The age of the antihero

[O_Kav]

We're living in a nihilistic age in which "realistic" seems to be equated with evil, and when everyone's evil, the concept of good and evil no longer has any meaning. That's a perfectly valid world-view but it's not one people associate with Star Trek.

We may be living in a "nihilistic age" but "realistic" is not associated with Evil, "realistic" is associated with what @cultcross has already mentioned, the so called "grey area". You seem to imply Star Trek is manicheistic by nature and that's wrong. There is no fight of Good vs Evil in Star Trek like there is in many other Sci-fi franchises. Trek mostly tried to shed new light on the motivations of "Villains", sometimes going to a point one could call it pure subjectivism. I mean, we're talking about a Sci-fi franchise that instead of always portraying a Species/Groups as evil like many other Space Operas did, members of that Species/Group in question became protagonists later on and could've easily fitted into the archetype of "Hero".

 

[Refuge]

What makes a story watchable is to be able to empathize (i.e. root for, care about) characters. If all they do is behave badly, then few well-adjusted individuals can do that. If you can't care about characters, well, you stop watching.

We're living in a nihilistic age in which "realistic" seems to be equated with evil, and when everyone's evil, the concept of good and evil no longer has any meaning. That's a perfectly valid world-view but it's not one people associate with Star Trek.

Lorca is compelling but I don't care about him at all. I agree we do live in a nihilistic age in which 'realistic' is equated to evil and violence. Where the Captain of the Starship Discovery is not shades of grey but shades of black. That is the world view Star Trek is now embracing.

 

[Refuge]

I mean, we're talking about a Sci-fi franchise that instead of always portraying a Species/Groups as evil like many other Space Operas did, members of that Species/Group in question became protagonists later on and could've easily fitted into the archetype of "Hero".

As things stand now you couldn't get more one note 'monster' as to how the Klingons have been presented in Discovery. If other Trek redeems them, which they do, it is in those versions of Star Trek they become more rounded, not this one.

 

[gblews]

Do you think Discovery has too many anti-heroes? It's like the writers are going for shock value. That is in part my point the audience seem to get a kick out of those who do wrong things.

I don't think DSC has "too many", I mean what would be the optimal number for this, or any show? I don't think it's about sheer numbers.

It's as much about interest value as likeability. To write a 'good' guy as interesting is, in my opinion, not as easy as having a character that is free to do anything without consequence or restriction.

Writing a "good guy" these days, more than at any time previously, requires that said good guy be relatable, in other words he/she can't be "perfect", otherwise you're writing a "mary sue". So now it's just a matter of how many flaws to give the person and how much resulting bad behavior as a result of the flaws. So, writing a "good guy, IMO, is not all that much different from writing a bad guy, IF you want the good guy to be of interest to the audience.

Write someone as breaking the law but guarantee that they don't do time because hey, seeing them sitting in a cell is not good TV. So we have these ridiculous scenarios that go for the edge or danger of a situation but without ever really expecting the character to be an actual red shirt. No way. There is never a doubt in the watchers mind that Lorca or Burnham are not going to be spared by the writer's pen.

Burnham faced, and is facing, severe consequences for her failure in the Battle of the Binary Stars. BTW, "failure" in this case is not the same as "mistake". Had she been successful in destroying T;Kuvma's ship before the beacon was lit, the entire Klingon war might have been avoided. But she still would likely have faced the same mutiny charges and possible conviction, loss of rank, and reputation, not to mention the prion time.

She was rescued from her prison sentence, but I think it was plausible considering that the ONLY reason it happened was because the Fed was at war.

As for Lorca, the circumstances of his actions with respect to his ship have not been made clear. We are all going on mostly speculation. That speculation, think, has been negatively slanted because the guy isn't touchy feely. I bet if we'd found out Georgiou had destroyed her ship and crew before the Shenzou, we would be more willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. We really don't know how bad or good he is, especially considering we've seen him do good things.

I think the number of anti heros on the show may be a bit exaggerated.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Han Solo was an anti-hero.

Aha! I knew there was a reason I never liked him.

As things stand now you couldn't get more one note 'monster' as to how the Klingons have been presented in Discovery.

On that I think we can all agree.

If other Trek redeems them, which they do, it is in those versions of Star Trek they become more rounded, not this one.

And it would also depend on what eventually happens with/to L'Rell.

