Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
As for this series, yeah, the next teaser could focus solely on Gwyn and her perspective. But also, yep, female lead characters in American animation, for this type of show, is not that common of a thing. Actually, I'm hard pressed to think of anything off the top of my head in American animation.
Kipo from Kipo and the Age of the Wonderbeasts, Luz in The Owl House, Anne in Amphibia, Webby in the new Ducktales (well, co-lead there, but there were plenty of episodes where she was the very much the lead), and so on.
Just because you can't think of them or don't know about them, Isaac, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Edited to make it clear the context of my response (stupid board software not allowing quote nesting doesn't help).
Kipo, Luz in The Owl House, Anne in Amphibia, Webby in the new Ducktales (well, co-lead there, but there were plenty of episodes where she was the very much the lead, including the series finale), and so on.
Just because you can't think of them or don't know about them, Isaac, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Yeah, if the rumored characters are true, then that may not be the case. We shall see, though.
Well, those who want to watch season two shall see. Season one may have been enough me. I believe I may have seen enough. And I didn't particularly care for that character the first time around back in the 90s (to put it politely), and nothing has changed.
But it was the companies that created that gender segregation in the first place. And it isn't a relic from generations past -- it's younger than I am. When I was a kid in the '70s, there were plenty of toys that were marketed to both boys and girls equally, and that my sister and I played with side-by-side. Some toys, like Legos, I think, even used that as an explicit selling point. It was only in the '80s that toy marketers embraced specialization and rigid separation between boys' toys and girls' toys.
Then there's the custom of color-coding baby clothes and items as blue for boys and pink for girls. That didn't really take off until after WWII, and it was invented by the companies that made the products as a way to increase their sales by convincing people that they had to buy two completely separate sets of clothes and products for boy and girl children rather than using the same ones for both. (Indeed, pre-WWII, pink was actually considered a masculine color because it was a shade of red, and blue a feminine color, though the color coding wasn't pushed as hard by marketers as it was postwar.)
I'm not sure how much of an 80's thing that is, because when I was a kid in the 70s there we pretty specific toys that were targeted to boys, and pretty specific toys that were targeted to girls. And some for both.
I remember the toy section of the JCPenny's Christmas catalogs were pretty specific. And the most wonderful place in the world, Toys 'R' Us... the toys that I wanted were in a pretty specific place, and I knew the shortest route it took to get to them in three separate stores.
No, but not much has changed since then as far as I can tell either. And obviously that's always been the case from time immemorial. And not making a judgment on it, it just is what it is.
Also, this is just a recent phenomenon where people are talking about girls playing with "boy's toys," and boys playing with "girls's toys." This is something that just started to come about in the last 5 or 10 years, because I know it wasn't there when I was a kid. So if anything it's becoming less rigid than before, I think, at least.
I of course have no issue with that either, parents can buy whatever they want for their kids as far as I'm concerned. Just raise them well is all I ask. And a lot of people I feel don't do that great of a job of that because of all of the problems that we continue to have today. So parents can buy whatever they want for their kids, just raise them not to be ignorant and intolerant people. And a lot of adults I see today are just going to ruin another generation of kids. But that of course is another subject.
But breaking new ground is what Star Trek is supposed to do. The original series was the first non-anthology science fiction adult drama. The animated series was, at least per Filmation's marketing, the first Saturday morning animated series aimed at adults. TNG was a pioneer in first-run syndicated drama and paved the way for a whole era of syndicated SF/fantasy TV. Similarly, Voyager was the flagship of a new TV network and Discovery the flagship of a new streaming service. Star Trek being a pioneer is nothing new. So it's not asking too much. It's expecting it to live up to its own history.
Prodigy has Kevin and Dan Hageman as the creators and showrunners. Two white guys. Maybe they should have taken some more pitch ideas from female creators. Maybe they would have had different ideas? Or asked the Hageman brothers to tweak their idea? They did specifically want Janeway though, I imagine. So that is something.
Other than that, yeah, I don't know what more to say.
I will add though, since the blowback that they've gotten from some sectors of the fandom with Discovery, the Star Trek people seem to be a little more cautious when it comes to pushing the proverbial envelope (so to speak) as of late. In my opinion, at least.
I of course don't think that's a particular good thing, but I also have the option of watching what I like and leaving the rest alone.
