In some ways it wasn't good enough for its time as it was cancelled. It wasn't appealing enough to the masses as it struggled for three seasons before getting the axe. But yeah, it was progressive and "futuristic" enough for its time, and in the context of what was being pushed in mainstream television. And it helped bring science fiction further into the mainstream.
Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 1x08 - "Broken Pieces"
- Thread starter pst
- Start date
In some ways it wasn't good enough for its time as it was cancelled. It wasn't appealing enough to the masses as it struggled for three seasons before getting the axe. But yeah, it was progressive and "futuristic" enough for its time, and in the context of what was being pushed in mainstream television. And it helped bring science fiction further into the mainstream.
It was good enough for its time for diversity-that's it. As a TV show it was hit and miss throughout its course, had cost overruns, and lots of BTS stress. It wouldn't have gotten the third season without the letter campaign from fans.
But, for diversity, it did good enough. But, that legacy won't carry it forever and it really shouldn't be expected to do so.
I would say more like it was all hit and then all miss.
The first season still holds up. It remains one of the most ambitious and innovative seasons of television ever. A big reason for that was the progressivism.
The first season still holds up. It remains one of the most ambitious and innovative seasons of television ever. A big reason for that was the progressivism.
TOS has the greatest first season of any Trek series to date. No other series in the Trek franchise has a freshman season that approaches the quality of the first year of the original show in terms of writing.
I just find the pandering really embarrassing to be honest. I know this isn't the stereotype but being gay doesn't define who I am, it's not high on my list of attributes.
And that's exactly it. It's so noticeable that it takes me out of these shows. The best sort of casting does things with subtlety where you don't notice. It's so glaringly obvious new Trek are trying to cram in as many female/black/gay characters as possible it just takes you out of the episodes. I'm sure other people love the fact that 90% of the side characters on Discovery are female, I can only speak of my personal tastes.
I was never talking about your desire to know more (which is a big part of why I didn't quote you specifically in my original post). I was talking about the general implication made several times in this thread by some that the scene somehow wouldn't make sense unless it was considered proof that the Zhat Vash are all women (which is blatantly false) or female dominated (which is still entirely up to interpretation at best, regardless of Chabon's intention). With or without any given background information, the scene makes perfect sense.
And it's not a contradiction to say that maybe the group is completely random OR maybe there are separate ceremonies for men and women. It's just a line of speculation about the many possible interpretations of the scene that don't require the Zhat Vash to be an all female organization (which was the original complaint in this thread that started this conversation in the first place), all of which would be perfectly logical
First of all, the most central point my original post was trying to make keeps getting lost in this conversation, so let's revisit it again:
Using (or endorsing) a phrase like 'the Pendulum swinging fully in the other direction' does not mean 'this is just like some random thing from the last 20-30 years'. It means 'this is just as bad (towards men) as the worst examples from the previous (anti-women) era'.
TNG has significant issues. It is not the far end of this pendulum. TOS has major issues, but even it is not the far end of this pendulum. And anyone who looks me in the eye and says Picard is just as bad as TOS but in the other direction is, imo, either ignorant or lying.
Secondly, even in regards to TNG specifically, I'm not buying this at all. Sure, Picard has some tropes transferred to women that TNG had for men. But in addition to Soji, PIC has Elnor who is still an example of PIC having the male bad-ass just like TNG did, no matter how sensitive he is nor the fact that he was raised by women (Why does that even keep being mentioned at all? It has no relevance to anything.) And PIC also has Rios right there who is very obviously comparable to Riker, only with less obsessive emphasis on how sexy he is supposed to be. So even on this one point, what PIC has is not the mirror image of TNG. It's a more fundamentally balanced picture.
And of course there are MANY other issues on TNG that simply don't have any analog on Picard at all. Picard does not replicate the randomly permanent catsuit of counselor Troi or anything equivalent for any male character. It does not replicate the fundamentally sexist writing issues of episodes like 'Justice' or 'The Child'. It does not replicate the treatment of Tasha Yar in general (why is her backstory about *gang rape*? And even after being brought back to be given an actually decent send-off instead of the flippant death from season 1, she had to be brought back to be kidnapped - again - held prisoner by a man who was forcing her to marry/live with him - again - and have her child stolen from her, all without even getting a single extra scene). Nor the treatment of Troi in Nemesis (rape scene with no reason to exist whatsoever except to motivate Riker - not Troi, Riker), nor the randomly out of character discussions about boobs in Insurrection. Nor are the Zhat Vash, matriarchal as they theoretically may be, anywhere close to TNG's depiction of the Ferengi.
This is just off the top of my head and I'm entirely sure if we would take the time to go through episode by episode we could find a whole lot more. So no, Picard is in no way a mirror image of TNG. It has massively better balance between and respect for both male and female characters than TNG ever had/did.
You started your statement by agreeing that Picard was the pendulum swinging fully in the opposite direction (a claim that had very clearly been made in the context of how the series treat men vs women) and then listed all these other things as evidence of that.
I fail to see how Picard getting lectured by women and a sensitive man is in any way relevant to the conversation if it ISN'T about women having more focus or power than the men. If it's just about Picard getting his personal tables turned on him (which - I have said the whole time is all it is) then it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender relations on Pic vs gender relations on TNG or any other old examples.
I also fail to see how going out of your way to point out how many women are on the show and also repeatedly implying that Elnor should just as well be categorized with them rather than with the other men because he's 'sensitive and was raised by women' has any relevance to the conversation if it isn't about claiming that women (and Elnor) are getting most of the attention on this show. The other poster you were originally agreeing with most certainly intended that to be the point, even if you didn't realize at first they thought it was a bad thing whereas you don't.
