Spoilers Lorca Theory

[Kol-Ut-Shan]

I’m an American living in my 12th year in Japan. I got Netflix Japan a couple of months ago. I’ve listed everything I could, all 7 ST series as well For the Love of Spock and The Captains. None of the movies are available. I’ve downloaded every episode of Discovery.

I was really surprised by yesterday’s episode.

 

[middleagednerdgirl]

Wow. This is a massively grimdark interpretation. Shallow and cynical as hell if you ask me. A perfect representation of what you say is so darned terrible about DSC.

To me it's obvious that those creating and working on this show care a lot about Star Trek. They are treating the canon with respect but at the same time trying to update it for a 2017 audience. Sometimes that means not catering to the fringe fanatics. They've most likely put more thought into canon, though, than previous incarnations because of how vitriolic fans are on social media these days. They're much more sensitive to criticism, because it's so prevalent these days - look at the Last Jedi temper tantrums - and yet they are still carving out their own show and doing it well.

If you don't like their choices, it's fair enough, it's your prerogative. Doesn't make your opinion fact, though. There's no indication that those working on the show aren't familiar with prior Trek, and respecting it in their own way.

By the way, Star Trek is and has ALWAYS been a business enterprise, trying to make the quickest buck and appeal to the largest audience. Gene Roddenberry was a hack who rode the wave of popular wave of acclaim (while Gene Coon who did the most work on the series was overlooked) and did some very questionable things to some of his female cast. He's just like Lucas, getting more credit than he probably deserved, in my opinion. Please stop putting him on a pedestal.

If you can't see how this show is delving far more deeply into what the ideals of the Federation actually were, how they eventually arrived at them, and how hard it is to live up to those ideals, then that's on you as a viewer. It's there, explicitly and implicitly if you cared to open your mind just a smidge.

Many Trek fans, like me, rate DS9 as the best Trek series they ever made. It had the best character development and long term arcs that actually had consequences. Even so, its first season was still a mixed bag with some clunkers. In my opinion Discovery is the closest thing to it. It has had a better S1 than any Star Trek show bar TOS. It asks itself harder, more complicated and nuanced moral questions which take resolving over longer periods of time than most of the previous offerings. That's why I love it. But hey, that's just my opinion.

I agree with every word you wrote.

Discovery is way darker than anything that's been done before but that's not all it is. It's the adrenaline-soaked, complicated, completely adult version of Trek I had no idea I wanted, but apparently wanted desperately. I vehemently disagree, however, that this is a huge departure from core principles. It's ALL ABOUT ethical dilemmas, figuring out who you really are and what "the right thing" is, and about whether humanity has the capacity to transcend its petty bullshit and baser instincts. Having more deeply flawed, complicated characters and putting them in extremely ambiguous situations doesn't change the questions ST has been asking for 50 years, it makes the questions harder to answer. And the outcome a whole lot more unpredictable.

This story could go in quite a few directions and I legitimately do not know what will happen next week. Whatever happens, however, I am confident the climax is going to turn on people with basically good motives desperately trying to decide what's right and find a way out of a bad situation that they can live with.

There are all kinds of Trekkies. I'm rare in that I genuinely like ALL of the series, although DS9 is my favorite and that tells you a lot. DS9 was divisive, too. If you want to know where a Trekkie's sensibilities lie, find out what they think of "In the Pale Moonlight," which I thought was one of the best ST episodes ever. That's the ground Discovery stands on, with far fewer restraints on how to explore it. I understand why people who like their Trek to return every week to unicorns and rainbows hate it, but I find it thrilling.

It's my good fortune that the version of Trek which is commercially viable on a streaming service in 2018 is also something I want. If it's not what you want, that doesn't mean it "isn't Star Trek." If you prefer something less confrontational, you can always rewatch TNG or check out the second-class but still enjoyable clone known as The Orville.

 

[Commander Richard]

To be fair, it's hard to find role models among The Transformers.

People have mentioned Optimus Prime.

