The age of the antihero

[Satron]

(I presume you are talking about after the battle. Before the battle, the Shenzhou wasn't going to withdraw; Anderson ordered them to hold their position there and do nothing until the fleet arrived. Burnham's mutiny failed and she had no effect on anything.)

No, that isn't accurate. What Georgiou was going to do before Burnham suggested they try taking T'Kuvma alive was have the Shenzhou withdraw while she alone piloted a worker bee loaded with torpedoes on a suicide mission to destroy the sarcophagus ship, killing herself and T'Kuvma (along with everyone else on board). And we had seen that the Houses had already rallied around him and taken word of their victory back to Qo'noS. So the outcome would not have changed at all.


And it proved to be unavoidable.

That's even more evidence of the bad writing. The main Starfleet characters are ineffective, not just the morons as I mistook them for. Nothing we are shown in the first two episodes changes anything from start to finish. The Klingon terrorists want to start a war and all the actions and blunders of the main "heroes" help to achieve that outcome.

Too make the writing worse, Starfleet leaves a fleet of their own wrecked vessels and the wreckage of the Klingon ship drifting in Federation space for six months without taking any of the Klingon survivors as prisoners, but they did manage to clear our Georgiou's office on the Shenzhou so that convict Burnham can receive a package on a secret ship on a secret mission somewhere out in space.

I don't agree. Again, the escalation had already happened by that point, with the battle itself. The war was not going to end there in any case. And the evidence doesn't support Burnham "snapping" to my assessment. (When she tried to mutiny, sure. But again, that had no effect on anything.) She had no choice but to kill T'Kuvma if she wanted to have any chance of saving Georgiou. (The fact that there was no chance of saving her anyway was tragic, but Burnham could not have known that when she made the choice to fire.) Even if she had coldly decided to let Georgiou die and tried to follow through with taking T'Kuvma alive by herself, it's uncertain as to whether she would have succeeded, as Voq was still alive and more Klingons were on their way. It's just as likely Burnham would have been captured or killed herself.

-MMoM

She didn't have to kill T'Kuvma in that situation. The stun-setting was very effective before and would have worked on him too.

 

[Nyotarules]

The very first words from the very first moment of "The Vulcan Hello" (DSC)...

T'KUVMA: "They are coming."

-MMoM

Maybe he thought the Feds had accepted his invitation to a batleth tournament?????

 

[Nyotarules]

Who said he was innocent? He was however defending himself when Georgiou and Burnham tried to capture him.

Defending yourself does not mean you have the moral high ground in a combat situation.
Real scenario
1939 Germany invades Poland
Great Britain declares war on Germany
poor old Nazi Germany then has to defend itself from the British aggressors....if Hitler had been killed by invading soldiers would you consider him a victim.

 

[XCV330]

T'Kuvma is dead, you can't be more of a victim than that. Burnham killed him because her and her stupid Captain tried to capture him and failed.

Much as Al Capone was a victim when John Scalise brutally attacked the poor man's baseball bat repeatedly with his skull.
Finally, I understand your logic. It's all clear to me now.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

That's even more evidence of the bad writing. The main Starfleet characters are ineffective, not just the morons as I mistook them for. Nothing we are shown in the first two episodes changes anything from start to finish. The Klingon terrorists want to start a war and all the actions and blunders of the main "heroes" help to achieve that outcome

You may consider it bad writing, but it was obviously intentional. The point was that it was a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation. A "no-win scenario"!

Rememeber this?

SAAVIK: I failed to resolve the situation.
KIRK: There is no correct resolution. It's a test of character.

The same person who wrote that contributed to DSC as well.

Too make the writing worse, Starfleet leaves a fleet of their own wrecked vessels and the wreckage of the Klingon ship drifting in Federation space for six months without taking any of the Klingon survivors as prisoners, but they did manage to clear our Georgiou's office on the Shenzhou so that convict Burnham can receive a package on a secret ship on a secret mission somewhere out in space.

