Then what? Death? What does a society do with such individuals, especially in Star Trek where weapons of planetary destruction are clicks away?
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x05 - "Saints of Imperfection"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
That is up to powers greater than me.
What do WMD's have to do with anything? A person still has to be willing to use them.
And there you get to see how much the writers of Disco trust the audience to make up their own minds. Or not.
And if they had went through with it, I doubt anyone would see Kirk as heroic or a good person.
Is there a hard limit? Can you be redeemed at 2 deaths but three strikes and you're out?
Very true. But, as I stated earlier, I do not see Georgiou as good or heroic, nor do I see her being presented as such. Again, it's the idea of when does a person become irredeemable and what is done with them after that point? If Star Trek is to show us an improving humanity (as often tossed around) then here is the prime opportunity to do so.
But I think a critical difference here is that the Hitler grew up in a world with an available moral code, and was a hideous human nonetheless. Georgiou grew up in a world without any moral code available to her as far as we know. I don't think the two are comparably irredeemable.
I'm fine with redemption stories, but you need to be careful with those. As noted Damar's was pretty good. They're mostly representing the Empress as cool, edgy badass, and I'm not terribly comfortable with it.
Is there a cuttoff point, hundreds? thousands? Seems to me there are many people who are considered heroes and even role models who offer hope to many never were "good" people exactly. I think there was a line from Firefly to that effect.
And presenting someone as doing heroic deeds doesn't have to make them necessarily "good". Grown-ups understand this, which is why I like series made for Grown-ups, like I hope Discovery continues to be.
This is obiviously a mileage may vary type of thing. I think that a character can be presented as "cool, edgy and badass" without being good. I certainly do not regard James Bond as a "good person" and he is modeled on real world exploits by men like Christopher Lee, Roald Dahl and others in the "Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare." Badass does not equal heroic.
The fact that we are having this conversation is quite interesting to me at this point.
Again, as I've pointed out, mostly doesn't equal all and its the areas where she isn't a caricature, as with any character, is where her story will be interesting and worth fllowing. The fact that they are adding dimensions to her at all suggests the writers are aware of what they are doing.
More precisely, IMHO, heroic doesn't necessarily mean good.
Many grown ups don't understand this. They latch on to cool edgy bad guys like flies to the flypaper and then they try to justify their evil deeds. It happened with Dukat, for example.
That doesn't make them right.
Otherwise I could cite all the badasses in history as excuses for my violent behavior.
What? Bond is obviously represented as heroic and 'good guy' in the narrative of the films, this is pretty much unquestionable whether you actually agree with his morals.
And if I don't agree with his morals? Doesn't make him right.
I certainly don't think Georgiou is presented in such a light.
Then you don't. But the filmakers unquestionably intended him to come across as heroic.
Well, it was your example...
What can I say, Mark Alaimos is a great actor and put his all into that role, absolute trooper, took the red eye to Toronto for our Con when our main guest cancelled at the last minute, quite a heroic move on his part. But who says to a judge, "I was just doing as Gul Dukat would have done", unless their lawyer is entering an insanity plea.
Last edited:
Again, good and heroic, not the same thing. For instance, I wouldn't view Craig's Bond a good person. heroic, sure, but good? Not in the slightest. Moore's Bond, no the other hand, he was a better human being in a lot of ways. Both however, did heroic things. Again, adults can separate the concepts of good and heroic, but sure, they often don't choose to do so.
And I will agree that the Emperor's likely idea of what is good is not any of ours. I don't think she helped give the Disco some more time was out of the goodness of her heart. She may very well is hoping to find a way back home and needs a certain group of people to achieve that goal. Or not. I'm interested in finding out. Not every character in Star Trek needs to be a noble one, IMHO, and often the series is served well by having such characters around. It has so many many many times in the past. What is so different now that says to you having such characters around now is a bad idea?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
