Paramount apparently still doesn't get it...

[Citiprime]

I think something that also plays into this is how people react to the actors as actors.

From everything I’ve read, Michelle Hurd is a nice woman and great person, but going back to Law & Order, I’ve never been the biggest fan of her as an actress. And going back to season 1 of Picard, I’ve never felt she was right for Raffi. Hurd’s portrayal has never felt organic to me to where I get Raffi as someone that should exist as a character in this fictional universe. I always see Michelle Hurd trying to act like a Star Trek character and don’t buy it.

And I felt the same dynamic with Rios, where I thought the actor’s cigar-chomping portrayal was off and bordered on absurdity. The acting always felt forced.

As for the character of Sydney, there isn’t much there as far as character, but there wasn’t much there to Harry Kim or Geordi for that matter in the beginning. If anything, they all fit the archetype of “young, Starfleet officer with something to prove” and I think the actress has done great with what little she’s been given.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Losing 100s of 1000s of experienced crew would do that. Between the Klingon War, the Dominion war, and the attack on Mars, starfleet literally lost 1000s of starships. It makes sense they'd be drawing on every experienced officer, even if they aren't the perfect CO choice.

That makes sense, but I would've liked something in the dialogue to make that more obvious. The lack of conversation about Starfleet not being what it was makes it feel like Picard's writers are giving us their own idea of what it is rather than showing that it has changed, so Shaw just feels wrong to me.

 

[Citiprime]

That makes sense, but I would've liked something in the dialogue to make that more obvious. The lack of conversation about Starfleet not being what it was makes it feel like Picard's writers are giving us their own idea of what it is rather than showing that it has changed, so Shaw just feels wrong to me.

I will say that, arguably, there has been some foundation for that in the previous seasons.

Season 1 is all about Picard’s alienation from Starfleet and feeling like Starfleet is not the organization it was or should be. They definitely heavily imply the Federation pulled back from the notion of involving itself in galactic events after the Romulan crisis and the destruction of Utopia Planitia, and part of that was the strain of resources that some Federation member states were ready to secede over. I always interpreted that first season as suggesting the Federation turned inward and somewhat isolationist with Starfleet maybe not being given the rope to do everything it wanted and possibly attitudes within the Federation questioning the nature of Starfleet.

To a certain extent, it would explain things like old ships (such as the Luna Class Titan) being cannibalized to make new ones, as well as Shaw’s attitude towards Picard’s and Riker’s adventures, where they’re looked at with a double-edged sword. You have the cadets marveling at Picard’s triumphs, while Shaw harrumphs the collateral damage of those missions.

 

[Sci]

I think something that also plays into this is how people react to the actors as actors.

From everything I’ve read, Michelle Hurd is a nice woman and great person, but going back to Law & Order, I’ve never been the biggest fan of her as an actress. And going back to season 1 of Picard, I’ve never felt she was right for Raffi. Hurd’s portrayal has never felt organic to me to where I get Raffi as someone that should exist as a character in this fictional universe. I always see Michelle Hurd trying to act like a Star Trek character and don’t buy it.

So, what about her performance is "inorganic?" What about Raffi marks her as someone who "shouldn't exist" in the Star Trek universe?

And I felt the same dynamic with Rios, where I thought the actor’s cigar-chomping portrayal was off and bordered on absurdity. The acting always felt forced.

In what way?

I will say that, arguably, there has been some foundation for that in the previous seasons.

Season 1 is all about Picard’s alienation from Starfleet and feeling like Starfleet is not the organization it was or should be. They definitely heavily imply the Federation pulled back from the notion of involving itself in galactic events after the Romulan crisis and the destruction of Utopia Planitia, and part of that was the strain of resources that some Federation member states were ready to secede over. I always interpreted that first season as suggesting the Federation turned inward and somewhat isolationist with Starfleet maybe not being given the rope to do everything it wanted and possibly attitudes within the Federation questioning the nature of Starfleet.

Agreed. And there's a point where wanting this to be highlighted in dialogue is just asking for bad writing -- it's asking the writers to pull a slightly more sophisticated version of "As you know" exposition. Starfleet and the Federation have been through some bad stuff the past few decades, and it's clear that that's had long-term consequences.