The Feds lost the battle, and the other ships had already withdrawn. It's not hard to believe they were then too busy and spread too thin fighting the Klingons elsewhere to return and conduct salvage operations in an area where the enemy still had a presence. Someone must have taken the telescope with them when the incapacitated Shenzhou was initially abandoned, in accordance with Georgiou's will—probably Saru, who likely later himself anonymously sent it down to Burnham after she came aboard Discovery; the package did say "internal mail" and he didn't seem particularly surprised to see it, just that Burnham would give it to him.

She didn't have to kill T'Kuvma in that situation. The stun-setting was very effective before and would have worked on him too.

Covered that before. The Klingons they stunned earlier and later were not directly and obviously attempting to kill them. Stun has a long history of being inconsistently effective. She could have taken the chance, but from her perspective she would have been gambling with Georgiou's life, which we had already seen earlier was worth more to her than Federation principles (despite those being indeed dear to her as we see later). She faced an impossible choice and made a call. It might have been the wrong one in hindsight, but it was a reasonable and justifiable (and emotionally understandable) one in the moment.

-MMoM

 

[Tenacity]

Most of humanity today is morally ambiguous

I would say most are not, a small percentage could be described using that term.

Far from being "morally ambiguous," most people are decent caring folks. When the destructive mob is rampaging through the streets, vast majority of people are huddled in their homes with the doors locked, hoping the morally ambiguous few won't hurt them.

When Kirk was in a war situation watch how he acted in Balance in Terror the Organians had to teach him a lesson

Unless you meant Errand of Mercy.

At the end of Balance of Terror, Kirk offered to take aboard any Romulan survivors, he does the same thing in Star Trek '09. Kirk commonly showed modern day decency and mercy during TOS. He fought the Gorn captain to utmost, but in the end didn't kill the Gorn once helpless.

The Organians had nothing to teach him, if anything Kirk could have taught them much.

 

[Refuge]

Defending yourself does not mean you have the moral high ground in a combat situation.
Real scenario
1939 Germany invades Poland
Great Britain declares war on Germany
poor old Nazi Germany then has to defend itself from the British aggressors....if Hitler had been killed by invading soldiers would you consider him a victim.

Again who said he had the moral high ground? They were trying to capture him. What was he supposed to do? Naturally he was going to fight back, if they were too stupid to be prepared for that, then that is on them.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

if Hitler had been killed by invading soldiers would you consider him a victim.

I'd consider him worm food, nothing more.

 

[Nightdiamond]

One problem with this narrative, as far as entertainment goes, is that we often ended up with characters who are evil or mean just for the sake of being evil or mean. They have the sour expressions, stubborn, pig headed, obnoxious, for no other reason than to fill the space for an evil/mean/stubborn character---

And then on the other hand, you have the good natured, super moral persons who always do the right thing no matter what. I guess the anti hero concept is asking how realistic is this.

Sometimes as far entertainment viewing, it insults the intelligence--it's too obvious. A lot of times, especially in TNG it was easy to be moral because something would happen so that a problem would either solve itself by the end of the episode or make it easier for the crew to solve it.

Little House on the Prairie was show that frequently did this. It's a classic, but I noticed it had a tendency to do it.

 

[XCV330]

Little House on the Prairie was show that frequently did this. It's a classic, but I noticed it had a tendency to do it.

Though in fairness Little House was a show for the entire family, and taken at least in spirit from books written from the viewpoint of a woman looking back on memories formed as a child. Children aren't all that keen on complex moral relativism. And there's nothing wrong with realizing that there are dangerous malevolent people. People inherently need to know that, though if they depend too much on that they begin to believe in inherent evil which leads to simplistic strategies like nationalism and racism, the enemies of any modern civilization.

There are good people as well, though I think our injured culture grasps like a drowning victim now at anything that looks like it can be stuffed into a uniform and praised (it was the military a few years ago until the populi tired of the Forever War, and first responders lately, because that's vague enough to not mean police, it'll probably be whistleblowers next, or conscientious chefs).