EDIT:
I will add a again, I do think Gwyn will be the Spock of the show, and Dal will be the Kirk. And whether that's a good or bad thing, I don't know it.
Ultimately, I guess, female lead characters in action-based kids animation is not an issue that I care much at all about. Other things are of more interest to me. But for those who it is an issue for, fine, and I understand. It's just not much of an issue to me personally.
Kipo from Kipo and the Age of the Wonderbeasts, Luz in The Owl House, Anne in Amphibia, Webby in the new Ducktales (well, co-lead there, but there were plenty of episodes where she was the very much the lead), and so on.
Just because you can't think of them or don't know about them, Isaac, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Edited to make it clear the context of my response (stupid board software not allowing quote nesting doesn't help).
Yep, and I wasn't saying or implying that they don't.
I'm sure that they do, but I personally would be hard pressed to name any off the top of my head because I don't follow what's going on in kids animation. So it was a simple statement, nothing more.
Also, of what you listed, Ducktales I'm familiar with (not whatever they're doing in the latest incarnation though), but the other things I have never heard of in my life, so I would have to do a search for them. And so that goes back to my simple statement. I don't follow what's going on in kids animation, so nothing immediately comes to mind to me. And so I wasn't speaking as someone who was an authority on the subject. No, just stating the obvious that's it's not a common occurrence to have a female character as the lead character in an action-based kids animation series. It does happen, but it's not that common. Nothing more, nothing less.
(Jeez, you can get jumped on for anything, can't you... )
I'm not sure why you're putting this under a spoiler tag because none of this has happened.
Anyway, I don't care what they do with Seven of Nine. Because the entire Borg concept is the thing that I dislike the most in all of Star Trek. I've never liked it from day one, and I've never liked the character Seven of Nine from day one.
I understand what you're saying though. And from a story standpoint, yeah, sure, they can do that.
Picard is just a show that I've written off though. I didn't care about it when they first announced it, but I gave it a try. I liked the first few episodes for the most part, then I was done. And I was going to give the second season a try, but after thinking about it... I really don't care that much.
I'm one of those Star Trek fans who doesn't like any 90s Star Trek, other than Sisko and Janeway. So two characters. And The Original Series and Discovery for me. So the 90s Star Trek happened, but I personally leave it in the 90s and like to pretend that it didn't.
I'm not sure how much of an 80's thing that is, because when I was a kid in the 70s there we pretty specific toys that were targeted to boys, and pretty specific toys that were targeted to girls. And some for both.
I'm not saying it didn't exist, but it wasn't as stringent or pervasive as it became later on. There were boys' toys and girls' toys, but there was more overlap then, and more gender-neutral toys, then there were later on.
Which to some extent was just a symptom of toys getting more specialized and niche-marketed in general. When I was a kid, Legos were just colored bricks. They didn't even have minifigures until I was ten. Along with the minifigs came themed sets like space and castles and firehouses and such, but they were still pretty generic and you could build whatever you wanted within the broad theme. But then they started to do movie and TV licensing deals, the Star Wars sets and the like, and those completely took over. I'm not sure there still is such a thing as a Lego set that isn't a licensed tie-in targeted at a specific fanbase.
I'm not saying it didn't exist, but it wasn't as stringent or pervasive as it became later on. There were boys' toys and girls' toys, but there was more overlap then, and more gender-neutral toys, then there were later on.
Which to some extent was just a symptom of toys getting more specialized and niche-marketed in general. When I was a kid, Legos were just colored bricks. They didn't even have minifigures until I was ten. Along with the minifigs came themed sets like space and castles and firehouses and such, but they were still pretty generic and you could build whatever you wanted within the broad theme. But then they started to do movie and TV licensing deals, the Star Wars sets and the like, and those completely took over. I'm not sure there still is such a thing as a Lego set that isn't a licensed tie-in targeted at a specific fanbase.
Yeah, I guess I really don't see it changed all that much.
Things like board games are gender-neutral, and are ages-old, and started gender-neutral, and never stopped being gender-neutral. And I guess LEGO started gender-neutral, and has since expanded. So it's case by case. Like pretty much anything in life.
Toy babydolls are of course centuries old, and started gender-specific and that hasn't really changed. I'm not sure what the boy equivalent to that would be, maybe toy guns or something? Or a ball? Although I guess a ball could be argued as gender-neutral.
