Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7327086" data-attributes="member: 37579">I have mixed feelings about it. It does mean that a Starfleet officer did not leave a civilian to be tortured. Which is glorious. That was a reprehensible act that was far, far beyond the pale. That action would have been dark for a Colonial Officer in Battlestar Galactica...But it also really strips away the complexity from the character. Lorca is no longer the tortured survivor of a Klingon attack suffering from PTSD and a survivor's guilt who is being driven to win the war. Instead... he's just evil. It also means Lorca is unlikely to learn a lesson. He's not going to have to face the consequences of his actions and the cost of winning the war. He's not going to be held accountable for betraying an Admiral, or forced to question defeating the Klingons at the risk of losing what the Federation stands for. The entire morality that should have been the spine of Discovery suddenly falls flat. Because instead he was just eeeeevil. Without the morality, what's the point of the show? It's just empty spectacle. It does emphasise Alex Kurtzman's weaknesses as a writer (and showrunner). He tried to pull a Shyamalan twist in Into Darkness, which everyone saw coming. So he lied and said "nuh-uh" and tried to deflect away from Khan. And now again he really, really wants there to be a twist in the series. Which many views saw coming a mile away, and the entire time was all "nuh-uh" and tried to deflect away from Voq/Tyler and Mirror Lorca. He really wants this show to be his Game of Thrones with surprise deaths and unexpected twists, but it's "shocks" are all so cliche the only surprising bit was the look of the Klingons... To say nothing of the poorly handled fridging of one-half of the first openly gay couple in Star Trek.</blockquote>

Verification