Pretty sure Dudley Doright would be an excellent example of the anti-antihero.
The age of the antihero
- Thread starter Refuge
- Start date
That ship has sailed, my friend.
Discovery has issues, but I'm really not getting the antihero vibe from any one any longer.
Burnham was originally written as a "flawed protagonist" but the show backed away from this pretty quickly. It's clear to me that this was Bryan Fuller's vision for Burnham, and the replacement showrunners just want her to be a slighly mopey protagonist who does proagonist things.
Lorca could arguably be called an antihero, but if they do make him from the Mirror Universe (and potentially ethical and heroic by the local standards) then his earlier actions in no way reflect upon Starfleet as a whole.
Burnham was originally written as a "flawed protagonist" but the show backed away from this pretty quickly. It's clear to me that this was Bryan Fuller's vision for Burnham, and the replacement showrunners just want her to be a slighly mopey protagonist who does proagonist things.
Lorca could arguably be called an antihero, but if they do make him from the Mirror Universe (and potentially ethical and heroic by the local standards) then his earlier actions in no way reflect upon Starfleet as a whole.
Lorca being put through an agonizer booth for two days pretty much confirms it. It's basically plot-driven karma for being such a gigantic asshole. That he continues to be (more or less) the "good guy" after being tortured nonstop for days is further confirmation.
I don't think she was written that way at all, since she is an otherwise excellent officer who made one terrible mistake that torpedoed her entire career. She's not a flawed protagonist so much as she is the Outcast who now has to get back on the good side of the Law.
EITHER WAY his actions don't reflect on Starfleet as a whole, anymore than Matt Decker beating up a security guard to commit suicide, or Ronald Tracey going on a genocidal rampage to find the Fountain of Youth, or Ben Finney faking his own death to get revenge on Kirk, or Alex Marcus trying to start a war with the Klingons, or Admiral Cartwright trying to start a war with the Klingons, or Admiral Mark Jameson engaging in sketchy arms deals, or Ben Maxwell going Full Metal Jacket on the Cardassians, or Michael Eddington running off to join the Maquis, or Tom Riker stealing the Defiant...
Need I go on?
Please do. Because the standard argument against DISCO is that the Starfleet officers "don't act like Starfleet Officers" and would never disobey orders, mutiny, be convicted of a crime, etc, etc.
Except, for all the times that they do! But, DISCO does it and it is bad...
If you want to talk mutiny, let's talk about the time James T. Kirk disobeyed the orders of his superior officer, stole a starship out of space dock, then flew to a forbidden planet that was the center of galactic controversy and, upon his arrival, immediately opened fire on a Klingon warship, then blew up his (stolen) starship, stole the KLINGON vessel he'd just fired on, and then hid from justice for three months with his stolen ship while refusing to hand it over to the proper authorities... and then, having finally decided to return, took said stolen ship into time warp, kidnapped an Earth citizen from the late 20th century, and then ditched that stolen Klingon warship in the middle of San Francisco bay.Please do. Because the standard argument against DISCO is that the Starfleet officers "don't act like Starfleet Officers" and would never disobey orders, mutiny, be convicted of a crime, etc, etc.
Except, for all the times that they do! But, DISCO does it and it is bad...
Speaking of antiheroes...
This is what happens when that ship remains unattended ripe for the picking
I just figured it was a windy day.This is what happens when that ship remains unattended ripe for the picking
Seriously there is no universe that Lorca is not a manipulative lying sociopath. We may have a dead Lorca on Prime Buran, well particles of both. However he is not the one we are following and is being presented to us. Our 'hero' is anything but. First nine episodes we have seen him deceive, scramble, make random decisions both with consequence that are fortunate and not, but ALL with a purpose designed around his own agenda. And it's still happening in this anti-hero paradise of the mirror universe.
Tilly's stock went up, the moment she became Killy. Michael already ridiculously flawed has never looked more empowered as she is now as some cartoon bad Burnham. The audience loves it it would seem, and Discovery is giving them what they want. I'm surprised viewers are even trying to equate previous Starfleet with this messed up lot.
Tilly's stock went up, the moment she became Killy. Michael already ridiculously flawed has never looked more empowered as she is now as some cartoon bad Burnham. The audience loves it it would seem, and Discovery is giving them what they want. I'm surprised viewers are even trying to equate previous Starfleet with this messed up lot.
Starfleet is a messed up lot-period.
I genuinely feel this lot are different, more cynical, less idealistic, than any I've seen previously.
I agree they are different, possibly less idealistic but certainly not less messed up than other Starfleet officers in the past. The only difference is that they happen to be the main characters, rather than the heroic main cast swooping in to teach their Starfleet comrades the evil of their ways.
It was meant to be like "You can't con a conman," then when I saw your reply, it came to me... "ante" like "raise the ante" or "ante up" and I felt so clever over my own pun, I had to add it.Ah, a stealth edit?
In this context certainly, "ante" and "anti" applied to "antihero" do two entirely different things.
@Ovation's example of Dudley Do-Right as an anti-antihero is a pretty good one, IMO. Dudley has essential characteristics of a hero, and he's a good guy. But IIRC he also is a fool and approaches or exceeds being obnoxious, both of which are non-heroic.
As far as how anti an antihero can be, I'm not really sure, but I'd concede it probably has a limit before non-hero overtakes hero.
Just sayin'.
Last edited:
That's because for the most part we've been comparing them to the 24th century "evolved sensibility" starfleet or the "Ooh lookie heuh, Cap'in, dat's en em clayus planet if I evah saw one! Let's go down and take some selfies!" Stafleet.
Turns out the middle ground between new age hipsters and clueless hilbillies is a cynical, somewhat amoral pragmatist. Fancy that!
I actually like other Star Trek so I guess if I was a fan that didn't then this version would resonate differently. However in liking other Star Trek one can be capable of seeing differences between previous versions. TOS is quite different from the others that followed. Not being a huge DS9 follower (I did see first run episodes) but that is different from Voyager. TNG deserves credit rather than ridicule, in my opinion, for opening the door again. But of course none of these are owed audience approval, that will always come from within. If they did all share 'evolved sensibility' then they were suited to and better for it.
We do agree though on this. Discovery presents cynicism and amoral sensibility. That doesn't mean this lot isn't taking its own selfies or holograms, there's just a dominance of characters wearing black hats!
Yes, and that is human nature. Can the idealism of the Federation survive it?
That is the question and at a story level and character level it is fascinating. DS9 did it as well and more of it as the seasons went on, so DISCO is not unique in that sense.
Hell, look at how discovery STARTED. Georgiou's "Starfleet does not fire first!" and Cooper lamenting about how they're at war now and "We're explorers... we don't fight wars... what the hell, man!" It almost seems like Discovery is showing us the singular event that saw the final nail in the coffin for the Johnathan Archer era and the beginning of the transformation into the Lobster Reds of of the Wrath of Khan age...
Which leads me to an interesting thought. Wouldn't it be fascinating if the final "reconciliation" we get at the end of Discovery is the introduction of the new militaristic uniforms we saw in most of the TOS movies? It could be this series is meant to explain WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED that caused this entire shift in tone from "We're explorers, out intentions are peaceful!" to being a Hornblower-style space navy...
I can't picture anyone in any other Trek series saying something like that. I equate it to coward+concussion.
