Lorca and the hard man making hard choices

[Longinus]

It's not bullshit, it's (as eschaton wrote above) an example of a character being "a complicated person who is torn apart by a number of emotions, including duty, regret, anger, and determination." And love. And loyalty. He's done terrible things, yes, but also good ones. Jaime's redemption arc is one of the most interesting things about the show (and the books). And the same is true for the Hound (who started out terrible, but has changed). And Arya (who started out innocent, but has changed). And countless other characters. Really the only character in GOT who hasn't been transformed by his experiences is Jon Snow, but then he knows nothing.

And personally, the kind of complex character development GRRM writes is exactly the kind of thing I'd like to see in Star Trek. It's not incompatible with the utopian idealism of the Federation, or the pioneering spirit of Starfleet. On the contrary, I think it could be used to demonstrate those characteristics in greater relief with more convincing detail.

There is no redemption for certain things. Doesn't mean that people who have done such things cannot be interesting and compelling characters, but they should not be presented as heroic. Using narrative conceits and the actor's charisma to represent a person who murders children as heroic is not something I care for. It is another thing to have antagonists who have complex personalities and believable motives, that is perfectly fine.

And in Star Trek in particular I want to see certain level of idealism in the main characters. Doesn't mean they have to be absolutely perfect, but yes I actually prefer my Starfleet captains to have pretty damn solid moral centre.

 

[lawman]

Tyrion Lannister has a damn solid moral center... but nobody could accuse him of being an idealist, and circumstances have always made it difficult for him to act on his better impulses. I think a character like him would make a downright fascinating starship captain.

Let's note, also, that the most interesting character doesn't always have to be the captain. There are lots of other characters in an ensemble. That's pretty clearly what the writers have been going for with Burnham, in fact... they just haven't really pulled it off.

(Does anyone dispute that the morally complicated Garak was far and away the most interesting recurring character on DS9? Andrew Robinson made the most of every line he was given, and the writers knew how to play to his strengths.)

 

[eschaton]

And in Star Trek in particular I want to see certain level of idealism in the main characters. Doesn't mean they have to be absolutely perfect, but yes I actually prefer my Starfleet captains to have pretty damn solid moral centre.

What do you think of Garak then? He's done awful things, but ultimately his closing arc was...well...heroic. He killed Weyoun 8, took over the resistance after Damar was killed, and it's clear that despite his earlier shades of gray he just wants to help his planet rebuild.

 

[eschaton]

(Does anyone dispute that the morally complicated Garak was far and away the most interesting recurring character on DS9? Andrew Robinson made the most of every line he was given, and the writers knew how to play to his strengths.)

Missed this before I posted.

Since we mentioned Game of Thrones before, I always found it a bit strange that Varys and Garak are basically the same character. I mean, Varys was pretty much written that way in the books as well, but I can't help but wonder if Conleth Hill was a Trekkie and modeled his performance on Robinson.

 

[Longinus]

What do you think of Garak then? He's done awful things, but ultimately his closing arc was...well...heroic. He killed Weyoun 8, took over the resistance after Damar was killed, and it's clear that despite his earlier shades of gray he just wants to help his planet rebuild.

But he was not a Starfleet officer. The character worked considering the sort of background he had. But ultimately I don't want Star Trek to be primarily about this sort of people. YMMV.

 

[SJGardner]

Tyrion Lannister has a damn solid moral center... but nobody could accuse him of being an idealist, and circumstances have always made it difficult for him to act on his better impulses. I think a character like him would make a downright fascinating starship captain.

I could imagine something a bit like Sisko's backstory for him... jaded, cynical, disillusioned officer at a backwater position... it could certainly work, especially if it's the basis of his character arc. I'd watch the hell out of a series like this.

Does anyone dispute that the morally complicated Garak was far and away the most interesting recurring character on DS9?

I'd go even further and declare him the best character in Star Trek, period. I wish I could've seen more of him on the series.

 

[eschaton]

Tyrion Lannister has a damn solid moral center... but nobody could accuse him of being an idealist, and circumstances have always made it difficult for him to act on his better impulses. I think a character like him would make a downright fascinating starship captain.

In a certain way, an expy of Tyrion to a Trek universe starts out Tom Paris done right. An immature yet talented man forever in the shadow of his more accomplished father, with whom he has a terrible relationship.

 

[lawman]

I could imagine something a bit like Sisko's backstory for him... jaded, cynical, disillusioned officer at a backwater position... it could certainly work, especially if it's the basis of his character arc. I'd watch the hell out of a series like this.

Granted, ideally you'd also want an actor the caliber of Peter Dinklage. Those don't exactly grow on trees.

 

[waxon]

Hugely "this".

Why did we invest a season in this character just for him to get a "bad guy of the week" ending?