Either way, the "It's okay if a boy wants to play with what's considered a traditional toy for a girl," and "It's okay if a girl wants to play with what's considered a traditional toy for a boy" is a new thing. That's something that's come about in the last 10 years or so. I believe I first saw that talked about on the news in 2015 or thereabouts. And for that to become a widespread thing I think will take a couple of generations. Because today's parents weren't raised that way, so it'll take the kids of today's kids to start making that change and raising their children that way.
Even then though I kind of have my doubts. Because, again, even today we continue to have problems that you would have thought would no longer be issues, or not much of an issue, yet they're still here.
Of course, again, I blame the parents. Fix the parents, and the kids should turn out all right. Because this is all stuff that's taught, you're not born that way. So if the parents are a problem, then the kids are probably going to be a problem too.
So it's those damn Grumps. And we're all doomed. Well, maybe not totally doomed, but it's going to take awhile.
As for this show... yeah, they could have made Gwyn the main character. And she may still be. I kind of doubt it, but who knows.
I of course still would have preferred a Starfleet Academy show. Because I like the uniforms. And I guess that's just my obsessiveness for neatness and order. I like everything in line, I don't like messy things. Dal does seem kind of "messy" to me, and I don't usually like characters like him, but the scenes in the teaser with him on the bridge kind of clicked with me. We'll see how long it lasts though before the "messiness" gets on my nerves.
Of course, I'll always have Discovery, where everything is nice and neat and in order. And Rocket Girl and her drama. Or who I like to call the female Captain Kirk. Awesome at everything, but over does it from time to time in the acting department.
EDIT:
And I guess that's what I like most about her too. She is awesome at everything, but does things that are questionable too.
...I'm guessing Prodigy is going to be serialized too. I'm not feeling like they want to do an episodic style with this, no, it feels like they have a story that want to tell...
Based on my limited knowledge of the Hageman Brothers' work on Lego Ninjago and the overall trend of current television, I agree that the show will probably be serialized. Most likely with season-long arcs (like Discovery) as opposed to series-long arcs.
...Prodigy has Kevin and Dan Hageman as the creators and showrunners. Two white guys. Maybe they should have taken some more pitch ideas from female creators. Maybe they would have had different ideas? Or asked the Hageman brothers to tweak their idea? They did specifically want Janeway though, I imagine. So that is something....
...I'm one of those Star Trek fans who doesn't like any 90s Star Trek, other than Sisko and Janeway. So two characters. And The Original Series and Discovery for me. So the 90s Star Trek happened, but I personally leave it in the 90s and like to pretend that it didn't...
Point 1: I am pretty sure Kurtzman/Paramount/Nickelodeon did take pitches from female creators. Unless it was some bit of serendipity, like Mike McMahon getting to do a pitch to Kurtzman which just hit the mark 100%, the network(s) probably did a lot of strategic planning/marketing research for this show and probably took multiple pitches.
Point 2: I guess I have occasionally seen Star Trek fans who only like the original series, but it still seems bizarre to me. And liking Discovery but not any of the '90s shows, Picard, or LDS? How can someone not like at least 1 of TNG, DS9, or VOY (as serieses)? TNG is like TOS evolved (in terms of the Roddenberry Utopia) and has one of the single best actors in Trek (Stewart) and is a lot like TOS v2.0. DS9 is a darker, more introspective show, with probably the richest set of developed main and supporting characters, and best serialized character and story development. VOY is like TNG v2.0 (or TOS v3.0?), and while not my personal Top 3 Trek Shows, has some great individual characters and some truly outstanding episodes on par with anything else in Trek. IDIC indeed.
Or they're completely purist. I knew a cousin who didn't acknowledge any of the Star Trek made after the first film. Granted this was way back in the 90s during the TNG/DS9/VOY era...but I'm pretty sure that opinion hasn't changed a bit.
Or they're completely purist. I knew a cousin who didn't acknowledge any of the Star Trek made after the first film. Granted this was way back in the 90s during the TNG/DS9/VOY era...but I'm pretty sure that opinion hasn't changed a bit.
True enough, and certainly I can appreciate that point of view as well. Certainly I have seen it with other works of fiction and would expect that to be true in Star Trek.
