The age of the antihero

[fireproof78]

Hey you keep asking question and expecting answers which I give, but you won't answer any questions I ask you. That is your right I judge Kirk by the entirety of what I've seen and Burnham the same. He is essentially, again in my opinion, a good man. A good captain.

I think Burnham is essentially heroic, yes. She has made a lot of mistakes, but so did Kirk. So, where does the line get drawn?

Because, Kirk was insubordinate, assaulted Starfleet officers, wrongfully imprisoned an officer, broke a prisoner out of jail, stole Starfleet property, destroyed Starfleet property, offered a false flag of truce to Klingons only to kill several Klingon soldiers (a violation of the Geneva convention), stole Klingon property, committed an act of war against a sovereign power, among others.

Where is Kirk's "anti-hero" status?

 

[Refuge]

You invite comparison when you say that this is the 'age of the antihero' in Star Trek. The implication being that it wasn't before. So naturally, many have pointed out that Star Trek characters, including captains, have committed war crimes and other unsavoury acts in the previous shows and these are either worse than or on a par with anything Burnham or Lorca has done. Your continued insistence that Discovery is full of irredeemable characters while your personal favourite Trek show is half full of actual terrorists reads strongly like confirmation bias.

The age of the anti-hero is in reference to now, to the climate that Discovery is catering to. Look if people want to compare other Trek they will. However it doesn't change anything about what happens in Discovery, that is all.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Because, Kirk was insubordinate, assaulted Starfleet officers, wrongfully imprisoned an officer, broke a prisoner out of jail, stole Starfleet property, destroyed Starfleet property, offered a false flag of truce to Klingons only to kill several Klingon soldiers (a violation of the Geneva convention), stole Klingon property, committed an act of war against a sovereign power, among others.

And Spock was completely willing to commit mutiny against his current captain in an attempt save his former captain, under far less urgent circumstances, and against the latter's wishes no less!

 

[Refuge]

I think Burnham is essentially heroic, yes. She has made a lot of mistakes, but so did Kirk. So, where does the line get drawn?

Because, Kirk was insubordinate, assaulted Starfleet officers, wrongfully imprisoned an officer, broke a prisoner out of jail, stole Starfleet property, destroyed Starfleet property, offered a false flag of truce to Klingons only to kill several Klingon soldiers (a violation of the Geneva convention), stole Klingon property, committed an act of war against a sovereign power, among others.

Where is Kirk's "anti-hero" status?

Well you are entitled to think Burnham is heroic. I don't, not even close.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Also, officers lost their shit in tense circumstances not infrequently in TOS, and weren't punished.

 

[fireproof78]

Well you are entitled to think Burnham is heroic. I don't, not even close.

Which brings me back to my question-why is Kirk more heroic when he committed similar if not worse crimes?

 

[Refuge]

I think Burnham is essentially heroic, yes. She has made a lot of mistakes, but so did Kirk. So, where does the line get drawn?

Just to add, you say she's made a lot of mistakes? If you were to look at her balance sheet of mistakes and failures to anything positive in the behaviour we have seen, she has failed more. Can you say the same for Kirk?

 

[Refuge]

Which brings me back to my question-why is Kirk more heroic when he committed similar if not worse crimes?

Because he is more than the sum total of his mistakes, he achieved much as well. Do you see Kirk as an anti-hero? That he is the same as Burnham?

We have seen little of her and she has screwed up royally. Her sum total is not as good. There isn't much to commend.

 

[fireproof78]

Just to add, you say she's made a lot of mistakes? If you were to look at her balance sheet of mistakes and failures to anything positive in the behaviour we have seen, she has failed more. Can you say the same for Kirk?

Kirk could have started a war! He violated the Geneva convention! He did the same things Burnham did.

Burnham took responsibility for her actions and was willing to accept her punishment. That's always a positive to me.

 

[cultcross]

The age of the anti-hero is in reference to now, to the climate that Discovery is catering to. Look if people want to compare other Trek they will.

Well yes, because by defining today by a particular characteristic you invite comparison to the past when you are saying that characteristic was lesser. Hence people making comparisons to past Trek. In which people constantly broke the rules and were still presented as heroic. Remember Crusher? She caused an interstellar incident and violated medical ethics by doing an autopsy that she was expressly forbidden to do. Punishment? Back at work because she happened to also find a killer by chance.