Yeah I think this is my issue with Lorca's death arc. I didn't want him to be a hero. This for me is one in a number of questionable narrative choices the writers have taken. They seem to be enamoured of style (ooh shiny) over substance. What was the point of the Lorca character to the overarching plot? Why should we care about the Empress? What was the point of VoqTyler? What was the point of Culber's death? What was the point of Landry's death? What is the point of Cadet Tilly on a starship? We've yet to be shown why she is so special. Ultimately I'm questioning why I've invested in this season - what was the point? I hope that I get some satisfactory answers in the last episodes of the season, otherwise I doubt I'll be back for season 2.

 

[Tallguy]

Of the captains and admirals we have seen in 50+ years of Star Trek how many of them have NOT been somewhat terrible or at least incompetent people. And of those how many have not been the lead characters on our shows?

What bugs me about Lorca is that we have now been told that the only possible way for a character like Lorca to exist is that he must come from AN ENTIRELY EEEEEEEEEVIL UNIVERSE.

Obviously it will be interesting to see what happens with Georgiou. Lorca had respect for his crew (new and old). His old crew that had been in agonizer booths for a year (!) immediately returned to his side. He's got something going for him other than charisma.

Georgiou eats Kelpans, kills all of her advisors in a twinkling because they heard too much, and is pretty much your standard Mirror Universe Bad Guy. Oh, and Mirror Stamets built the universe destroying drive for her ship, didn't he?

I bet one of these characters will be redeemable.

 

[Wulf]

Georgiou eats Kelpans

Ever eat a burger? Cows are pretty smart.

If a sentient creature is raised as livestock for your entire life, would you ever think to question its sentience?

kills all of her advisors in a twinkling because they heard too much

Sounds a bit like the MU Omega Directive.

and Mirror Stamets built the universe destroying drive for her ship, didn't he?

I have a suspicion that she wasn't exactly directly involved in the design process.

When the Empress asks for a big ship, you give her a big ship.

Stamets was probably quietly working on a non-universe-destroying model that he'd swap in eventually.

 

[lawman]

If a sentient creature is raised as livestock for your entire life, would you ever think to question its sentience?

If it talks to me? Yeah.

 

[Wulf]

If it talks to me? Yeah.

Did they actually talk and I forgot?

I just remember them being paraded around like lobster.

 

[Wulf]

Also, parrots can talk. Yeah, full on conversations if you train them well enough.

They're exotic in most areas so nobody'd waste the money, but people eat them in places where they're common.

You can actually go out right now, buy an animal, train it to understand language, and then explain to it that you're going to eat it before you do so. Today.

You'll have some people calling you a monster for doing so, but you're not gonna be banned from holding any sort of office.

 

[lawman]

Did they actually talk and I forgot?
I just remember them being paraded around like lobster.

The ones in Georgiou's throne room didn't get any dialogue. But it had already been established, when Burnham was commanding the MU Shenzhou, that Kelpiens were used as slaves, remember? MU Saru brought her meals, bathed and dressed her, and later saved her life. (And, oh yeah, had a conversation with her.) Any race intelligent enough to work as house slaves is clearly not just livestock.

 

[Wulf]

MU Saru brought her meals, bathed and dressed her, and later saved her life. (And, oh yeah, had a conversation with her.)

That had slipped my mind.

I'm not fully committed to the argument here, but I will say there's a huge disconnect between most people and where their food really comes from.

I've you've ever eaten bacon you've contributed to the death of a (potentially) highly intelligent animal for your sustenance. Don't feel bad, so have I and I will again.

Are we morally superior to the Empress simply because pigs don't have this magical quality called sentience, or are we just an evil of a slightly different shade?

 

[eschaton]

Are we morally superior to the Empress simply because pigs don't have this magical quality called sentience, or are we just an evil of a slightly different shade?

I'm vegan, so yes.

/condescend

 

[Longinus]

Are we morally superior to the Empress simply because pigs don't have this magical quality called sentience, or are we just an evil of a slightly different shade?

Well, technically they absolutely have sentience, what they don't have is sapience.

 

[Wulf]

Well, technically they absolutely have sentience, what they don't have is sapience.

I'm of the personal opinion that there's absolutely no difference between the human brain and the animal brain outside of their tolerance for daytime television and ability to solve math problems.

Cognitive dissonance keeps meat delicious though.

 

[Longinus]

I'm of the personal opinion that there's absolutely no difference between the human brain and the animal brain outside of their tolerance for daytime television and ability to solve math problems.

Yeah, I pretty much agree. There is no reasonable definition of sapience which would include all humans but not any non-human animals. If pigs are not sapient, then toddlers aren't either, yet eating toddlers is frowned upon.