I think what frustrated me was that the movie wasted the timeframe. There was nothing period-specific about it; it could've taken place at any time. Garrett was there....for......reasons? It didn't need to be her and could've been anyone. I agree that the actor and character are interesting and I would have moved a movie that was about *her* in *that* time and place. But instead it was what it was and it wasn't good.
Garrett Series/TV Show?
- Thread starter Continuous Cosmos
- Start date
I think what frustrated me was that the movie wasted the timeframe. There was nothing period-specific about it; it could've taken place at any time. Garrett was there....for......reasons? It didn't need to be her and could've been anyone. I agree that the actor and character are interesting and I would have moved a movie that was about *her* in *that* time and place. But instead it was what it was and it wasn't good.
Here's the thing. We have already had a series that follows a lower ranked officer ascending to Captain and many in the fanbase hated it. There were lots of arguments about how trek is an ensemble show and how dare this upstart commander be the centre of the action and be telling Captain's how to live. That show was Star Trek: Discovery and the character was Michael Burnham.
I have a feeling that if we do get a Rachel Garrett series, those criticisms that Burnham received will magically not be an issue, for...reasons.
I have a feeling that if we do get a Rachel Garrett series, those criticisms that Burnham received will magically not be an issue, for...reasons.
Last edited:
It'll only 'magically' stop being a problem if the writers have learned any lessons. Maybe by watching Lower Decks, the show focusing on a black female character who tells captains what to do, that everyone actually loves.
They're doing it in Strange New Worlds. They did in Lower Decks too.
I love Lower Decks, but come on. It gets away with a lot of things that would not be tolerated in live action Trek because it's basically an animated sitcom.
It took a while for a few fans to warm up to Mariner. She really seem to grate on a lot of folks.
I don’t think this is an apples to apples comparison. Criticisms of DSC had to do with a lot of different things. Also, it’s certainly possible that a show about Garrett could be quite different than DSC. I also think that shows with female protags are judged a little more harshly, so you’re right about that if that’s what you’re alluding to at the end of your post.
I see a lot of posts like this, where we assume that certain things are “burned” if a show does them, even generally. I’m not sure that needs to be the case with good creative people in place…
It certainly wasn't considered canon by some, Mariner regarded as "unprofessional," and the rest not good Starfleet officers. Immature, incoherent, frantic, or psychologically damaged so that they should not serve in Starfleet, much less be officers.
Did the ones who found her grating ever warm up to her? Just asking, I don't know.
I suspect when the olan was a series it made more sense. But as a one off it lacked relevance.
Ironically First Contact and DS9 are successful for different reasons.
First Contact is considered to have done well financially as it has an accessible story. You didn't need a load of back knowledge of Trek to get it. Non fans enjoyed it, which is vital for the movies.
DS9 was creatively successful as it did rely on you knowing your stuff and enjoying the continuity and long form story telling.
I would argue the connection isn't darker themes (indeed TNG says otherwise) it's having a clear view of who your audience is and writing for it.
Section 31's issue is it had no audience, no one wanted it and they were writing blindly. All the disclaimers about it being not what Trek fans will expect or want before it even aired was a huge alarm bell on that front.
I'll be the first to admit Disco was a flawed series, but the truth is many in fandom held it to a ridiculous double standard which basically guarantees they would never be happy about it. "Star Trek is an ensemble show, it doesn't have one singular lead." DS9 was the only true ensemble, the rest, at least in the Berman era only focus on a lead character with one or two others getting the lion's share of plot, with everyone else just filling positions on the bridge.
And let's not get started on the complaints about Disco's bridge crew never getting the attention they "deserved." Picard S3 comes along, virtually ignores the Titan's bridge crew, and that gets recognized as "the way it should be done." Though, that particular double standard could be related to the belief that Lord Terry can turn urine into wine.
Yeah, I'm not sure how this movie really makes the argument for a Rachel Garrett show any stronger than it was prior to its release. The main things that make Garrett interesting are what Yesterday's Enterprise established decades ago, after all.
