• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek

They weren't. They were trying to target me: a 22-year-old male and a Trekkie. I was dead-center their intended demographic. They were trying to be sexy and titillating but I thought, even at the time, they missed the mark.

I dare say at the time, as a younger and less-wise meerkat, I was actually titillated a bit by the outfits, but even then, not all that much. Seven's character, the way she developed from Borg drone to someone grappling with her humanity, was far more important, but, rightly or wrongly, VOY's critics drew attention to the 'sex sells' approach that went with her outfit...
 
They weren't. They were trying to target me: a 22-year-old male and a Trekkie. I was dead-center their intended demographic. They were trying to be sexy and titillating but I thought, even at the time, they missed the mark.
Those scenes didn't do much for me either, it must be said that both T'Pol and Sevens presence did help the shows though.
 
I don't mind Troi's outfits at the time because in hindsight it feels like it was PARTIALLY meant to break up the visual monotony of everyone having uniforms on the bridge. I'm sure sex appeal was the main factor though. However, Troi was supposed to be this exotic character, and along with her accent, it kind of fit. But if someone wants to criticize the cleavage outfits of Troi and say it was sexist or didn't make sense in certain aspects, I'll agree with them.

By the time of 7 of 9, and T'Pol, the eye-candy aspect felt more blatant. So I wasn't okay with that, but then again I wasn't a fan of Voyager or Enterprise either.

Yet for some curious reason only women wore those skin-tight catsuits. I have nothing against them per se, but then everyone has to wear them or it is just plain sexism.

Yes, and those short skirts in TOS as well. But let's not forget that in TNG men also wore short skirts. :D

There are instances when men also wore skin-tight suits. For example John Doe from the TNG episode Transfigurations. I think, generally, the uniforms were pretty tight, for both men and women. At least in early TNG.
 
Bele and Lokai left little to the imagination as well. One could theorize that their jumpsuits allowed them to generate those personal force fields from a device on the collar.
 
Those scenes didn't do much for me either, it must be said that both T'Pol and Sevens presence did help the shows though.

I can't speak for ENT, but I do think Seven of Nine really carried the fourth season of VOY. A lot of the best episodes after that also focused on her. But I'll call the seventh season more of a Doctor and Paris/Torres (a.k.a. "Parres") season.
 
This isn't TNG.

Plus, it's worth noting that not every discrepancy requires an "in-universe" explanation. Sometimes the real-world explanation-- i.e. they couldn't have said "fuck" on the previous shows even if they'd wanted to--is more than enough.

There was no CGI, bumpy-headed Klingons, female captains, or gay characaters on TOS because well, it was the sixties. Should all subsequent Trek shows have avoided such things simply for the sake of consistency and to avoid "jarring" old-time viewers? Of course not.

So why should the new, new shows avoid f-bombs for the same reason?
 
Last edited:
I can't speak for ENT, but I do think Seven of Nine really carried the fourth season of VOY. A lot of the best episodes after that also focused on her. But I'll call the seventh season more of a Doctor and Paris/Torres (a.k.a. "Parres") season.
Yeah, I did find some parts of Voyager to be a bit boring, it was OK on first viewing because it was new but I don't think I have bothered to watch many of the episodes again since that first viewing except for the Borg, Species 8472/Hirogen and Krenim Temporal stuff.

The Doctor was solid throughout the series and helped a lot, Paris was good but underused but that did improve when he and Torres became an item.

I think they just ran out of ideas with the others, I don't think they really ever had any idea with Chakotay's character.
 
Plus, it's worth noting that not every discrepancy requires an "in-universe" explanation. Sometimes the real world explanation-- i.e. they couldn't have said "fuck" on the previous shows even if they'd wanted to--is more than enough.
I do wonder if a few "rough drafts" might have included a few swear words, knowing they'd be excised later. :p
 
Well it's good you agree with me that the dialogue of TNG sounds different from the way actual people talked in the late 80s/early 90s.
At times. Mostly in early seasons.
The difference is that you're making erroneous assumptions about me and misinterpreting the actual content of my posts, while succumbing to lazy generalizations.
I make no assumptions about you. However, I am noticing how the arguments come across. If I misread I apologize. I don't know you so can assume nothing about you personally.
 
Plus, it's worth noting that not every discrepancy requires an "in-universe" explanation. Sometimes the real world explanation-- i.e. they couldn't have said "fuck" on the previous shows even if they'd wanted to--is more than enough.

There was no CGI, bumpy-headed Klingons, female captains, or gay characaters on TOS because well, it was the sixties. Should all subsequent Trek shows have avoided such things simply for the sake of consistency and to avoid "jarring" old-time viewers? Of course not.

So why should the new, new shows avoid f-bombs for the same reason?

Had the budget not been so tight back then, they would've surely included those things in the 60s already. Other things, like female captains, may be viewed as an "evolution" or a "progress". Can the same be said for use of "f-bombs"? Besides, saying that they should be avoided seems to imply as if they're something necessary, almost inevitable. Instead of putting it "should be avoided", I'd simply say "no need to be used".
 
