"Star Trek Begins" - The 'Origins' Film Discussion

[Daedalus]

I wouldn't. Dude could find a way to make wearing the suit lethal. This is the guy who used plants as a murder weapon after all.

Not on the majority his customers, though.

99% chance of making it through a fitting vs a 1% chance of even glancing in Georgiou's direction and living to tell the tale.

She is from a universe where humans are genetically predisposed to evil, after all..

I don't trust either one but at least one is honest about their brutality.

Besides, this isn't about like or dislike. It's about what characters are deemed acceptable in Trek. In my opinion if Georgiou's morally unacceptable then so is Garak, likeable or not.

If Section 31 is objectionable in Trek then Bashir's inclusion should not decrease that objection.

Yes, I'm asking for rationality and consistency in a highly subjective and irrational medium defined by "do I like the character?"

Well neither are morally acceptable, this is just me saying who I'd likely survive an encounter with in a dark alley. Providing I'm not a target, there's no reason I can't walk past Garak and survive. I honestly can't say the same for the Emperor.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I don't trust either one but at least one is honest about their brutality.

Besides, this isn't about like or dislike. It's about what characters are deemed acceptable in Trek. In my opinion if Georgiou's morally unacceptable then so is Garak, likeable or not.

If Section 31 is objectionable in Trek then Bashir's inclusion should not decrease that objection.

Yes, I'm asking for rationality and consistency in a highly subjective and irrational medium defined by "do I like the character?"

What's irrational is acting like these things are all exactly the same and must therefore be treated exactly the same for consistency's sake. They're very clearly not the same in their basic underlying facts and even more importantly than that, those basic facts are also presented in wildly different ways by the two series, so it is entirely reasonable that people do not treat them all the same.

Yeah, Garak is a deeply immoral person. Georgiou still makes him look like a choirboy in comparison. And unlike Garak - who is presented as a mystery people know nothing about at first and who remains an outsider who never gains the main characters' full trust all the way to the end of the series (and even some of the rare occassions where he is partially trusted, the show deliberately begs the question whether it was naive of them to trust him at all) - Georgiou is not just a terrible person in a Star Trek show, she's also a terrible person being consistently trusted to represent Starfleet and act in accordance with its values despite her constantly treating those values with contempt, and by the end of her time on the show the entire main crew is literally misty-eyed and sad at her departure despite her having treated 90% of them like shit for her entire career on the ship.

As for Section 31, on DS9 it's a conspiracy outfit that the main characters despise and actively oppose at every possible opportunity. On DSC, it's an official, openly accepted branch of Starfleet that the main characters are forced to accept as legitimate even when they find its existence disgusting and they can only justify open rebellion against it when given an absurdly overwrought excuse in the form of Control getting ready to wipe out all biological life in the universe.

 

[fireproof78]

What's irrational is acting like these things are all exactly the same and must therefore be treated exactly the same for consistency's sake. They're very clearly not the same in their basic underlying facts and even more importantly than that, those basic facts are also presented in wildly different ways by the two series, so it is entirely reasonable that people do not treat them all the same.

Yeah, Garak is a deeply immoral person. Georgiou still makes him look like a choirboy in comparison. And unlike Garak - who is presented as a mystery people know nothing about at first and who remains an outsider who never gains the main characters' full trust all the way to the end of the series (and even some of the rare occassions where he is partially trusted, the show deliberately begs the question whether it was naive of them to trust him at all) - Georgiou is not just a terrible person in a Star Trek show, she's also a terrible person being consistently trusted to represent Starfleet and act in accordance with its values despite her constantly treating those values with contempt, and by the end of her time on the show the entire main crew is literally misty-eyed and sad at her departure despite her having treated 90% of them like shit for her entire career on the ship.

So, again, so you like the character?

That seems to be the more pressing question. Georgiou and Garak are equally despicable to me. I guess that's the difference.

Well neither are morally acceptable, this is just me saying who I'd likely survive an encounter with in a dark alley. Providing I'm not a target, there's no reason I can't walk past Garak and survive. I honestly can't say the same for the Emperor.

I can't say that for either. I don't trust either one.

for Section 31, on DS9 it's a conspiracy outfit that the main characters despise and actively oppose at every possible opportunity. On DSC, it's an official, openly accepted branch of Starfleet that the main characters are forced to accept as legitimate even when they find its existence disgusting and they can only justify open rebellion against it when given an absurdly overwrought excuse in the form of Control getting ready to wipe out all biological life in the universe.

I don't see the difference. Even Bashir didn't sound the alarm every time and we saw the Admiralty working with them.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I don't see the difference. Even Bashir didn't sound the alarm every time and we saw the Admiralty working with them.