As for Burnham: SMG is the star of the show, no way are they going to send Burnham back to prison. I suspect that the writers will think of an excuse for Starfleet to drop the charges against her. They don't have to restore her to full rank, but they WILL need to keep her on the ship.

If it were Kirk or Picard disobeying orders? No one would bat an eye.

The difference is, when people like that disobey orders - it's for a good reason. That's when orders deserve to be violated. Doing so serves a heroic purpose.

Worked for the Rebel Alliance in SW, didn't it? The orders they violate are the Empire's, and of course the Empire is evil.

 

[fireproof78]

Lorca is compelling but I don't care about him at all. I agree we do live in a nihilistic age in which 'realistic' is equated to evil and violence. Where the Captain of the Starship Discovery is not shades of grey but shades of black. That is the world view Star Trek is now embracing.

No, that's the world Star Trek is presenting, not embracing. It's a distinction that is an important one, because we cannot equate presentation as endorsement.

Humanity is dark and this is a show that is willing to embrace those darker aspects, and not curtail them. The optimism of Star Trek has to be able to endure despite human failings.

As things stand now you couldn't get more one note 'monster' as to how the Klingons have been presented in Discovery. If other Trek redeems them, which they do, it is in those versions of Star Trek they become more rounded, not this one.

Klingons lost a lot of nuance since TUC. DS9 did ok, but it wasn't great. They were already one note before DISCO showed up. I at least appreciate the new point of view on them, and filling out their culture rather than the honor bound warrior culture in monolithic form.

I think the number of anti heros on the show may be a bit exaggerated.

Yes.

On that I think we can all agree.

Not me

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Likely not, but how do you compare her crimes to Sisko's - and is he a just hero in your eyes?

At least Burnham and Sisko had the decency to be conflicted about what they've done. They agonized over their decisions. I don't see Lorca doing that.

That she ends up being dispatched somewhere for medical treatment and he is offered a medal is almost laughable

I doubt Starfleet ever actually intended to offer Lorca a medal. I saw that as just an excuse to get Lorca back to Starbase 46 where they could do the job Cornwell started - remove Lorca from command.

 

[Refuge]

As for Lorca, the circumstances of his actions with respect to his ship have not been made clear. We are all going on mostly speculation. That speculation, think, has been negatively slanted because the guy isn't touchy feely. I bet if we'd found out Georgiou had destroyed her ship and crew before the Shenzou, we would be more willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. We really don't know how bad or good he is, especially considering we've seen him do good things.

I think the number of anti heros on the show may be a bit exaggerated.

It wasn't speculation it was scripted what he did, revealed by Mudd and confirmed by himself. Later it was further brought up in the scene with Cornwell. And if it was Georgiou who killed her entire crew? I wouldn't give her the benefit of supposed doubt. There is no doubt of the action anyway. I'm not sure what people are hoping to have revealed that excuses him. He lived his crew didn't. He manipulated his psych tests. He manipulated Stamets by playing the recording of dying people, manipulated him to do all the jumps. Manipulating people and situations is at least something consistent about Lorca. He has one weakness apart from the eyes. He doesn't want to lose being Captain and in my opinion would do anything to protect that.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I haven't watched much of DS9. I see Burnham's crimes as what they are without comparison.

And without context, apparently. There's quite a bit of nuance to Burnham's actions and the circumstances that led up to them. In all fairness, we can neither wholly condone or excuse the former, nor can we entirely condemn or blame her for them in light of the latter, nor place sole responsibility on her in creating those. She is neither a hapless innocent victim of random chance, nor is she some malevolent irredeemable who deserves to be locked up for the rest of her life.

Burnham did draw first blood. But only after Rejac attacked her first. But only after she trespassed on their ship. But only after they trespassed in Federation territory and tampered with Federation property. They were looking for a fight. Burnham wanted to give them one. Would it have put a stop to everything right then and there, or would it only have proved T'Kuvma's point and put the lie to Federation claims of coming in peace and never firing first? Would the war never have started, or would it merely have started somewhat differently? Would this have been a better outcome, or a worse one?