I don't think a Star Trek that posited stark White Hat/ Black Hat type characters could survive or be taken very seriously, now. I don't think except maybe for some of the more pontificating TNG shows that it ever approached that, anyway. The closest thing we have to a seriously righteous hero character in Trek is Spock. He even dies for the crew and is raised up. And it works, because he's Spock. More than one Spock would derail Trek. Even Abrams Spock isn't Spock.

 

[Tenacity]

Surely you would describe Sylvia Tilly as a (somewhat annoying) white hat?

 

[ralfy]

They're supposed to be anti-heroes, but they come up more as dysfunctional. The problem lies with poor writing characterized by too much content crammed into a few episodes, leading to weak character development.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think they're meant to be "anit-heroes." I think they are meant to be more real people in this situation.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Though in fairness Little House was a show for the entire family, and taken at least in spirit from books written from the viewpoint of a woman looking back on memories formed as a child. Children aren't all that keen on complex moral relativism. And there's nothing wrong with realizing that there are dangerous malevolent people. People inherently need to know that, though if they depend too much on that they begin to believe in inherent evil which leads to simplistic strategies like nationalism and racism, the enemies of any modern civilization.

There are good people as well, though I think our injured culture grasps like a drowning victim now at anything that looks like it can be stuffed into a uniform and praised (it was the military a few years ago until the populi tired of the Forever War, and first responders lately, because that's vague enough to not mean police, it'll probably be whistleblowers next, or conscientious chefs).

I don't think a Star Trek that posited stark White Hat/ Black Hat type characters could survive or be taken very seriously, now. I don't think except maybe for some of the more pontificating TNG shows that it ever approached that, anyway. The closest thing we have to a seriously righteous hero character in Trek is Spock. He even dies for the crew and is raised up. And it works, because he's Spock. More than one Spock would derail Trek. Even Abrams Spock isn't Spock.

True, I watched the show for years since I was a child, and I was always drawn in by the drama. Then one day I just paid a little extra attention to some characters who were supposed to be evil or just mean (Mrs. Olsen) and I noticed they seemed to be that way for no reason, with no explanation or backstory to make it "grey".

So it did appear to be a little manipulation of the viewer was going on. Make character hostile, angry, hateful etc., without any backstory, or make a character very wholesome, moral and positive to make the viewer either like them or dislike them.

Like I said noticed this in TNG from time to time like in Transfigurations. The evil, frowning, stubborn, hostile aliens who want to kill the John DOE character, and the crew, just because. While John Doe and the crew were very innocent, harmless and wholesome.

 

[Refuge]

They're supposed to be anti-heroes, but they come up more as dysfunctional. The problem lies with poor writing characterized by too much content crammed into a few episodes, leading to weak character development.

Lorca is definitely damaged and unfit. He gets results though and those have disguised his falsified pysch readings. He is a war monger though so there is something apt about him being so useful, well, in a war. Burnham is indeed dysfunctional. The moment she confronted her first Klingon she all but unravelled. Her smarts seem to be over stated. Tyler? Another messed up member of the crew. Tilly's a dill. Really if these guys are not at least in part antihero they are definitely a motely crew. I think of them like a ship of fools.

 

[starsuperion]

I don't think they're meant to be "anit-heroes." I think they are meant to be more real people in this situation.

Oh Please.. The show is already in live action, how much more real do you need to get? I mean, come on.. the hangups and the drama between characters is a non-stop argument and Bitch fest. It's not fun to watch, in fact It is kinda like watching those talking heads going back and forth on network and cable news. I watch Science fiction because I like the genre, I watch Star Trek to get away from everyday political B.S. the show itself is a frickin disaster as it is serving only to push a political point of view.. let me give you an example..