 

[Hythlodeus]

I agree with every word you wrote.

Discovery is way darker than anything that's been done before but that's not all it is. It's the adrenaline-soaked, complicated, completely adult version of Trek I had no idea I wanted, but apparently wanted desperately. I vehemently disagree, however, that this is a huge departure from core principles. It's ALL ABOUT ethical dilemmas, figuring out who you really are and what "the right thing" is, and about whether humanity has the capacity to transcend its petty bullshit and baser instincts. Having more deeply flawed, complicated characters and putting them in extremely ambiguous situations doesn't change the questions ST has been asking for 50 years, it makes the questions harder to answer. And the outcome a whole lot more unpredictable.

This story could go in quite a few directions and I legitimately do not know what will happen next week. Whatever happens, however, I am confident the climax is going to turn on people with basically good motives desperately trying to decide what's right and find a way out of a bad situation that they can live with.

There are all kinds of Trekkies. I'm rare in that I genuinely like ALL of the series, although DS9 is my favorite and that tells you a lot. DS9 was divisive, too. If you want to know where a Trekkie's sensibilities lie, find out what they think of "In the Pale Moonlight," which I thought was one of the best ST episodes ever. That's the ground Discovery stands on, with far fewer restraints on how to explore it. I understand why people who like their Trek to return every week to unicorns and rainbows hate it, but I find it thrilling.

It's my good fortune that the version of Trek which is commercially viable on a streaming service in 2018 is also something I want. If it's not what you want, that doesn't mean it "isn't Star Trek." If you prefer something less confrontational, you can always rewatch TNG or check out the second-class but still enjoyable clone known as The Orville.

you know, I agree with almost all of that, but you lost me at 'second-class clone'. The Orville had a by far better first season than the 'first-class original' TNG had. Did the stumble at the beginning? Sure. But they found their footing exceptionally fast

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The fact that he's a Mirror double who's out for himself completely destroys that possibility and relegates his hardness and survival oriented personal philosophy to being the character traits of a Space-Fascis

We always knew he was out for himself. We just didn't know WHY.

But then, I think I was the only one on this board who kept cautioning people not to expect a redemptive "I'm seeing the light and will try to do better from now on!" arc from Lorca. He's not a fallen hero trying to get back on his pedestal, he's the ASSHOLE BOSS who manipulates everyone and isn't totally trustworthy even though he (often accidentally) manages to do the right thing. I've been saying for MONTHS that Lorca isn't actually the good guy in this story, but I can understand why people who thought he eventually would be might be a little bummed.

Lorca is no Kirk. But he was never SUPPOSED to be a Kirk. This is NOT that kind of Star Trek story.

 

[middleagednerdgirl]

you know, I agree with almost all of that, but you lost me at 'second-class clone'. The Orville had a by far better first season than the 'first-class original' TNG had. Did the stumble at the beginning? Sure. But they found their footing exceptionally fast

The first season of TNG was not very good and had a few truly terrible episodes. By season 3, it was seriously great. It was quite a trajectory.

If the Orville can achieve that, I will be duly impressed. But TNG had characters who were actually interesting to work with, while the Orville's are almost 100% generic. Perhaps better writing can improve that, but TNG also had more talented actors, including Patrick fucking Stewart. As a dramatic actor, Seth MacFarlane is a great singer. (Which he actually is.)

I watched the Orville and mostly enjoyed it. Some episodes I really enjoyed. But I enjoyed watching Star Trek Continues, too. The Orville to me comes off as fanfiction with a large budget. With some notable exceptions, the writing is amateurish and occasionally it's worse than that. Whatever they paid Penny Johnson to have sex with a pile of goo, it was not nearly enough. I would rather watch "Haven" twice than see that again.

I think the Orville would have been way better if it were funnier. Not all the jokes landed, but some of those that did were sublimely funny.

 

[eltel99uk]

The first season of TNG was not very good and had a few truly terrible episodes. By season 3, it was seriously great. It was quite a trajectory.