Burnham assaulted her captain and disobeyed her orders, but she believed in doing so that she was saving Georgiou's life and everyone else's. She insisted she was acting logically, but she was clearly emotional. She made a deliberate decision that she thought was rational, but her thinking was clouded by injury and illness of both body and mind. She claimed she was only responding to the situation at hand, yet she was experiencing flashbacks of past trauma. She had also suffered a concussion, and radiation poisoning that started her very DNA unspooling like noodles. Yet she did seem to have received further treatment for at least the latter before her mutiny.

Burnham's plan was specifically to take T'Kuvma alive, and she emphasized the importance of this, yet she ended up intentionally killing him. But only because he was in the act of killing Georgiou. But Georgiou was already dead when she pulled the trigger. But she couldn't see that from where she was standing, and Saru hadn't confirmed it to her yet, so for all she knew in the moment she fired, Georgiou could still be saved and needed saving. Deadly force met with deadly force, in defense of another. But she had previously expressed some degree of prejudice against Klingons as well. Yet this prejudice was proven to be not entirely unjustified.

She considered herself guilty and offered no defense. Yet there were clearly mitigating factors. She was duly convicted, but her sentence was absurdly harsh to the point of injustice. She fully accepted and intended to serve out that sentence, but Lorca forced her to serve on Discovery. Irrespective of whether it was truly his only motivation or not, was he not right that allowing her the indulgence of safely wallowing in self-pity and recrimination while the war she failed to prevent raged on—instead of making use of her talents to aid in resolving it—would be nothing but a further waste? Could any punishment equal the loss and guilt she has already experienced? Is punishment even what true justice really calls for?

This is about as far from black and white, cut and dried, good versus evil, as one can get. And it's so much the better for it.

-MMoM

 

[Refuge]

No, that's the world Star Trek is presenting, not embracing. It's a distinction that is an important one, because we cannot equate presentation as endorsement.

Humanity is dark and this is a show that is willing to embrace those darker aspects, and not curtail them. The optimism of Star Trek has to be able to endure despite human failings.

I don't see the optimism in the darkness instead we have the corrupt prevailing and being rewarded for it. This is definitely not a tale of humanity trying to live by examples of standards that have ethical high ground. Manipulating the system, cheating the system is the lesson here. It works. Is it to tell us that the system sucks? Look here the Captain of Discovery is a killer of his own crew. He doesn't follow orders but as he gets results it's all good. Same with Burham, except she didn't get away with breaking the rules entirely. But she tried and it was supposed to be an understandable action. Both Lorca and Burnham are in positions of power as a result of their methods. It definitely has been a war story so far, the ethics of war.

 

[O_Kav]

As things stand now you couldn't get more one note 'monster' as to how the Klingons have been presented in Discovery.

So far Discovery has focused on four different Klingon characters:

1- Kol, the ambitious warmonger who doesn't care about the survival of the Klingon Species. He's a very cynical individual, who doesn't believe in Klingon Unity and feels comfortable with the thought of the Empire continuing in disarray. Uses the power of the religious stuff T'Kuvma professed for his own benefit. He's only interested in the technological advantages the Sarcophagus ship provides him. If there was no one around, he would have never accepted Burnham's challenge and would've simply killed her. He has no honor and doesn't care about it.

2-T'Kuvma, the machiavellian religious prophet burdened by the legacy of the ship his father left him. He does believe in all the non-sense he professes but he leaves the emotional part out of it when it comes down to military strategy. He planned the whole War, step by step. He tailored every word that came out of his mouth to make himself forever part of Klingon History. And he probably is an essential part of Klingon lore now, since Kol mentions there are a lot of his followers throughout the Empire at that moment.

3-Voq, the discriminated, self-righteous and faithful. He's probably very needy, since he feels rejected by others of his species because of his appearance. He craved T'Kuvma's attention and later on L'Rell's attention. Would've probably starved T'Kuvma Followers to death in the Sarcophagus Ship, because of a fundamentalist belief in Honor. Voq is perhaps one of the most sensitive Klingons we ever saw in ST history, given the speed he believed L'Rell had really betrayed him. If he's Tyler like people theorize, those traits would still be quite alive in him.

4-L'Rell, the manipulative liar and the lover. If Tyler's simply Tyler and she actually did those horrible things to him, also probably the creepiest Klingon ever shown in Star Trek. Even then, she had an almost pathological love for Voq too. Comes from a Klingon House of spies and deceptive people. She bonded with Voq probably because of that, since most Klingons would've viewed her with distrust since the beginning. She is a strategist too and is currently playing the long con aboard the Discovery.

