The STAR TREK Hero: With or Without Flaws?

[2takesfrakes]

Honestly, I never understood how a 'flawed,' heroic character made them 'better,' or more 'believable.'

And yet, there's this 'demand' for it, amongst vocal fans who've wanted more of it, over the years. As the franchise moved along throughout the years, certainly, STAR TREK's heroes have become increasingly imperfect. In my opinion, to the point of becoming needlessly so. However, I'm curious, just the same, as to what other opinions there are on this subject.

 

[Paradise City]

Complex heroes confounds us and tests us in a way that a Peter Perfect does not. That's the short answer.

Backdoor, as the franchise presses on, the need for fresh stories virtually mandates a greater degree of complexity from all characters not least the heroes. .

I'm not sure I hear a greater demand for complexity from the fans. It's more the writers that push this process forward from what I see.

 

[BillJ]

I always considered Kirk and Spock both heroically larger than life yet also very flawed. Maybe that's why they continue to stand out fifty years later?

 

[Kor]

I always considered Kirk and Spock both heroically larger than life yet also very flawed. Maybe that's why they continue to stand out fifty years later?

+1

To me, the TOS characters strike the perfect balance.

I would rather see something like that than the bland, holier-than-thou, perfect mannequins of TNG.

Kor

 

[TwoJakes]

I've spoken out on not wanting Star Trek to be "simplistic," where all the heroes have the same mindset and each species has essentually a single culture. A Federation that is very cosmopolitan would be my preference.

The heroes should be normal regular complex people with "warts and all." A perfect hero would be boring.

 

[Six of Twelve]

I want my main character or protagonist to be a real, three dimensional person, with faults and foibles, as well as virtues and admirable qualities. No one is a "hero" 24/7, as no one spends every hour of every day saving lives in both the literal and figurative sense. Hence, I prefer to call them protagonists, rather than "heroes".

I especially like when the antagonist ends up unexpectedly doing the right thing. I especially liked that one DS9 episode where O'Brien goes to this planet to infiltrate a crime organization and his boss ends up being a pretty decent guy. It is such that O'Brien feels bad about the job he must do.

 

[spockboy]

My answer:

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

Spockboy

 

[Greg Cox]

Flawed, absolutely. You can't explore the human condition by sweeping human nature under the rug . . . or by sanitizing it by fiat. "Well, in the future, people are more evolved, so we don't have to deal with any messy human flaws and frailties."

Sorry. That's not "utopian." That's escapism. As Sisko said, "it's easy to be a saint in Paradise." But out on the Final Frontier . . . forget it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Trek needs to be populated by tormented anti-heroes and neurotics. Just give me characters like Pike or Kirk or Spock or McCoy, who have doubts and conflicts, internal and otherwise, and who sometimes let their emotions and issues get the better of them, even as they strive to be their best selves and do the right thing, even when that's easier said than done . . . .

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Sorry. That's not "utopian." That's escapism. As Sisko said, "it's easy to be a saint in Paradise." But out on the Final Frontier . . . forget it.

That is possibly my favourite piece of Star Trek pontificating, especially the fact that Sisko gives it to Kira who completely agrees with him--seeing as how that has been her life.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Flawed, absolutely. You can't explore the human condition by sweeping human nature under the rug . . . or by sanitizing it by fiat. "Well, in the future, people are more evolved, so we don't have to deal with any messy human flaws and frailties."

But...but...Gene's Vision™!?!

 

[Greg Cox]

But...but...Gene's Vision™!?!

"Flawed" heroes were absolutely part of Gene's vision, circa 1965 or so. Just watch "The Cage" again--or pretty much the entire first season of TOS.

 

[137th Gebirg]

"Flawed" heroes were absolutely part of Gene's vision, circa 1965 or so. Just watch "The Cage" again--or pretty much the entire first season of TOS.

Oh, I know, I was just being tongue-in-cheek with regard to how Gene's vision "evolved" over time when TNG came around and that very thing (flaws) became in anathema to his characters' personalities in the 24th century.

The flaws are, far and away, the single greatest reason I loved DS9 so much, more than any other series.

 

[Greg Cox]

Oh, I know, I was just being tongue-in-cheek with regard to how Gene's vision "evolved" over time when TNG came around and that very thing (flaws) became in anathema to his characters' personalities in the 24th century.

The flaws are, far and away, the single greatest reason I loved DS9 so much, more than any other series.

Don't worry. I picked up that you were kidding, although I figured somebody was bound to bring up "Gene's Vision" at some point so I might as well head it off at the pass.

And, yeah, I always considered that "it's easy to be a saint in Paradise" bit to be DS9's mission statement in a nutshell.

 

[Sgt_G]

Well, there are flaws and then there are flaws. By "hero" I presume you mean the ship's captain ad senior staff members. One doesn't make it to the higher ranks in the military with any major character flaw. They are human (or at least humanoid) and thus will have normal flaws that any normal person would have. Nobody is perfect. But too many flaws and Starfleet Command will look for someone else to fill the job.

 

[Long Syntax]

Even a hero has flaws. In order to watch ST one has to suspend disbelief in order to be entertained. However the vast majority of viewers have their limits when suspending disbelief, and that limit for many are the characters' core -- who they are. To believe that a hero must have no flaws is a bridge too far - IMHO.

 

[Six of Twelve]

As I said above, I don't think we should refer to them as "heroes". I think calling them protagonists or simply main characters is more appropriate.

 

[plynch]

I am not ashamed of the word "hero." We need heroes, people to emulate. The crew of Enterprise 1701 were people who went forth to do good.

One could argue (as they themselves did) about whether they were correct in their assumptions of what "good" is. Sometimes, in fact, I think they were incorrect ("This Side of Paradise," for example). Yet they often sought to protect the weak, coexist with the different, and enlarge their understanding. These are admirable enterprises, in my opinion. They helped me develop whatever moral compass I have, as did characters from the Lone Ranger and Batman to Nicholas Nickleby.

 

[Six of Twelve]

Yes, protagonists can do heroic things at the appropriate times, but protagonist is a broader term. One can be a good and ethical person without running around constantly saving lives or being perfect 24/7. It is more believable to have them as real people who want to do the right thing and do their best to achieve that, but to show that it doesn't always work that way and to have plots where it isn't always clear what the right thing to do is and to show our protagonists trying to find out just what that is. Real life isn't black and white, but, more often, presents situations that come in shades of grey.

 

[Greg Cox]

Again ,when people are asking for "flawed" heroes, it doesn't mean that they want to turn STAR TREK into BREAKING BAD or even nuBSG. It just means characters like in TOS who argue with each other sometimes, who make mistakes (but then try to rectify then), who strive to be their best selves but still have issues they have to overcome, like Spock's dual nature, McCoy's cantankerous attitude, Kirk's occasional self-doubts and moments of melancholy or anger.

There's a nice moment in "The Naked Time," when Kirk, who is under a lot of stress, snaps at Uhura, who gets testy in return. But then Kirk takes a deep breath, apologizes, and they both get back to the business of saving the ship. As Starfleet officers do.

That's the kind of a "flawed," flesh-and-blood hero I can believe in. As opposed to flawless paragons of virtue with no human weaknesses to overcome.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I'd rather a balance character with a little bit of both and definitely not a Kathryn Janeway, Kate Austin, Rey from TFA and any other offsprings from Mary Sue.