Georgiou - Joined Section 31 to live a more interesting life, worked on a Section 31 ship for a year, is the lead of the spin-off.

Bashir - Refused to join Section 31 when offered, kidnapped one of their leaders and drove him to kill himself in the process of stealing information that would unravel all of their plans.

The two series did not depict Section 31 the same and the characters have dramatically different relationships with the organisation.

 

[fireproof78]

Georgiou - Joined Section 31 to live a more interesting life, worked on a Section 31 ship for a year, is the lead of the spin-off.

Bashir - Refused to join Section 31 when offered, kidnapped one of their leaders and drove him to kill himself in the process of stealing information that would unravel all of their plans.

The two series did not depict Section 31 the same and the characters have dramatically different relationships with the organisation.

I did not say it depicted it the same, other than a similar relationship between leadership and Section 31.

Again, the objection I see is "Georgiou doesn't fit in Trek." vs. "Totally fine with Garak and Bashir as Section 31 operatives in the same type of show." The characters don't change the nature of the organization or the morally questionable nature of Georgiou and Garak.

You can like Garak. I don't see the appeal but knock yourself out. But, if you would support a Section 31 show because Garak and Bashir then the objection isn't to Section 31 as an organization; it's to the character.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

So, again, so you like the character?

That seems to be the more pressing question. Georgiou and Garak are equally despicable to me. I guess that's the difference.

Sure, I like Garak fine as a character and don't like Georgiou as one. That has more to do with Georgiou being badly written than any terrible things she's done, though.

But the idea that they're equally despicable is ludicrous to me.

Garak, as far as I can see, is the Cardassian equivalent of Jack Bauer. Terrible enough, for sure. I'd certainly not approve of such a person in real life. But - cliched as the term 'space hitler' has become in these conversations, the simple matter is it fits. Or rather even worse, it doesn't fit because Georgiou is even worse than Hitler. At least Hitler only actively attempted one genocide and wasn't in the habit of eating people.

I did not say it depicted it the same, other than a similar relationship between leadership and Section 31.

Again, the objection I see is "Georgiou doesn't fit in Trek." vs. "Totally fine with Garak and Bashir as Section 31 operatives in the same type of show." The characters don't change the nature of the organization or the morally questionable nature of Georgiou and Garak.

You can like Garak. I don't see the appeal but knock yourself out. But, if you would support a Section 31 show because Garak and Bashir then the objection isn't to Section 31 as an organization; it's to the character.

The objection is not to the organization or the characters.

It's to the way all of those things are *portrayed* in the context of Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

Garak, as far as I can see, is the Cardassian equivalent of Jack Bauer. Terrible enough, for sure. I'd certainly not approve of such a person in real life. But - cliched as the term 'space hitler' has become in these conversations, the simple matter is it fits. Or rather even worse, it doesn't fit because Georgiou is even worse than Hitler. At least Hitler only actively attempted one genocide and wasn't in the habit of eating people.

So, he murdered people, lies about it, attempts genocide and is only prevented by exterior circumstances, manipulates others to his own ends, and I'm supposed to regard him well?

Garak attempted genocide too against the Founders. He's on equal footing for me with Georgiou for likability and morality.

The objection is not to the organization or the characters.

It's to the way all of those things are *portrayed* in the context of Star Trek.

And what's the portrayal? That we're supposed to approve of Georgiou? Because, thus far, I don't see anything I am to approve or applaud or cheer on. She's a protagonist and that's it. If Garak was a protagonist I would have similar interest in the show for potential for a character to change, but I would not see it as an endorsement of the character.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Georgiou needs to become less of a vaudeville villain and chew less scenery.

 

[fireproof78]

I think after Terra Prime we could see more of that less.

And I think Garak could be just as over the top.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[FredH]

I don’t know, there’s a difference between “liking a character” and “liking to watch a character — particularly as played by a specific actor”. I’m sure I’ll never like either Garak or ex-Empress Georgiou as people. But I do tend to enjoy watching them from the other side of the TV screen, and particularly enjoy watching the actors playing them having a blast.

 

[fireproof78]

I don’t know, there’s a difference between “liking a character” and “liking to watch a character — particularly as played by a specific actor”. I’m sure I’ll never like either Garak or ex-Empress Georgiou as people. But I do tend to enjoy watching them from the other side of the TV screen, and particularly enjoy watching the actors playing them having a blast.

I'll grant that difference. I do not like Garak nor do I enjoy watching him. A credit to Robinson no doubt. If I'm watching scenes that end up with him I usually am half checked out or focused on other actors.