I really don't see any "one note monster" Klingons. Each character is the opposite of the other. Each one has a completely different view on Religion, Politics, Interpersonal relationships, etc. Every single one of them has their own specific agenda and when it comes down to characters like L'Rell — and probably Voq if he's Tyler — they have their own progression arc too.

We probably have as many well-developed Klingon characters as we have well-developed Federation characters in Discovery. That's a very positive sign that the Klingons in DSC are not just "one note monsters" like you said.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

They were looking for a fight. Burnham wanted to give them one.

It seems clear the Klingons were so intent on war that they would have gotten it anyway, regardless of Burnham's actions. They would have found an excuse even if she had never been there.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't see the optimism in the darkness with the corrupt prevailing and being rewarded for it. This is definitely not a tale of humanity trying to live by examples of standards that have ethical high ground. Manipulating the system, cheating the system is the lesson here. It works. Is it to tell us that the system sucks? Look here the Captain of Discovery is a killer of his own crew. He doesn't follow orders but as he gets results it's all good. Same with Burham, except she didn't get a way with breaking the rules entirely. But she tried and it was supposed to be an understandable action. Both Lorca and Burnham are in positions of power as a result of their methods. It definitely has been a war story so far, the ethics of war.

The story is not over yet, which means the overall conclusion isn't presented yet. Maybe I'm wrong and is is a morality tale all along.

Humanity is messy, dirty, difficult and shades of technicolor. Life has consequences, problems and challenges that must be overcome. How we react to them defines character, and the Discovery character is still being exposed by the fire.

Also, watch DS9. A lot of the same stuff happens with Captain Sisko. Boy, he sure is considered an anti-hero isn't he? Oh, wait...

 

[Refuge]

You don't have your phaser set to kill unless you mean to kill. Burnham killed T'Kuvma. No nuance.

Mutiny is not something trivial within the 'services' and it would seem Starfleet. She was guilty of it. Again no nuance.

Burnham reacting to what is in affect a military operation like it is a personal therapy session is where her story comes from but it doesn't excuse her from when she chooses to do something that should invite consequence.

 

[Refuge]

The story is not over yet, which means the overall conclusion isn't presented yet. Maybe I'm wrong and is is a morality tale all along.

Humanity is messy, dirty, difficult and shades of technicolor. Life has consequences, problems and challenges that must be overcome. How we react to them defines character, and the Discovery character is still being exposed by the fire.

Also, watch DS9. A lot of the same stuff happens with Captain Sisko. Boy, he sure is considered an anti-hero isn't he? Oh, wait...

So you would equate Sisko and Lorca? Cut from the same cloth?

 

[fireproof78]

So you would equate Sisko and Lorca? Cut from the same cloth?

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

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So you would equate Sisko and Lorca? Cut from the same cloth?

I wouldn't.

Remember how Landry talked about Lorca when describing him to Burnham? "Lorca isn't interested in what you are. He's interested in what you can do, for him."

Sisko is definitely not that cold-hearted. True, he's not happy-happy-joy-joy all the time, but at least he genuinely cares about the people who serve under his command. Which is more than I can say for Lorca.

Hey, no wonder Lorca and Landry had a thing going!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Han Solo was an anti-hero.

As anti-heroes go, Han Solo is pretty lame. Han's much more the "lovable rogue."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Han's much more the "lovable rogue."

You're half right.

Han is many things, but hardly 'lovable'.

 

[Refuge]

I wouldn't.

Remember how Landry talked about Lorca when describing him to Burnham? "Lorca isn't interested in what you are. He's interested in what you can do, for him."

Sisko is definitely not that cold-hearted. True, he's not happy-happy-joy-joy all the time, but at least he genuinely cares about the people who serve under his command. Which is more than I can say for Lorca.

I haven't seen enough of DS9 and never watched the end of it. I found it not to my liking to be honest but reserve the right to watch it some time. What I do recall is that Sisko was intent on a cause and was philosophical. His heart was in that. Lorca nearly lost his shit when Cornwell threatened to take away his captaincy of Discovery. Lorca plays war games as an end to achieve personal goals with a great deal of ego involved. Context and 'causes' are to be exploited not felt. If someone thinks that is what motivated Sisko too, then I guess the two might be the same. I just don't know.