Every single Berman Trek show (not just DS9) gave every member of the main cast a spin as a lead for some focus episodes. In TNG we had some episodes focusing on Geordi and Beverly, for example, while in VOY we had episodes focusing on Kes, Neelix, and even Harry Kim. Even ENT (which was a more plot-focused show, and tried to focus more heavily on just Archer/T'Pol/Trip), had a whole episode focused on Travis Mayweather, arguably one of the most boring characters in the entire Trek franchise.
Now, admittedly this might just have been an artifact of the longer seasons, where every crazy story pitch had to be considered to fill out the schedule. But if that kind of storytelling is no longer possible due to compressed seasons, then there's a problem with the modern format of serialized dramas.
Thing is, the other characters would often only get one episode for themselves a season, and sometimes they would have to rewrite an episode that logically should have gone to one character just because another character hasn't had their episode yet this season, it goes to them instead. Like with TNG, Suspicions was originally written to be a Geordi episode, but Geordi already had an episode that season, while Dr. Crusher hadn't. So it got rewritten for Crusher instead, even though it really makes no sense why she would be hosting a summit of engineers. Incidentally, the episode what was originally supposed to have been the Dr. Crusher episode that season, Face of the Enemy was rewritten for Deanna when they realized her empathic abilities made her the more logical choice for that storyline.
TNG only really knew what to do with Picard and Data, with Worf getting material on account of Ron Moore likes to write Klingon stuff. Voyager only real focused on Janeway, Seven and the Doctor. Now with both shows, the rest of the cast was comprised of actors who could provide memorable moments when on screen anyway, indeed TNG lucked out in that its cast consisted of people who all seemed to genuinely like each other, which translates to some great onscreen chemistry where the cast interactions provide entertainment even if the episode sucks. Though TNG's facade cracked when they went to movies where the format made the Picard and Data emphasis more noticeable.
Personally I thought Discovery finally fixed its bridge crew problem in season 5 when it got rid of Detmer and Owo and replaced them with new people. That was always TNG's way of doing it: bring new people in and barely give them any focus so we never form any kind of attachment. Sure Jae turned up a lot at helm, but I had no idea until it was pointed out to me.
Picard season 3 basically does the same thing as TNG, as you've got Sidney at the helm, who gets more attention as the season continues, and then you've got all those other people I don't know or care about. I think if Picard had gone on for another season and I kept spotting the same faces reading out lines in crucial situations, I'd start feeling like they weren't being included enough too. I'm kind of getting that way with Mitchell on SNW... and Ortegas. But Picard season 3 did fine with its bridge crew. Prodigy did fine with the Voyager A's bridge crew. Lower Decks did fine. It's only Discovery that had the problem, and like I said they fixed it.
So...yes, criticisms of DSC had to do with a lot of different things.
But by the logic of some posters here, because DSC was a show focused on 1 character and was criticized the 1 character concept is now tainted and can't be used.
Some people criticized DS9 too, does that mean true ensemble shows or space station shows are now "burned" as a concept?
Exactly! The Garrett character in this movie could've been anyone. There was nothing in the movie that made it essential that it was RG in the story.
TNG actually cycled through the same five or so at the helm after Wesley left, and that's excluding characters like the interchangeable blondes we see throughout the remainder of the fourth season or Ro.
That's putting it mildly. She first shows up in the fourth season and is there all the way through to Insurrection.
While this is sometimes true, this isn't always. Like, the show absolutely developed Geordi being a loser with women as part of his character, and the whole Leah Brahms thing couldn't have worked with say Riker. I do think they got much better by the time they got to VOY as well, as it's hard to see a Neelix, Torres, or Tuvok episode just swapped for someone else.
I think it's worthwhile to note though that the focus of the shows was, to a certain extent, only developed through experimentation. Riker was supposed to be a bigger deal initially on TNG, and Worf was just kind of a background character. However, the writers responded to both what characters had fan interest and where story ideas flowed. The same thing was true with Voyager, as nothing characters like Chakotay fell into the background over time.
It would have been a breath of fresh air if Discovery just tried to do an episode which was from the POV of Tilly or Stamets. FSM knows the interminable mid periods of the later seasons could have used more interest, and they might have had a breakout story on their hands.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