Plus, it's worth noting that not every discrepancy requires an "in-universe" explanation. Sometimes the real world explanation-- i.e. they couldn't have said "fuck" on the previous shows even if they'd wanted to--is more than enough.
I think this is a good argument in general. But I think it avoids addressing the context of how language was used in TNG overall. For the majority of TNG they spoke in a very particular way, and even Fireproof acknowledges this. So it gives the viewer the impression that common strong profanity is out of vogue, and in addition, people overall speak in a more refined way. However, that seemed to be changing towards the end of TNG. I remember the crew seemed to loosen up a bit, like when they were discussing some boring speaker while aboard a shuttle craft, or Crusher getting frustrated at Barclay's sitcom-like neurotic behavior.

In PIC they use strong profanity, and also speak in a more casual way that's reflective of Earth today, or a television show set in the present day. This isn't true for all characters. Picard and Hugh speak the same way they spoke in TNG, whereas all the new characters, regardless of age, speak just like regular people in 2020 speak.

There was no CGI, bumpy-headed Klingons, female captains, or gay characaters on TOS because well, it was the sixties.
I don't think there was an intention to NOT include female captains or gay characters. I don't think Roddenberry or the producers were trying to get across that in the future women can't be captains or that gay people don't exist. However, I think regardless of the censorship of profanity at the time, the producers did seem to try to make the speaking style different from that of how regular people talked in 1987-1994.

Should all subsequent Trek shows have avoided such things simply for the sake of consistency and to avoid "jarring" old-time viewers? Of course not.
No. They do whatever they feel will make the show successful. It was a novelty to have a Star Trek future where the crew didn't constantly bicker like normal prime time television characters or speak in common slang.
However, now, it's a novelty to have a Star Trek future that feels more "realistic" in terms of how characters speak to one another.
There's pros and cons on both sides of the debate, in my opinion. Ultimately I side with the producers, in that having no swearing and the faux Shakespeare-like dialogue might be considered quaint to modern audiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dix
At times. Mostly in early seasons.

I make no assumptions about you. However, I am noticing how the arguments come across. If I misread I apologize. I don't know you so can assume nothing about you personally.

Thanks, I appreciate it.
I like the show and I think the more casual speaking style can come across as refreshing, although it took me a bit getting used to at first.
 
Had the budget not been so tight back then, they would've surely included those things in the 60s already.
The budget was actually pretty good for a show made in the 60's.
don't think there was an intention to NOT include female captains or gay characters. I don't think Roddenberry or the producers were trying to get across that in the future women can't be captains or that gay people don't exist.
They pretty much said "no female captains" in the final TOS episode. And I believe there is a record of Roddenberry and later Berman squashing any attempts to include gay characters.
 
Thanks, I appreciate it.
I like the show and I think the more casual speaking style can come across as refreshing, although it took me a bit getting used to at first.
Language also evolves. The Federation going through a war would impact how people communicate. Especially for Starfleet.

The budget was actually pretty good for a show made in the 60's.
They pretty much said "no female captains" in the final TOS episode. And I believe there is a record of Roddenberry and later Berman squashing any attempts to include gay characters.
Yup. David Gerrold noted that.
 
The budget was actually pretty good for a show made in the 60's.
They pretty much said "no female captains" in the final TOS episode. And I believe there is a record of Roddenberry and later Berman squashing any attempts to include gay characters.

Then I take that back. I was going to include "at least not that I know of" in my post but I got lazy. I'm not that familiar with TOS.
In regards to gay characters, do you know if Roddenberry and Berman doing that based on their own prejudices or because they felt it was too risky commercially speaking? I remember when watching that episode of Riker falling for the gender-less character, it felt like it was an awkward way to address the issue of gay prejudice. You have this episode in the future where one species is facing prejudice for identifying as heterosexual, yet we never saw ANY homosexual characters in all of TNG? I don't think it was ever even hinted at. I didn't really notice it till that particular episode.
It felt too on the nose, and yet too subtle. Like they thought they were making a bold stance, but actually it wasn't bold at all.
 
In regards to gay characters, do you know if Roddenberry and Berman doing that based on their own prejudices or because they felt it was too risky commercially speaking?
Here's a quote from Memory Alpha:
Having coined him "a raging homophobe", the earlier quoted David Gerrold has unequivocally accused Berman of sabotaging the development of the unrealized Next Generation first season episode "Blood and Fire", an allegory on AIDS, featuring gay characters [26] As to the alleged homophobia of Berman, Mangels, Star Trek's only openly gay writer, has later observed, "I have never met Rick Berman, and he has never expressed any specific attitudes directly to me. That said, not one single actor, staff member, or Paramount employee has ever once defended him from charges of homophobia, and many have accused him of it. Berman was ultimately responsible for killing almost every pitch for gay characters, and in interviews, was mealy-mouthed and waffling about the need for GLBT representation. At the very least, he was gutless and didn't care about GLBT representation. From the information and evidence I've seen, heard, and read, I believe that Berman is the reason we never saw gays on Star Trek." [27](X) Mangels' "waffling"-statement referred, among others, to a December 2002 interview Berman had given to USAToday.com, commenting on the matter, "That was really the wishful thinking of some people who were constantly at us. But we don't see heterosexual couples holding hands on the show, so it would be somewhat dishonest of us to see two gay men or lesbians holding hands."
 
Well the attitude in PIC towards addiction and drug use is certainly a lot more progressive then TNG.

Granted in DS9 (Im thinking the Red Squad ep....or any ep of Trek actually towards stims) they seemed to have an attitude of "Wellllll...if as long as you show up to work on time".
 
2ex9gt.jpg

/thread
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top