To a certain extent, it would explain things like old ships (such as the Luna Class Titan) being cannibalized to make new ones, as well as Shaw’s attitude towards Picard’s and Riker’s adventures, where they’re looked at with a double-edged sword. You have the cadets marveling at Picard’s triumphs, while Shaw harrumphs the collateral damage of those missions.

I mean, I don't really think the fact Shaw is skeptical of Picard's adventures needs explanation per se. Diversity of opinion is just a natural thing that will always exist no matter the circumstances.

 

[Citiprime]

So, what about her performance is "inorganic?" What about Raffi marks her as someone who "shouldn't exist" in the Star Trek universe? …. In what way?

For me, the performances didn’t work because I feel like I’m watching actors try to be a character, and not really achieving it where it seems authentic. It never felt like characters that were real to the story. I just didn’t like the performances and feel like it took me out of the story.

And I understand other people feel differently, but that’s just the way I’m coming at it.

 

[Sci]

For me, the performances didn’t work because I feel like I’m watching actors try to be a character, and not really achieving it where it seems authentic. It never felt like characters that were real to the story. I just didn’t like the performances and feel like it took me out of the story.

In what way? What part of her performance felt inauthentic? What acting choices in particular stick out to you as bad?

 

[Farscape One]

They are all Starfleet veterans facing severe PTSD and guilt, and cope with it in unhealthy ways.



Nah. He may be a good manager, but he's also rather obviously uncomfortable with himself and his place in life. "Sorry, I confused being an asshole with having a personality" is not the self-assessment of someone who has a purpose in life and a place he feels he fits in.



Refusing to respect the identity of his XB first officer isn't selfish?



Being paired with Worf has led to the writers infantilizing her.



A friend of mine put it better than I ever could: "Anyway it's fascinating to see who gets to be a dick and is told it's endearing, and who gets to have trauma excuse bad action. And it's fascinating how it's certainly not the black female characters. But we won't talk about that."

I'll agree that Rios, Raffi, and Shaw all share the guilt personality trait, and I said as much in my post. But that's pretty much all they have in common. And many characters in the franchise have guilt.

Shaw... Seven aside (which I still don't like that he is that way with her), he seems to care about his crew's well being and safety. He was openly against going after a ship that outclassed his, he doesn't typically even desire to put his crew in any kind of danger, and the first thing he did when there was a break in the attack was order his bridge crew to get some rest since they had been on duty for too long at once. (Which is actually something we rarely saw in ST.) Until Picard (the reason for his survivor's guilt) showed up, he seemed to be fairly adjusted. Someone can be an asshole but still get the job done... like Captain Jellico. It's not a style I like in leadership, but those people exist. It gives Starfleet, as a whole, a sense of variety in their captains.

Regarding Shaw's attitude with Seven, I completely agree that's selfish, and I'm not a fan of that aspect of his character. But if you actually read the paragraph that showed the word 'selfish' in it, it was entirely about why those characters had guilt. Rios and Shaw had guilt come from actions or inactions that were not selfish by nature... Raffi's is due to decisions she made that were selfish in nature.

Raffi being paired with Worf has helped lighten her up and I'm enjoying her character more this season. A character can't stay in doom and gloom mode all the time... it becomes a chore to watch them after a while. The writers gave her some balance this season, which is why she's much more engaging to watch.

And since YOU are the one who can't seem to understand that someone might have a problem with Raffi's character for reasons that have nothing to do with racial biases, how about going back and reading my post about why I have issues with her? Because I'm sure I can't be the only person who's not big on drug addiction or doesn't like the idea of someone essentially abandoning their kid. I don't care if you're a woman or man, you don't abandon your children!

And since YOU want to bring it up, how is not liking Raffi the same thing as not liking black female characters in general? I haven't seen any others mentioned here.

 

[valkyrie013]

For Raffi, its not the actor, it is the writers, I didn't like her character the past 2 seasons, but this season I like her, because to me the writing is better for her, and pairing her with Worf was good.

I MISS Rios, to me he was the only good "New" picard character, and really wanted a Rios series, but alas.
Shaw isn't Rios. Rios is more of an adventurer, similar to Picard. Shaw is an explorer.

