Discovery Trailer

[CapnZapp]

I agree that's one way to read the scene.

On the other hand, it's also Lorca *motivating* his crew to accomplish a very Federation-like goal: saving unarmed colonists under attack. And he doesn't berate or threaten the entire crew (well, just Stamets), all he does is play the colonists desperate pleas for help; he makes it clear what's at stake.

I won't call it subtle, but I do think it works, and in part because the way you read it is also valid.

It's good you don't deny the difference: yes, he's motivating them, but the crucial thing is HOW and who he hurts by his choice of motivational delivery.

I never said he didn't succeed in his motivational attempt. I wasn't critiquing his success rate.

edit: what do you think of Captain Georgiou's will-soliloquy? To me that's quintessential idealist Trek.

Yeah, except she's dead and he ain't. I see your point but it's not a strong one ;-)

Quintessential idealist Trek isn't just about dying by your ideals, it's also winning by your ideals.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ryujin]

Where did anyone say that it was all the examples available in three seasons? For that matter, can you name more than four major guest-star Starfleet characters in those three seasons who weren't either power-hungry or delusional or incompetent?

Christopher Pike (The Managerie)
The Illusion of Commodore Mendez (The Managerie)
The tribunal members at Kirk's trial, specifically Portmaster Stone (Court Marshal)
Areel Shaw (Court Marshal)

Being power hungry, incompetent, or in some way mentally altered doesn't break the Roddenberry Rule.

 

[Mallus]

Three seasons of TOS and you name 4; some of them not Starfleet. I'd say that's not a very bad record.

I named 4 off the top of my head while simultaneously dealing with an issue at work! And I'm still kicking myself for missing Kodos the Executioner, who was a Federation colonial governor, right? Should I continue?

 

[Mallus]

It's good you don't deny the difference: yes, he's motivating them, but the crucial thing is HOW and who he hurts by his choice of motivational delivery.

Let's break this down:

Lorca yells at Stamets in a manner that would not be out of character for James T. Kirk.

He then plays the undoctored distress calls from the mining colony under attack, without commentary, on ship-wide comms.

Admittedly, it's not Picard reciting something from Henry IV or Kirk delivering an off-the-cuff speech in Shatnerambic pentameter, but calling those acts bullying seem... well, wrong. Lorca is appealing to his crew's very Federation-y desire to do their duty to protect lives.

I'm curious why you don't place more emphasis on the colonists in jeopardy. You seem more interested in Lorca being mean to his crew. Also, aren't they like in the middle of a war?

Yeah, except she's dead and he ain't. I see your point but it's not a strong one ;-)

Captain Georgiou isn't the main character. She's part of the protagonist's motivation. Also, the good angel sitting on the shoulder of her unitard. So the fact she's dead is irrelevant.

Quintessential idealist Trek isn't just about dying by your ideals, it's also winning by your ideals.

I think Burnham will "win" by the end of the season by embracing/validating Georgiou's idealism. Like I said, I'd bet a fistful of quatloos on it! (or a few quatloos more).

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the thing to remember is we're still in Act 1. This is going to play out over the course of entire season, not a single hour episode. I'm fairly sure Lorca will be dealt with in a way the honors the idealistic spirit of Star Trek by the end. I'd put 20 quatloos on it!

If anyone is still watching at that point...



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ryujin]

I named 4 off the top of my head while simultaneously dealing with an issue at work! And I'm still kicking myself for missing Kodos the Executioner, who was a Federation colonial governor, right? Should I continue?

You may consider this a nit-pick but Rodenberry's Rule was about Starfleet, not the Federation.

 

[trappedslider]

maybe they should have just reaired TOS using the blu-ray release (with commentary similar to that found on the releases of the movies and some episodes of the tv show).....

 

[Mallus]

You may consider this a nit-pick but Rodenberry's Rule was about Starfleet, not the Federation.

What would a fan debate about Trek be without nit-picking? .

But yeah, I don't think this particular one is helpful. Starfleet is the embodiment of the Federation's principles and it's actions are authorized by the Federation Council. The shows themselves conflate the two all the time. And elements of the "Roddenberry Rule" are clearly meant to apply to the overall society.

Speaking of the Roddenberry Rule, I see it as applying most to ST:TNG's first season, which is universally considered the weakest (and most dramatically inert and/or silly). I find it least in TOS.

The Roddenberry Rule really strikes me as something that solidified & became dogmatic in the years *between* TOS and TNG, to the detriment of TNG's first season. TNG becomes much more interesting when it backs away from it; cf. episodes like "The Enemy" and "The Most Toys".

Worf refusing to allow the transfusion to save the Romulan prisoner vs. Picard's refusal to order him to do so is interesting, it feels like a real test of the Federations principles in legitimate conflict.

Data trying to execute Kivas Fajo and then kinda lying about it maybe not be a ringing endorsement of Starfleet values, but it feels like a meaningful comment on what a quest to be a real boy entails.

 

[Morrus]

If anyone is still watching at that point...

I will be.

 

[Mallus]

If anyone is still watching at that point...

Me too!