercussions are given.
For example, our hero Worf kills Duras immediately after he learned that Duras killed K'Ehleyr. But then he get called out by Picard for it. He does not get suspended from his duties, but at least it is made clear by the story (here in the person of Picard), that this was not just ok.
Our hero Seven does not get any such repercussions for running amok 13 years after she killed Icheb in Stardust City Rag.
Ok, sorry, I didn't know that a head shake means that someone is mortally wounded beyond any help. Interesting, thanks for the info.
Anyway, getting back to DISCO.
Well, I rank TOS highest among pre-streaming-era Trek, so I doubt that makes me a Berman era die hard. And I think DISCO is the worst of the streaming-era shows (based on current episode content). Does that count (for one vote)?
DSC is my least favorite Trek series that isn't TAS. But much like pizza even the cold, day-old stuff can still be edible, just not something I crave.
Well, just look up what Kirsten Beyer* (the author of the episode) said about it. She didn't think the Trek audience would be "smarter than that", she thought that brutalizing Icheb in the first scene would be a good way to ensure that the audience will root for Seven in her actions of cold blooded murder (13 years later).So that makes it right?
Supposedly the Trek audience is smarter than that.
* I first wrote "Michelle Paradise", sorry, it was Kirsten Beyer.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