Georgiou is a combination of factors that really having nothing to do with likability and more engagement. I find the Mirror Universe fascinating and the idea of it one that is an interesting challenge to navigate. I think since Spock's discussion at the end of "Mirror, Mirror" and the comic series follow up post TSFS. Just a fascinating idea of how humans can grow and the darkness that lies underneath often denied in the post "evolved" sensibility of Star Trek.

So, less about "liking to watch" with Georgiou and more interested in where it might go.

 

[Dukhat]

At this juncture I would say that we’ve completely veered off the OP topic, but really, what is there to talk about?

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

At this juncture I would say that we’ve completely veered off the OP topic, but really, what is there to talk about?

To be fair it's probably like this over at Paramount too. It seems like every time the subject of a new Star Trek movie comes up everyone gets distracted and forgets what they were supposed to be discussing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

At this juncture I would say that we’ve completely veered off the OP topic, but really, what is there to talk about?

How Garek and Georgiou created the Federation?

 

[The Old Mixer]

a) How did this become a Section 31 thread? Seems like we've got at least one of those already.

b) It seems like the whole Georgiou vs. Garak thing got brought up out of nowhere to get an argument going.

 

[Dukhat]

I would say that’s a fairly valid assessment.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm not saying that's what they're doing. I'm just saying that's what it sounds like to me. I'm not sure why they feel the need to have two simultaneous Trek movie productions in the works when one sounds like it has the flimsiest of premises as an actual 'Star Trek' film, and the other sounds like a bona-fide KT sequel film (and which neither one may even be produced if past history is any indication.)

They say they have two simultaneous Star Trek movies in the works, but they only really have one. Star Trek 4 is in Development Hell, just like always. The Prequel Film, on the other hand, looks like it's further along and has an actual chance of being made.

They can't wait forever for Star Trek 4 to get its shit together. Star Trek 4 is that car that broke down in traffic. The Prequel Film is driving around it because it got sick of honking the horn.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, if the Prequel Film is successful -- if -- then it would serve as proof they can have a successful Star Trek movie for cinemas in the 21st Century without the Chris Pine cast. It would even provide proof they can make a Star Trek movie without always having to stick to the TOS model; meaning some version of Kirk and his crew.

Put those two things together and then suddenly Star Trek movies being able to continue becomes a lot less dependent on Star Trek 4 happening. Which would make Paramount/Skydance happy if Star Trek movies really are a priority again.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

So, he murdered people, lies about it, attempts genocide and is only prevented by exterior circumstances, manipulates others to his own ends, and I'm supposed to regard him well?

Garak attempted genocide too against the Founders. He's on equal footing for me with Georgiou for likability and morality.


And what's the portrayal? That we're supposed to approve of Georgiou? Because, thus far, I don't see anything I am to approve or applaud or cheer on. She's a protagonist and that's it. If Garak was a protagonist I would have similar interest in the show for potential for a character to change, but I would not see it as an endorsement of the character.

Nobody ever said you're supposed to regard him well. We have said the opposite multiple times in fact. One being worse than the other doesn't make the lesser evil good.

You're right that I forgot about Garak's role with the Founders, so I'll upgrade him from Jack Bauer to upper-middle management at the SS. Even worse. Still not as bad as the person actually fully in charge of multiple genocides who also eats people. That's a simple fact.

And what's wrong with the portrayal is not about you or what you're 'supposed' to think of her.

It's about how the way the show portrays her undermines the way the show portrays everyone and everything else. How the rest of the main characters - who we're supposed to root for as heroes - are now people who completely ignore her horrific past while also ignoring her constant insistence that Starfleet values (the values Star Trek is supposed to be based on) are stupid, which doesn't even make any damn sense on a personal level, either, since she never does a damn thing other than treat them all like shit anyway. Yet she is magically a valued member of the team because writer fiat and she is officially trusted to act on behalf of Starfleet in defense of the same values she openly derides.

It's about how Sec. 31 has been transformed from a conspiracy that Starfleet struggles over how to deal with - exposing weaknesses in Starfleet's structure, but also showing the strength of those who fight to keep Starfleet true to itself - into a fully, undisputably official agency that none of the main characters are allowed to fight against openly. It's about what that says about Starfleet's values themselves when those Sec 31 values (that were always meant to be diametrically opposed to Starfleet values) are now by definition a part of them instead.

 

[Dukhat]

I will believe that Paramount is serious about this "Kelvin timeline prequel" when I actually see production on it.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I believe 'Star Trek 4' is a bureaucracy driven ghost that is never, ever going to happen at this point.

The prequel sounds a lot more plausible as something that might actually happen, but I'm also not convinced yet that Paramount is really serious about it.