Science fiction author Anthony Ha agrees, noting that Star Trek has always had a political agenda. He says it was odd to see people complaining about the Discovery actors ‘politicizing’ Star Trek by expressing solidarity with protesting NFL players. “Look, if you disagree with that—well, you’re wrong there too, but at least that’s a position you can take,” he says. “But if you’re saying ‘Star Trek should not be political,’ that is a completely invalid and dumb position.”

the statement above just shows why it's a turn off, if you're going to tell people they are wrong because of a political disagreement, then you're obviously pushing an agenda in the show, and no one wants to sit thru that preachy crud while trying to escape from the hum drum of everyday life (unless of course you believe the politics reflects your attitudes, then I'm sure you don't mind). Politics of the day to day trend should not be a factor in a universe and setting that is for pure entertainment and escapism. To turn a TV series into a Social Justice activist propaganda piece is just the right formula for Star Trek hate to ensue.. Why not make the show for everyone, instead of the old tired cliche' of this show is for us, not "Those People".. how very sick and sad is that, not to mention divisive!

Go back thru this thread and you'll see it cropping up all over the place. If they wanted a show everyone could get on board with, and yet still have minor disagreements, then they have done the opposite. Think about how many arguments over this program seem to always flow back to a political POV, and divides people as fans. It's not a healthy way to bring a show out that could become a great thing.. it's tainted the waters and caused a lot of hangups, not to mention the ability to shut down a fan who doesn't like something by implying their true feelings lie else where.

This is echoed by the recent article which is asking the question as to why all the Discovery Hate?
https://www.wired.com/2017/12/geeks-guide-star-trek-discovery/
It's got to be something, otherwise why would articles like this start coming out? I think there's a lot that can be fixed, but it's kinda late for that now, they obviously don't care about fan detractors, and doing stuff like stating the Klingons represent President Trump supporters as Bigots, Racists, and Protectionist Xenophobes, they really aren't making a good case for the show, why alienate half the audience with stupid politics. Not EVERYTHING has to reflect the current environment, it's a damn TV series for God's sake, why go there at all. I watch to escape that stuff, not get preached to about it in coded presentation. To a certain extent the classic and TNG series did it, but always in universe, and always in a veiled way, only lightly touching on it, not making it a focus.

The worst part is, the Characters are unlikeable, and when you complain about that, you're immediately suspect, and considered one of the "those People" masses and ignored. it's a frightening time to be a fan of anything unless you go with the flow and accept all that is being done. If not, you must be a troll, or one of the "despised". it doesn't matter the disagreement.. Anything you come up with that you don't like seems to always flow back to some stupid Political back and forth. if they kept their mouth's shut and just wrote and acted in a professional manner, maybe the show would have more supporters then they seem to be losing.

 

[Ovation]

You are bound to be forever disappointed. The amount of art (commercial or otherwise) that lacks any political flavour is actually vanishingly small. It’s just that some of it is more subtle than others. But if you know what to look for, it’s pretty easy to see.

 

[starsuperion]

You are bound to be forever disappointed. The amount of art (commercial or otherwise) that lacks any political flavour is actually vanishingly small. It’s just that some of it is more subtle than others. But if you know what to look for, it’s pretty easy to see.

I think there wasn't much of that in Stargate Universe. That show didn't have the feel that STD does when it comes to preachy political writing. Sure, anyone can look for something, but the way these shows are now in 2017, they just don't care. The interviews with the writers and directors or actors on Twitter basically say it all. It's out there, so I'm not being overly sensitive to it, It's well documented in news articles, blogs, and I am sure is felt by many fans of Star Trek other then me.

The same thing can be said for those who see a racist, homophobic, sexist around every corner and under every bed, and in every disagreement about Star Trek.. it's about reason and polite disagreements, That should be where we are, but the direction of the show, and divisive statements by it's crew just drive the fandom into a situation that isn't healthy.. It's not the fans who have the problem, we've been here. We've been friends and have had disagreements.. but this show just seems to foster an attitude of, if you don't like it, then tough, sod off. You're wrong, and we don't need you anyway.. how adult is that?? It also translates now to how we as fans react to one another in discussion. Not healthy at all.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

it's a frightening time to be a fan of anything unless you go with the flow and accept all that is being done.

I don't think you're using that word correctly.

 

[starsuperion]

I don't think you're using that word correctly.

Hmm.. you're absolutely right, I should have written it's a depressing and frustrating time to be a fan..