If the Orville can achieve that, I will be duly impressed. But TNG had characters who were actually interesting to work with, while the Orville's are almost 100% generic. Perhaps better writing can improve that, but TNG also had more talented actors, including Patrick fucking Stewart. As a dramatic actor, Seth MacFarlane is a great singer. (Which he actually is.)

I watched the Orville and mostly enjoyed it. Some episodes I really enjoyed. But I enjoyed watching Star Trek Continues, too. The Orville to me comes off as fanfiction with a large budget. With some notable exceptions, the writing is amateurish and occasionally it's worse than that. Whatever they paid Penny Johnson to have sex with a pile of goo, it was not nearly enough. I would rather watch "Haven" twice than see that again.

I think the Orville would have been way better if it were funnier. Not all the jokes landed, but some of those that did were sublimely funny.

Agreed! People tend to love or hate Seth MacFarlane. I'm one of those strange people who are in the middle. I thought seasons 1-3 of Family Guy were inspired but it should never have been recommissioned. Why? Because he has a habit of going downhill, in my opinion. Indeed, now I've been seeing later episodes I find no reason to change my mind - there are some side-splitting moments but I gotta say, the South Park critique of FG is very true. Season 1 of the Orville was fun and I, too, mostly enjoyed it. But on past form I doubt it'll improve (unlike all the real Star Trek iterations which improved after season 1). After all, as a "TNG homage with humour" did ANY parent of a child aged under 12 explain the glory-hole joke? Yes, I thought it was funny, but you can't keep that up and sell your product as a "homage with some innocent fart jokes". It's going into niche territory - fine with an animated series but live action? The $ doesn't work. It'll be cancelled after season 2.

 

[Shawnster]

I'm bummed. I did't want this theory to be correct and I honestly thought all the fans were grasping at straws. Boy, was I wrong.

I like Lorca as a captain and would love to see him in a non-war setting. I'm still confused how he could have so seamlessly take the PU Lorca's place, right down to his relationship with Admiral Cornwell.

I wish they would either had never gone to the Mirror Universe or had waited until the series had more foundation.

A character like a hero captain can be virtuous without being boring. It's not boring to have our hero captain always do the right thing. Sometimes the right thing is not the correct thing. Sometimes it's not the legal thing. Sometimes a captain can be heroic and virtuous and still be wrong. Someone can feel they are doing the morally upright thing and be mistaken. Sometimes our heroic captains do make mistakes. This doesn't make them less than virtuous, this makes them human. And, yes, sometimes our hero captains will miss their blindspots or give in to their own shortcomings.

Someone can be interesting and not be an "anti" hero.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A character like a hero captain can be virtuous without being boring. It's not boring to have our hero captain always do the right thing...

Yes, and that's exactly why you (and so many others) are so bummed.

Because the writers gave us every possible indication that Lorca was NOT the "hero Captain" of this story and never would be. He was, at best, not totally immoral, but he still exhibits strongly sociopath tendencies and signs of troubling instability. He is not and will never be the "hero captain" and that was never supposed to be his role in this story.

Michael Burnham is the hero of this story, and the context of her story is ALOT smaller than it otherwise would be. That's why the title of the show is "Star Trek: Discovery." It's not really the story of what happened Discovery in the wide Star Trek universe, it's the story of what happened to Michal Burnham and her shipmates on the Starship Discovery. Lorca is the "asshole boss" in charge of discovery; that he's even one of the protagonists is actually kind of surprising.

Someone can be interesting and not be an "anti" hero.

Lorca wasn't written an antihero to make him more interesting. He was written as an antihero to make him an asshole.

 

[DigificWriter]

Why does Lorca being from the Mirror Universe automatically make him an unlikable character?

 

[zenophite]

We always knew he was out for himself. We just didn't know WHY.

