• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The age of the antihero

^ He also knew that already in "I, Borg" but spent 90% of the episode wanting to kill them all. The idea is that Picard was suddenly cured after a quick chat with Hugh and therefore First Contact was out of character, but that's nonsense IMO.

PICARD: I'm quite recovered from my experience, thank you.
TROI: Sometimes even when a victim has dealt with his assault there are residual effects of the event that linger. You were treated violently by the Borg. Kidnapped, assaulted, mutilated.
PICARD: Counsellor. Counsellor, I very much appreciate your concern for me, but I can assure you it is quite misplaced.

acting.gif
 
^ He also knew that already in "I, Borg" but spent 90% of the episode wanting to kill them all. The idea is that Picard was suddenly cured after a quick chat with Hugh and therefore First Contact was out of character, but that's nonsense IMO.

PICARD: I'm quite recovered from my experience, thank you.
TROI: Sometimes even when a victim has dealt with his assault there are residual effects of the event that linger. You were treated violently by the Borg. Kidnapped, assaulted, mutilated.
PICARD: Counsellor. Counsellor, I very much appreciate your concern for me, but I can assure you it is quite misplaced.

acting.gif

And we shouldn't forget that Picard came to regret his decision over Hugh when there turned out to be a major blowback resulting in massacres. Which leads me to this nice exchange that would have given Roddenberry a heart attack had he lived longer.

RIKER: Sending Hugh back to the Borg was a very risky, a very dangerous choice, but it was the moral thing to do.
PICARD: It may turn out that the moral thing to do was not the right thing to do.
 
The whole deal with Burnham killing Tkuvma being murder makes no sense to me anyway. It was combat with shots fired in anger. He'd just killed the only other Fed in the room and she was surrounded by overwhelming odds, and transporters are notoriously unreliable at key plot points. She might as well have started trench brooming the entire bridge with the phaser set to kill. She had no idea how long she'd be stuck there if the situation further deteriorated.
 
The whole deal with Burnham killing Tkuvma being murder makes no sense to me anyway. It was combat with shots fired in anger. He'd just killed the only other Fed in the room and she was surrounded by overwhelming odds, and transporters are notoriously unreliable at key plot points. She might as well have started trench brooming the entire bridge with the phaser set to kill. She had no idea how long she'd be stuck there if the situation further deteriorated.

I think it is now firmly established that their plan was a big fail from the start.
 
But he also knows from personal experience that assimilation is reversible.

There wasn't the time or the resources available to do so. Picard's assimilation was reversible, because the ship was (relatively) at peace, and wasn't half assimilated with Borg drones swarming all over the place.
 
Because something is a written Law it doesn't mean that something is necessarily good. The Chain of Command is a highly idealistic thing. It looks flawless on theory but in reality it can get on the way of doing the right thing.[/QUOTE]
ITA
'I was only following orders' said the soldier to the War Crimes Tribunal......
 
Oh he pleaded all right and that is exactly him losing it. That was his emotions breaking down. Very revealing to see his priorities were about not losing his captaincy. Then he rather decided to ... follow the rules and leave Cornwell to the wolves. Do you think this man should be Captain?

Lorca would make a great Admiral someday have you never watched the tv shows or movies..some of those dodgy Admirals were Captains.
 
But the writing was much better for those other characters.
Doesn't matter. It's a standard of behavior that makes no sense that one is vilified and the other immortalized.
This situation with Lorca has become almost a need to counter every thing he has done like it should be excused. You say the manipulation of the psych test is not a crime like it is okay that he got away with it. Is it really? The test result was in part what excused his PTSD as not important enough to be a factor that would be a detriment to him being a captain of another crew. The result of his test was not a true reflection of his state of mind. Legal, I don't know, but it was not the truth. This is where someone says Kirk was worse or Janeway. Yet Lorca if he owned his truth has cheated the system. Cornwell saw that and why should her expertise be dismissed? I 'get' that people want to hero worship Lorca but it truly surprises me that he is seen as someone who is not damaged and because of that is not still making decisions based on his unreliable state.
I don't want hero worship Lorca. I want consistency in who is heroic.
He was the captain of the USS Millennium Falcon
Never heard of it.
 
The purpose of Geogiou and Burnham going aboard the Klingon ship was get T'Kuvma alive to gain leverage against the Klingons to stop this war from breaking out for real. What a stupid plan that was.
War broke out from the time the Klingons invaded Federation space.
 
Most of humanity are none of the above.
Wasn't star trek about an aspirational humanity, one who had grown from moral ambiguity and strife, whose sole purpose was the betterment of mankind's understanding? STD says nope. Human nature is still a mess hundreds of years and hundreds of planets and species later. Wow, now that's not a depressing dark and species self loathing production if I've ever seen one. Makes me want to be reincarnated as a Dolphin. The show is sick. I'd love some healthy optimism rather then a constant commentary on the plight of humanity.

Most of humanity today is morally ambiguous, sure but Star Trek is supposed to be the future. A sure moral goal. A bright beacon of hope, that despite today's issues, our future can be like that. Traveling the stars with other species, an aspirational goal that lifts us up, outside of the everyday. STD puts the sad depressing everyday in place of the hopeful and declares itself relevant. Who cares! I wanted escapism and optimism. I get none from STD.
 
Last edited:
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'.
When Kirk was in a war situation watch how he acted in Balance in Terror the Organians had to teach him a lesson
 
Last edited:
Most of humanity today is morally ambiguous, sure but Star Trek is supposed to be the future. A sure moral goal. A bright beacon of hope, that despite today's issues, our future can be like that. Traveling the stars with other species, an aspirational goal that lifts us up, outside of the everyday. STD puts the sad depressing everyday in place of the hopeful and declares itself relevant. Who cares! I wanted escapism and optimism. I get none from STD.
While optimism was at the heart of TOS, it wasn't that humanity how obtained that perfection. It was the optimism that humanity made it through the tumult of the time. It wasn't without peril, or war or death. But, humanity survived anyway. Humanity worked together and built up despite the struggles of the past.

Star Trek's optimism has to be able to endure difficulties of war and the darker tendencies of humanity's nature if that optimism is to survive.

Or, as SF Debris put it "To shed oneself of mistakes, like bigotry, apathy or fear, is not our default nature and never will be. It is something that human beings must forever be on their guard against."
 
Wasn't star trek about an aspirational humanity, one who had grown from moral ambiguity and strife, whose sole purpose was the betterment of mankind's understanding? STD says nope. Human nature is still a mess hundreds of years and hundreds of planets and species later.
I think if you go back and watch, you will find that all the other shows say "nope" as well. They may aspire to that, but are never shown to have achieved it. In fact, they're shown over and over and over again to still be struggling with it. That's where the drama comes from!

-MMoM:D

P.S.

From the TOS writers/directors' guide:
Then must the starship crew be perfect humans?

No, you can project too optimistically. We want characters with a reasonable mixture of strength, weaknesses, and foibles.​
 
Last edited:
I think if you go back and watch, you will find that all the other shows say "nope" as well. They may aspire to that, but are never shown to have achieved it. In fact, they're shown over and over and over again to still be struggling with it. That's where the drama comes from!

-MMoM:D

P.S.

From the TOS writers/directors' guide:

Hmmm.. And here I thought the drama was handling a situation as a crew, to do the right thing, and ignore those based impulses while solving issues. That's what I got from both TOS and TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT series
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top