 

[Refuge]

Kirk could have started a war! He violated the Geneva convention! He did the same things Burnham did.

Burnham took responsibility for her actions and was willing to accept her punishment. That's always a positive to me.

You do realise that Kirk is not on Discovery and that even if he was the scum of all creation it makes not difference to what Burnham is about?

 

[fireproof78]

You do realise that Kirk is not on Discovery and that even if he was the scum of all creation it makes not difference to what Burnham is about?

I'm trying to figure out where the standard for "anti-hero" is.

 

[Refuge]

Well yes, because by defining today by a particular characteristic you invite comparison to the past when you are saying that characteristic was lesser. Hence people making comparisons to past Trek. In which people constantly broke the rules and were still presented as heroic. Remember Crusher? She caused an interstellar incident and violated medical ethics by doing an autopsy that she was expressly forbidden to do. Punishment? Back at work because she happened to also find a killer by chance.

I readily admit to not having all Trek knowledge in my memory banks. TOS is something I watch for enjoyment and I can't help it if I admire the characterisation better. It convinces me that these are basically good beings who have more of that good in them and their actions than the 'other'. Obviously its production worked at that level. I watch Discovery and it is like the opposite of that. It's dark and the characters don't seem to represent much hope or decency. They may get results but it is an end justifying the means approach. As for Burnham she's not even smart. She's an emotional mess half the time. She is not admirable to me. Actually she's even a bit of a bore. However, I still think it is relevant that today's audience is different than before. They expect darkness and... anti-heroes.

 

[fireproof78]

I readily admit to not having all Trek knowledge in my memory banks. TOS is something I watch for enjoyment and I can't help it if I admire the characterisation better. It convinces me that these are basically good beings who have more of that good in them and their actions than the 'other'. Obviously its production worked at that level. I watch Discovery and it is like the opposite of that. It's dark and the characters don't seem to represent much hope or decency. They may get results but it is an end justifying the means approach. As for Burnham she's not even smart. She's an emotional mess half the time. She is not admirable to me. Actually she's even a bit of a bore. However, I still think it is relevant that today's audience is different than before. They expect darkness and... anti-heroes.

I can respect that opinion, but the standard is a struggle for me, I readily admit. It feels like a double standard when Burnham is condemned to prison for her actions and Kirk is heroic even though he commits the same actions...does anyone else see that or am I flaying a dead targ?

 

[Refuge]

I'm trying to figure out where the standard for "anti-hero" is.

Well I think you know that answer. It is something for you to decide and fit the actions of various characters into whatever category you might think best suits them.

 

[Refuge]

I can respect that opinion, but the standard is a struggle for me, I readily admit. It feels like a double standard when Burnham is condemned to prison for her actions and Kirk is heroic even though he commits the same actions...does anyone else see that or am I flaying a dead targ?

I do want say that I realise that an exploration based version of Star Trek, like TOS did make for an easier path for heroic intent. A war based (at this stage) show like Discovery draws upon a different 'edge'.

 

[fireproof78]

Well I think you know that answer. It is something for you to decide and fit the actions of various characters into whatever category you might think best suits them.

No, I really don't. Hence the clarifying. I'm truly confused.

I do want say that I realise that an exploration based version of Star Trek, like TOS did make for an easier path for heroic intent. A war based (at this stage) show like Discovery draws upon a different 'edge'.

Then I'll still struggle with this point of view.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

You just refuse to get it. Instead you just regurgitate the same thing over and over again.

One could say, she Refuges to get it

I just don't bother anymore. It's always the same thing, like a broken, predictable record.

 

[Refuge]

No, I really don't. Hence the clarifying. I'm truly confused.

Then I'll still struggle with this point of view.

Oh... I feel like a grinch. Just because characters might be interpreted as this or that as you've pointed out redemption is there for interpretation too! I would be more inclined to see that with Burnham than Lorca though.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh... I feel like a grinch. Just because characters might be interpreted as this or that as you've pointed out redemption is there for interpretation too! I would be more inclined to see that with Burnham than Lorca though.

Well, if Kirk can do it then Burnham can to

I think its a matter of different point of view. I don't get this standard, but hey, that's OK