Star Trek Discovery - Red Angel - Spoilers

LibraryLass

Feminazgûl
Validated User
Star Trek has still always been willing to examine its own premise - sometimes executed well, other times not - and the morals it raises. I can't really think of the show ever really holding up a genocidal monster who brags about having ended other species as anything but a badguy. Even if Georgiou was Ming the Merciless, Ming is still a villain, and meant to be treated as the morally reprehensible creature he is. Georgiou here is basically just a step away from being Catwoman, and it's a serious narrative problem, especially when the series asks us to condemn much lesser monsters like Leland while she stands right beside him. It actively diminishes the show, and the moral stance it tries to project.
I don't think it does generally ask us to side with her, except when that means siding with someone who's more in the right, like Burnham or Spock.

It just asks us to be entertained by her.
 

Coyote's Own

RPG.net's friendly neighborhood Nuwisha.
RPGnet Member
Validated User
I thought she was supposed to be creepy too.
The series is trying to play her off a sympathetic being the fourth (third living) of Burnham moms.
He's framed as scoring browing points, and showing compassion and benevolence, by orchestrating Leelands confession, as the even slightly evens the scales for committing multiple plantary genocide, and eating sentient beings for fun.

There little about how the series being treating Empress Georgiou taht doesn't make stomach churn, yet she place as a morally grey character on the side of Angels.
 

4th of Eleven

Active member
Validated User
She's also framed as seemingly going out of her way to keep everyone off-balance around her, was blackmailing Leland with the truth about Burnham's parents rather than actually telling Burnham, and is clearly framed as pursuing her own agenda within Section 31. I don't think she's on the side of the angels, and I'll be very suprised if she isn't revealed as having her own agenda that places her back in opposition to the rest of the cast.
 

Breogan

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
... she was blackmailing Leland with that? Sounds like very weak blackmail. I mean, for starters, that is surely in his records in the organization, so nobody in actual power is going to be surprised. And "I'll tell Burnham" is not precisely blackmailing, is more "I want to be thrown into prison for leaking info I got while working at spy central".
 

SetentaeBolg

Registered User
Validated User
... she was blackmailing Leland with that? Sounds like very weak blackmail. I mean, for starters, that is surely in his records in the organization, so nobody in actual power is going to be surprised. And "I'll tell Burnham" is not precisely blackmailing, is more "I want to be thrown into prison for leaking info I got while working at spy central".
They won't throw her in prison for genocide, torture and cannibalism because only she has the leet s&m ninja skills to assassinate members of the Klingon council. They wouldn't do it for telling on her superior officer!
 

Breogan

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
No, that doesnt work. If you have an asset that is useful but you have a ton of reasons not to trust, you dont really look the other way when they decide to start TRIVIALLY violating what few trust you give them. They know they got themselves a monster; the point is, is their monster or not, it is leashed or not. And babbling about stuff to Burnham, who is, basically, nobody (even if per the show is the center of the universe), is a big "no, she isnt, dump her".
 
Top Bottom