While I think some Berman Era Trek is okay; the only Star Trek I really love is TOS. For me - TNG is NOT 'TOS evolved...' as the problem I have with GR's 'utopian' vision is it's utter BS in that there is NO WAY mankind would reach such a state by the 24th century, and the idea that everyone's needs are so satisfied they now only work to 'improve themselves' isn't science fiction, its high fantasy.
What I have always enjoyed about TOS is that while yes, the characters are slightly 'better' in terms of prejudice or acceptance of others, they were still relatable as actual Human beings with noticeable character flaws and issues, and even though they often argued or got made at each other during certain situations, in the end they still got past that to save the day/fix the problem.
TNG characters were supposed to be so completely 'well-adjusted' the ONLY way GR would allow them to yell or be angry with each other is if it was caused by some alien influence of anomaly because 'mankind was beyond arguing with each other'...
And yes, in later seasons they relaxed that a bit from time to time, but that was only when GR was hospitalized or after he had passed on, and was no longer looking over the scripts for things that violated 'Gene's Vision™'.
Also, it was interesting how utterly hypocritical Picard himself was WRT anything done by Worf that conformed to Klingon culture. For all Picard's pontificating how enlightened and non-judgmental of alien cultures Picard claimed humanity and the Federation was -- ANYTIME Worf did something 100% sanctioned in Klingon Culture, he usually got a MASSIVE lecture/dressing down from Picard as to how it wasn't "The Federation way...and having been raised in the Federation, Worf should know that and conform -- even though Worf is and often wants to be Klingon and accepted in Klingon society.
So yeah - spare me the - "TNG is like TOS evolved..." bit as there was very little evolved, unless you consider major hypocrisy on a weekly basis 'evolved'.
Plus TNG got AWAY from the plots being science fiction driven A LOT - and TNG oftentimes was just like other late 1980 'family dramas' just in space on a starship. For me, compared to TOS, that got boring fast.
So, yeah, you're welcome to your opinion, but for me all that opinion shows is you didn't watch (or enjoy) a lot of TOS.
Point 1: I am pretty sure Kurtzman/Paramount/Nickelodeon did take pitches from female creators. Unless it was some bit of serendipity, like Mike McMahon getting to do a pitch to Kurtzman which just hit the mark 100%, the network(s) probably did a lot of strategic planning/marketing research for this show and probably took multiple pitches.
What I was saying was really more rhetorical though, because I just wanted to get out of that conversation.
But yeah, what you're saying I'm sure is exactly how it went down. Prodigy looks like a very well-thought-out, market-driven show, and very in-fitting with the times. I's dotted and T's crossed and well put together and the whole nine.
I guess I have occasionally seen Star Trek fans who only like the original series, but it still seems bizarre to me. And liking Discovery but not any of the '90s shows, Picard, or LDS? How can someone not like at least 1 of TNG, DS9, or VOY (as serieses)?
Also, I look at Lower Decks as set squarely in 90s Star Trek (for obvious reasons), and Picard as a continuation of 90s Star Trek.
As for Star Trek fans who only like The Original Series, I think those are very rational people. I can fully understand them. I see where they're coming from. They're my kind of people. In fact, I was one of them of them until 2009... which of course was just a reinterpretation of The Original Series.
So yeah, we speak a common tongue. We're like-minded. Vulcan mind meld or whatever. And I guess I'll stop there...
Anyway, Lower Decks I think is fine. And it's harmless, but one season was enough for me. I got it, I understood it, and now I'm good. And Picard... yeah, I'm good.
While I think some Berman Era Trek is okay; the only Star Trek I really love is TOS. For me - TNG is NOT 'TOS evolved...' as the problem I have with GR's 'utopian' vision is it's utter BS in that there is NO WAY mankind would reach such a state by the 24th century, and the idea that everyone's needs are so satisfied they now only work to 'improve themselves' isn't science fiction, its high fantasy.
What I have always enjoyed about TOS is that while yes, the characters are slightly 'better' in terms of prejudice or acceptance of others, they were still relatable as actual Human beings with noticeable character flaws and issues, and even though they often argued or got made at each other during certain situations, in the end they still got past that to save the day/fix the problem.
TNG characters were supposed to be so completely 'well-adjusted' the ONLY way GR would allow them to yell or be angry with each other is if it was caused by some alien influence of anomaly because 'mankind was beyond arguing with each other'...
