Did anyone else dislike Riker?
- Thread starter Gul Bones
- Start date
Me, too ! I have always enjoyed the character.... love the Titan books and how he has evolved into a pretty great Captain. I have wondered about a Titan series.. but since most of the crew is non-human, I just figured it would be too much work.
It wasn't until "Best of Both Worlds" that Riker finally had a bit of depth. Everyone seems to think it was the beard that did it...The cleanshaven, "James T. Kire-redux" from the 1st season is still one of my favorites.
Season 2 was when the character of William T. Riker was at his peak. too.
But, post "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" Riker is just some by-the-book, bearded guy who is more apt to fillingout crew evaluation reports.
Dude...what the heck happened to him?
And they're entirely legitimate reasons.
Riker was obviously ineffectual, nigh incompetent, as the Ferengi ambush played out in "Rascals" (and grossly insubordinate during "Chain of Command"). If the writers are going to imply he's a 'tactical genius' along with having Picard assert "he's the best," they can't then turn around and let him lose possession of the ship for which he's responsible to two rickety, Ferengi-manned Birds-of-Prey I could have defeated in my old Mercury Marquis. Even as one evil deed mars a thousand good ones, a single instance of ineptitude in battle rightly ruins a military commander's reputation.
For the most part, I enjoyed the character, though, and thought his sense of humor wonderful.
I always found Riker to be a pompous, over bearing, annoying and mostly useless character. His tendency to simply swagger around the Enterprise when he seemingly wasn't even needed or useful to be stupid considering how many promotions he passed up that may well have lead to him being just the sort of officer the fleet needed. Not sitting on his ever growing ass, weighing down the crew and the ship figuratively (and later on probably literally 
).
).
In real life, certainly. But in a fictional pot that is stirred by many hands, is such an odd instance the character's ineptitude, or that of the episode's writer?
Anyway, Riker losing his ship to an underwhelming force was just following in the finest Starfleet tradition. How many times did Kirk's Enterprise get taken over? One time by a handful of children, for god's sake...!
No matter the real life excuse, Riker, in universe, did act in that fashion. It's part of the canon. Thus, it is in great measure about, as you say, "the character's ineptitude."
Janeway was one of the most inconsistently written figures in television history ... but for me, such wildly disparate characterizations must be explained within the context of the series itself, as opposed to simply ignored or set at naught.
Of course, by the same token, one could easily say, "Bah. That wasn't Riker. I don't consider that a part of my personal continuity."
Last edited:
I'm just not so hung up on almighty continuity that I can't tell contrived writing when I see it. If it had served the purpose of the story at hand, the ship would have been just as easily taken over if adult Picard had been in command. And again, if we're judging character competence by the situations that the writers force them into, then how much more incompetent was Kirk?
Hear hear, totally agreeI always found Riker to be a pompous, over bearing, annoying and mostly useless character. His tendency to simply swagger around the Enterprise when he seemingly wasn't even needed or useful to be stupid considering how many promotions he passed up that may well have lead to him being just the sort of officer the fleet needed. Not sitting on his ever growing ass, weighing down the crew and the ship figuratively (and later on probably literally
Hmm.
I did end my last post with, "Of course, by the same token, one could easily say, 'Bah. That wasn't Riker. I don't consider that a part of my personal continuity.'" I certainly don't take issue with anyone who considers it an aberration; such is a valid interpretation.
Obviously I find it more interesting to speculate on why such things occurred. We all draw the line for our willing suspension of disbelief in different places. I can't reconcile "Threshold," for example.
No doubt that's true ... but such is trumped for some by the fact that Riker was in command.
Frankly, I think Kirk should have been court-martialed for gross incompetence after leaving the shields down as Reliant approached in Star Trek II. Arguably, Spock should have been charged, too.
Again, though, I have no problem with someone saying, "That was just stupid writing" and dismissing it.
The "personal continuity" thing suggests that if you don't like the writing, the only option is to deny that it ever happened. I can accept that it happened onscreen without getting all hung up about character competence, ramifications, etc. It's a plot contrivance, which is bigger than the characters.
The Kirk thing in TWOK at least served the character story-wise in that it displayed that he'd gotten rusty from being away from starship command so long. And Spock & co. were used to trusting Kirk's judgment. The hypothetical examples of incompetence that I cite happened when he was in his prime, during the TV show--the ship routinely being taken over, bad landing party decisions, frequent crew losses. But all of that was done to put our characters in jeopardy, we were never meant to question Kirk's competence.
It "suggests" nothing of the sort. Because you infer something doesn't mean I implied it. I mentioned it as a single possibility, but not the only one.
And if that works for you, knock yourself out. I'm not here to tell you you're wrong, by any means.
I also wrote, "...I have no problem with someone saying, 'That was just stupid writing' and dismissing it."
Evidently you find certain literary devices more acceptable than I do. Such often depends on a preference for plot- over character-driven material. I certainly don't concede that plot is somehow "bigger" than characterization. They're both indispensible to great storytelling. Your board, your wave, however.
Certain contrivances are a blatant disservice to the characters, in addition. "Rascals" contained one of these, as did The Wrath of Khan ... and the fact that there may have been more in TOS falls under the umbrella of "two or even twenty-two wrongs don't make a right." I've never been one to forgive any variant of, 1) Character takes fistful of stupid pills; 2) Character subsequently acts dumber than a box of hammers; 3) Plot advances.
And there were plenty of other opportunities during the film to demonstrate this without undermining the character in ridiculous fashion.
Spock challenged Kirk's judgment regularly, as did McCoy. There's a difference between trusting someone and believing them infallible.
Many of Kirk's 'mistakes' in The Original Series are a result of the fact that he's following orders that thrust him into that particular situation. "A Taste of Armaggedon" immediately springs to mind.
You're certainly welcome to cite examples of Kirk's incompetence during The Original Series, if you so desire ... but I'd suggest starting another thread in TOS. We're straying pretty far off topic, here.
Similar threads