But then, I think I was the only one on this board who kept cautioning people not to expect a redemptive "I'm seeing the light and will try to do better from now on!" arc from Lorca. He's not a fallen hero trying to get back on his pedestal, he's the ASSHOLE BOSS who manipulates everyone and isn't totally trustworthy even though he (often accidentally) manages to do the right thing. I've been saying for MONTHS that Lorca isn't actually the good guy in this story, but I can understand why people who thought he eventually would be might be a little bummed.

Lorca is no Kirk. But he was never SUPPOSED to be a Kirk. This is NOT that kind of Star Trek story.

You misunderstand my hopes for the progression of the character. It's not that I'd hoped for some sort of redemption for Lorca but rather be a vehicle from which to contemplate exactly constitutes a hero in the first place.

Does a hero have to be perfect? Does he have to comply with a bullet point list of arbitrary moral or social beliefs in order to be considered a 'good guy'?

A man can be a ruthless combatant and a loving family man at the same time. The list of 'acceptable' flaws tends to shift with social fashion and historical period yet what is the universal core of a good man; a heroic man?

Sometimes the right thing is not the correct thing. Sometimes it's not the legal thing. Sometimes a captain can be heroic and virtuous and still be wrong. Someone can feel they are doing the morally upright thing and be mistaken.

indeed.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why does Lorca being from the Mirror Universe automatically make him an unlikable character?

Technically, the fact that he lied about it and has been manipulating literally everyone since he crossed over.

More specifically... well, because he's an unlikable character, by definition. If you've been watching Discovery and you actually like him, you definitely haven't been paying attention. (Or maybe you "like" him the way Firefly fans "like" Jayne Cobb in that his antics are kind of amusing AND we get to see him get what's coming to him every once in a while).

 

[Sci-fi fan]

Here we go again, Star Trek taught you not to judge a book by it's cover but, oh, just because Lorca's from the "evil" universe, he must be a bad guy. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to prejudge a character just because of the quantum signature of his birth. Lorca could be a revolutionary, on the side of the rebels! He may have been won over by living in the Federation! Who knows what might happen in the next three episodes?

Captain Picard had a whole big speech on this, and I don't see how lying about being a secret Romulan is that different from lying about not being from a parallel universe.

Don't be daft; Lorca admitted to have enjoyed abusing his victims. The writer of the show told us on After Trek that mirror characters are almost entirely sick versions of people.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You misunderstand my hopes for the progression of the character. It's not that I'd hoped for some sort of redemption for Lorca but rather be a vehicle from which to contemplate exactly constitutes a hero in the first place.

Yeah, I get that. My point is, LORCA was never meant to be the hero. BURHNAM was. If he was to be a vehicle for any of that, it would be by contrast, not by his actions. Discovery has been very clear about that from the beginning.

A man can be a ruthless combatant and a loving family man at the same time.

Lorca is not a loving family man. He's not an otherwise model citizen pressed into combat by the forces of war. He's not a Gentleman Soldier who has to do what he has to do. He's not The Good Man Goes to War.

He's an Asshole With An Agenda. That's who he was when he was introduced, and that's who he is now, and his characterization has been entirely consistent with that baseline from the beginning.

The list of 'acceptable' flaws tends to shift with social fashion and historical period yet what is the universal core of a good man; a heroic man?

Honesty, fairness, the ability to own your own mistakes and accept the consequences of your actions while still, always and forever, striving to do what you can to make things right.

The point of Discovery, however, is that being the hero is not always the same thing as BEING IN CHARGE. Lorca is in command of Discovery because he's a bullshitter and a gifted manipulator, and Michael Burnham went to prison for trying to do the right (and indeed, heroic) thing, and failing.

I get what you were expecting from Lorca. I'm just saying you were looking in the wrong place.

 

[DigificWriter]

If you've been watching Discovery and you actually like him, you definitely haven't been paying attention. (Or maybe you "like" him the way Firefly fans "like" Jayne Cobb in that his antics are kind of amusing AND we get to see him get what's coming to him every once in a while).

Dismissive much?