Honestly, I don't really see the order they all happened in as particularly important but you seemed to think it meant something that Troi was first and Riker second, so the correction seemed necessary.
But you're probably correct that Troi was more succesful in general because Picard as a person strikes me (even back in many TNG episodes) as not incomparable to a bulldog when it comes to his own ingrained prejudices. It does not surprise me at all that if you really want a message about his own behavior to truly sink in you need to very pointedly get his attention first rather than beating around the bush with casual friendliness.
I don't think so, really. He has a tendency to be insensitive and bulldogish when he's truly convinced that he's correct and therefore if he just pushes hard enough other people will be convinced by that (because 'that', in his mind, is 'clearly' the truth). I think it was worse than usual in this scene for a number of reasons, but they all make sense in story. First, he's not used to dealing with kids (other than Wesley who is in no way normal) and has never fully grocked how to moderate his behavior toward them relative to his behavior toward adults. Second, he's a Captain and a Diplomat, not a socially gifted man. He's never performed as well outside the regulated confines of Starfleet service as he did inside them. And thirdly, he's spent years hiding in his vineyard wallowing in self pity and Nepenthe is the first moment since before his resignation that he's really starting to feel like he's truly making progress on a great mission again, so he's both rusty and also too excited/energized to separate his zeal for the mission from Soji's actual needs.
Take the story and transplant it onto the Enterprise instead of with a civilian kid and remove Picard's long hiatus from, well, any life at all from the equation and I don't think the result would really be all that different from any number of examples from TNG or the TNG films.
I dunno...being described as a "washout" implies that he had a chance to make it in.
So what?
Yes, you do. And it is somewhat amusing (but becoming boringly repetitive). Might I suggest focusing on Akiva Goldsman’s shortcomings as an action scene director? Much more of substance to tackle there.Keep missing the point, it's hilarious
Because it's so glaringly obvious that they're trying to win feminist/SJW points that it takes people out of the episode. As if three gay characters on the Discovery crew isn't enough "inclusion" and "representation", we're about to get a get a non-binary one in season 3, as one example.
The action in the tenth episode was terribly directed, you're not wrong there.
Good. It's OK to have more inclusion and representation. And I say that as a WASP.
It is ok, until you turn it up to a million, like on Discovery, to the point where it's so forced and obvious that it becomes distracting.
Mileage will vary. I feel like it is more distracting on other shows than on Discovery.
Dude, do you even Star Trek, bro?
Whenever I see these complaints about forced diversity on Star Trek, I always get the feeling that the complainers see every "demo" character as being completely defined by their one single characteristic that removes them from the WASP male norm. The one reason for the entire existence of a gay character is to be "the" gay character, and so on. Every additional gay character is superfluous to them because we already checked that box.
If I described Stamets, my first choice of words would be that he's a snarky and grumpy engineer who's not great with people or in expressing his feelings, who just so happens to be living in a same-sex relationship. Which has always been treated as matter-of-factly as possible. They never went around yelling at people, "lookie, we're gay and we're kissing and you can't do anything about it" or something. That would be forced. And before anyone raises that "tiny little brains" bullshit again, let me remind you that Georgiou is consistently depicted as a horrible person whose opinions we are in no way obligated to agree with. It would be like saying a movie with the KKK as the villains is inherently racist simply because the Klansmen say horrible things about African Americans.
So whenever someone asks why Character X must be gay, a PoC, or God forbid, a woman, or even "there's no reason to make Character X [insert demographic here]," I always automatically translate it as "why can't they be normal?", normal meaning "a straight, white, Anglo-Saxon male conforming to traditional gender roles," naturally. It's all about any additional "demo" character meaning one less straight white male in the cast, which is apparently the end of the world. Despite us white males making up only about 6% or so of the global population.
If I described Stamets, my first choice of words would be that he's a snarky and grumpy engineer who's not great with people or in expressing his feelings, who just so happens to be living in a same-sex relationship. Which has always been treated as matter-of-factly as possible. They never went around yelling at people, "lookie, we're gay and we're kissing and you can't do anything about it" or something. That would be forced. And before anyone raises that "tiny little brains" bullshit again, let me remind you that Georgiou is consistently depicted as a horrible person whose opinions we are in no way obligated to agree with. It would be like saying a movie with the KKK as the villains is inherently racist simply because the Klansmen say horrible things about African Americans.
So whenever someone asks why Character X must be gay, a PoC, or God forbid, a woman, or even "there's no reason to make Character X [insert demographic here]," I always automatically translate it as "why can't they be normal?", normal meaning "a straight, white, Anglo-Saxon male conforming to traditional gender roles," naturally. It's all about any additional "demo" character meaning one less straight white male in the cast, which is apparently the end of the world. Despite us white males making up only about 6% or so of the global population.
Last edited:
Off the top of my head in PIC we saw in terms of sexual encounters/relationships:
7 hetrosexual relationships
1 possible hetroinsestious relationship
2 bi/lesbian relationships
And in regards to the bi ones we didnt even see a kiss
7 hetrosexual relationships
1 possible hetroinsestious relationship
2 bi/lesbian relationships
And in regards to the bi ones we didnt even see a kiss
Stamets was for me exactly how it should be for a gay character in a show like this. His sexuality never acts as part of his personality and he doesnt start out as a straight guy with a big coming out character progression episode. Hes just a guy in a fully formed relationship just like when we meet lets say O ' Brien or Neelix
Yup. I don't give two craps about what a character's relationship status is, and Stamets is more interesting as a scientist and engineer than anything else.