I see more of Me in Shaw, I'm a Sarcastic Asshole explorer, but I'm kind of a mirror to people, if you treat me with respect, then you will get respect. I get Shaws assness to Riker and Picard, they showed him no respect, he's a captain, not some ensign, so they get no respect, except what is entailed for the rank. For seven he has a chip on his shoulder, and he'll get over it and call her Seven eventually.

 

[1001001]

Holy crap...

Please feel free to talk about Shaw and Seven in the Picard forum. I'm sure there are many people there discussing the same things.

 

[Farscape One]

To avoid potential spoilers, good point. I'll keep Shaw and current season Seven out of the loop from here on.

Apologies.

 

[1001001]

To avoid potential spoilers, good point. I'll keep Shaw and current season Seven out of the loop from here on.

Apologies.

Nobody has crossed the line too badly, but man does it seem like we're getting close!



No worries at all. A time and a place for everything.

 

[trekfan_1]

Not necessarily disagreeing with the OP. But I'm quite sure TNG would never of been made if TPTB "listened to the fans"

Whether it's a popular premise/time line is not as important to me as to the material itself.

Sometimes you need to give permission to yourself to be selfish as Guinan once said. Do your own thing. Same reason why politicians do not call for a referendum for every major topic.

Now can they showrunners still screw things up? Absolutely. (TNG was almost a disaster early on). Are we allowed to speak our vibes about an upcoming premise of the show? Absolutely as well

 

[Nyotarules]

I think that is an unfair assessment of the character. We've learned a lot about her. She's estranged from her father and (to a degree) her sister because of her choice to follow the Helm/Command career path. She has a bit of a reckless streak (how she earned her nickname, a certain thing she does with Jack at the museum, etc). She's obviously attracted to Jack as well.

She is about as ,'one note' as 'Russia invented everything' Chekov...right?

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, Chekov also had the whole V and W reversal thing going on, so I guess he had two notes?

 

[Farscape One]

Even Chekov wasn't fully 'one note'. We saw him working virtually every department at one time or another (navigation, science station, security), which shows his versatility as an officer. He's probably one of the most versatile officers of all the leads across all shows.

 

[IRW Bloodwing]

Presumably his track record in justified it, as he came up through the ranks. And indeed all indications are that everything was running smoothly under his command until Picard and Riker showed up. The Titan was carrying out its missions effectively and efficiently; the ship was in good shape and not taking major damage every week; the crew was not in jeopardy; no redshirts were dying off. One assumes that Shaw routinely got the job done with a minimum of excitement, and was therefore seen by Starfleet as a steady, reliable captain who took good care of his ship and crew.

He wasn't saving the galaxy, but he wasn't giving Starfleet Command ulcers either.

I wish I could give more than just an upvote to this post. Shaw's attitude reminds me of Adm Jellico in the New Frontier books.

 

[fireproof78]

Not necessarily disagreeing with the OP. But I'm quite sure TNG would never of been made if TPTB "listened to the fans"

"The fans", such that was publicly presented, did not like TNG. It's a not a given that something new is bad or shows Paramount is out of touch.

 

[IRW Bloodwing]

That makes sense, but I would've liked something in the dialogue to make that more obvious. The lack of conversation about Starfleet not being what it was makes it feel like Picard's writers are giving us their own idea of what it is rather than showing that it has changed, so Shaw just feels wrong to me.

IMO, the days of having to spoon-feed the message to the audience are long over. We're adults. We can figure out themes and messages on our own.

 

[PCz911]

The analogy I've used before is watching a TV series set in a country you lived in for years, only for the series to get half of the basic basic details completely wrong.

PICARD season 3... the fine dining restaurant that went vegetarian suddenly has a filet mignon on the menu again for ten weeks.

wow, this is sort of what I was feeling but wasn’t articulate enough to explain to my friends why I just can’t seem to relate to all the new trek.

 

[fireproof78]

IMO, the days of having to spoon-feed the message to the audience are long over. We're adults. We can figure out themes and messages on our own.

I sure hope so. I'm tired of needing information painfully spelled out.