I know for a fact that there are many Star Trek fans both here and in the wider fandom who list Lorca as their favorite Captain and do so precisely because of how he's been portrayed.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Dismissive much?

I know for a fact that there are many Star Trek fans both here and in the wider fandom who list Lorca as their favorite Captain and do so precisely because of how he's been portrayed.

Yes, and I'm one of them. Precisely because of how he's been portrayed.

But I also have no illusions about what that portrayal means. He's not a "tough war hero when he needs to be, kind and gentle otherwise" archetype. He's a complete jerkass who would serve his entire crew to the Gorn on a silver platter if it got him what he wanted. He might feel bad about it afterwards (seeing how he's not a COMPLETE monster) but he also wouldn't hesitate for more than a couple of seconds.

Which, as I mentioned, is also one of the reasons Jayne Cobb is one of my favorite Firefly characters. He might (and in fact DID) sell out his friends if the money is good enough. But he doesn't necessarily LIKE being the way that he is; he IS what he is and there's nothing he can do to change it except keep on doing whatever it is he feels he needs to do. Amos Burton from "The Expanse" is like that too, and hell even Han Solo was originally written that way in "A New Hope." These are excellent characters in that they are FAR from perfect and in fact are only "good guys" because they just happen to get hired by the right people (in Jayne's case, literally: the first time Mal and Zoe meet him, he's part of a gang that's trying to rob them).

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Okay. I'm not sure what you were railing against, then.

Not all protagonists are good people, but that doesn't make them any less protagonistic.

Severus Snape is an extremely relevant example. He was firmly on the protagonistic side of the spectrum throughout Harry Potter, even when we as an audience thought otherwise, but was not a "nice guy".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Okay. I'm not sure what you were railing against, then.

Not all protagonists are good people, but that doesn't make them any less protagonistic.

Which is my point: the only thing that makes Lorca a protagonist is the sheer coincidence that helping Starfleet win the war -- and helping Burnham not die -- are in line with his, shall we say, vaulting ambitions.

But then there are those who are "bummed" because they misunderstood who and what Lorca was supposed to be. I don't know why, but there's a big chunk of the audience that wants to see a "good soldier" type person who follows orders and does what he has to do to win the war even if it is not, strictly speaking, the morally acceptable thing to do. The man who dirties his hands to do what needs to get done and still comes away with his honor intact. This is the "Section 31" craving in fandom: the Dark Knight captain who makes civilization possible for everyone else. But it turns out that's not what Lorca is -- AT ALL -- and now a whole lot of people are disappointed.

What I'm "railing against" is this: How can you be disappointed by something that was never supposed to happen in the first place? It's like my son throwing a tantrum because I didn't buy him a Nintendo Switch and me telling him, "What in the HELL gave you the impression that I was going to buy you another game system? How is this even slightly surprising to you?"

 

[Longinus]

But then there are those who are "bummed" because they misunderstood who and what Lorca was supposed to be. I don't know why, but there's a big chunk of the audience that wants to see a "good soldier" type person who follows orders and does what he has to do to win the war even if it is not, strictly speaking, the morally acceptable thing to do. The man who dirties his hands to do what needs to get done and still comes away with his honor intact. This is the "Section 31" craving in fandom: the Dark Knight captain who makes civilization possible for everyone else. But it turns out that's not what Lorca is -- AT ALL -- and now a whole lot of people are disappointed.

This is exactly the sort of bullshit I don't want to see in Star Trek. The trope is toxic in general and absolutely has no place in Star Trek (and yes, they already kinda went there with Sisko and Archer and I detested that too.) I'm still bummed by the mirror reveal though. I would have preferred Lorca to be a traumatised man, slowly falling apart, trying to cover his weakness with machismo, until he finally couldn't any more.

 

[Feron]

Why does Lorca being from the Mirror Universe automatically make him an unlikable character?

Because in a franchise that prides itself on battling prejudice and bigotry, being from some places automatically gets you labeled as EEEVIL.