And yes, in later seasons they relaxed that a bit from time to time, but that was only when GR was hospitalized or after he had passed on, and was no longer looking over the scripts for things that violated 'Gene's Vision™'.
Also, it was interesting how utterly hypocritical Picard himself was WRT anything done by Worf that conformed to Klingon culture. For all Picard's pontificating how enlightened and non-judgmental of alien cultures Picard claimed humanity and the Federation was -- ANYTIME Worf did something 100% sanctioned in Klingon Culture, he usually got a MASSIVE lecture/dressing down from Picard as to how it wasn't "The Federation way...and having been raised in the Federation, Worf should know that and conform -- even though Worf is and often wants to be Klingon and accepted in Klingon society.
So yeah - spare me the - "TNG is like TOS evolved..." bit as there was very little evolved, unless you consider major hypocrisy on a weekly basis 'evolved'.
Plus TNG got AWAY from the plots being science fiction driven A LOT - and TNG oftentimes was just like other late 1980 'family dramas' just in space on a starship. For me, compared to TOS, that got boring fast.
So, yeah, you're welcome to your opinion, but for me all that opinion shows is you didn't watch (or enjoy) a lot of TOS.
I can agree that GR's vision was pushed a little far in making the Enterprise crew as "perfect" as they were, and that it improved when there was more wiggle room. But I also like the, potentially retroactive, comparison with DS9's 'imperfect' setting - "it's easy to be a saint in paradise". The crew of the Enterprise is the "best of the best" that the Federation has to offer. They live on the most advanced flagship of Starfleet with all the benefits of the Federation supporting them. If anyone can ever be close to perfect, it should be this crew. I guess I feel like I can have my cake and eat it too if the Next Gen crew is sometimes unrealistically perfect and at other times very human.
As for your point about Worf, I disagree. I think Picard was very accepting of Worf exploring Klingon culture. He defended and supported Worf when Worf had to go "home" to deal with stuff. The times that he was not accepting of Klingon culture was when Worf did things like straight up MURDER DURAS. In Klingon culture, sure that is acceptable if done in a way that Klingons consider honorable, but for an active duty Starfleet officer operating in the Federation, that is not acceptable. That is when Picard came down on Worf. While the Federation is tolerant of other cultures, there are minimum standards that the Federation will not relax within its own domain/jurisdiction - caste-based societal hierarchy is one Sisko mentions.
What I was saying was really more rhetorical though, because I just wanted to get out of that conversation.
But yeah, what you're saying I'm sure is exactly how it went down. Prodigy looks like a very well-thought-out, market-driven show, and very in-fitting with the times. I's dotted and T's crossed and well put together and the whole nine.
Oh, believe me, it's not hard at all.
Also, I look at Lower Decks as set squarely in 90s Star Trek (for obvious reasons), and Picard as a continuation of 90s Star Trek.
As for Star Trek fans who only like The Original Series, I think those are very rational people. I can fully understand them. I see where they're coming from. They're my kind of people. In fact, I was one of them of them until 2009... which of course was just a reinterpretation of The Original Series.
So yeah, we speak a common tongue. We're like-minded. Vulcan mind meld or whatever. And I guess I'll stop there...
Anyway, Lower Decks I think is fine. And it's harmless, but one season was enough for me. I got it, I understood it, and now I'm good. And Picard... yeah, I'm good.
Ah, make sense. I guess I don't think of Picard or LDS as being '90s shows because they are both modern productions. Also, since PIC is done in the modern Kurtzman style that occasionally forgets what "real" Star Trek is and is willing to go with some eyeball ripping, or graphic rape/torture, or propping up Space Hitler characters as heroes for "good television", that to me it doesn't feel at all like the '90s shows that I love. LDS, is much more in the zone of the '90s shows, so I can totally see lumping them together if going by "feel".
I guess my high-level view of all Trek shows doesn't group them into eras that I like or dislike, but just shows that are good or bad:
My opinions:
Quality, complete series:
DS9>TNG>TOS>VOY>ENT>TAS
Quality: incomplete series:
LDS>DIS>PIC>
Most liked (so far):
TNG>DS9>LDS>TOS>VOY>DIS>PIC>ENT>TAS
