Does anyone else dislike Raffi?

[Danja]

I've got a feeling we won't be seeing the last of the 25th Century after Picard ends. Especially since not everyone is keen on more "TOS" Trek (quotations deliberate), and The Future in Discovery isn't everyone's cup of tea. The 25th Century is the one I think people have the least problem with.

Especially if someone like Seven is in charge.

She's gone from being a villain on Voyager to being a Captain in Starfleet.

She's not a saint. She's not a paragon of virtue. She's done some slimy things in her time. She's one of the more intriguing Captains the franchise has ever produced.

 

[Mogh]

What is "Roddenberrian?" Bones was an insult spewing speciesist and he is one the most popular characters in the original series. He was also very quick to hit the hard stuff. Reminds me a little bit of my father, who is something of a functional alcoholic.

Roddenberry had a red shirt ensign drawing his phaser simply because they saw a Klingon. There were plenty of people acting rashly and becoming obsessed with their own personal demons.

Perhaps the humans of TNG were supposed to be perfect. However, in the original concept, there were plenty of imperfect human beings muddling through and rising above. I rather felt that was the whole point.

Quite right. I should of course have referred to the TNG era, which was deliberately designed to be a different type of person.

 

[CaptainVarley]

I think Michelle Hurd is a solid actress, but her character didn't do much for me. I just didn't like her life/career is over following after Picard and she's happy to drink to it away. It was over done. But honestly they lost me with her calling him "JL".

 

[Dee1891]

I want to throw things at the screen whenever she's on. She's so whiney and unprofessional, let's not forget a smack head that abandoned her son. Oh and then theres "JL", urgh.

Bottom line she's unroddenberrian.

No, I don't dislike Raffi. She strikes me as a refreshingly complex character. If she had proved to be the usual near ideal Trek character, I would have been bored with her instantly.

 

[Ssosmcin]

It took me a long time to warm up to her, if I'm gonna be honest. Season 1 was all over the map for me, character and plot wise. But she really won me over once she and Seven were doing their "Buddy Movie" bit in the 22nd century. They are great together and after that, she became one of my favorites. They just had to find the right note for me.

 

[Danja]

No, I don't dislike Raffi. She strikes me as a refreshingly complex character. If she had proved to be the usual near ideal Trek character, I would have been bored with her instantly.

If you want ideal Trek characters, the TNG is cast is going to be featured next season.

Which is to say, they're as dull as dish water.

 

[TedShatner10]

I'm largely indifferent to her. I do think her relationship with Seven is a bit random, but then again, I'm a Seven/Chakotay shipper, so I can't talk. I guess it's just a canon fact that Seven's romantic life seems completely unpredictable to outsiders, though I'm sure there's an internal logic for her.

I think Seven forging a romantic relationship out of the blue with Raffi was a extension of Seven being far too invasively abused then regimented/disiplined as a Borg child soldier perhaps, and while today's Seven is far less overly autistic like she was 15 to 25 years ago, she is still very guarded (and not to be un-PC, I think females who were victims of severe child abuse often end up having a less conformist sexuality by adulthood, becoming almost a trope).

Raffi herself is fine and less bland/underused like many of the 2nd stringer VOY/ENT era regulars often were.

 

[Mogh]

If you want ideal Trek characters, the TNG is cast is going to be featured next season.

Which is to say, they're as dull as dish water.

Do people have to be broken to be interesting?

 

[TedShatner10]

Do people have to be broken to be interesting?

And we want contrast

 

[fireproof78]

Do people have to be broken to be interesting?

I haven't met someone yet who isn't broken in some way. Myself included. As I've gotten older my parents share more of their stories and I learn the wounds and how it influenced their lives. The people I thought were the most put together still had broken parts.

 

[Lord Garth]

If you want ideal Trek characters, the TNG is cast is going to be featured next season.

Which is to say, they're as dull as dish water.

i can't wait to see Seven and Raffi interact with them. Not that I'm looking for conflict there, I think it's going to come from whoever the Antagonist is in Season 3. Mainly, I'm thinking more along the lines of Picard's reuniting with these people he's known for decades and decades, while Seven and Raffi are fish-out-of-water reacting to people who aren't part of their circle.

I don't think we'll get it, but I'd love an in-joke thrown in about Starfleet wanting Seven of Nine on the Enterprise for a mission one time, as a nod to the fact that she would've been in NEM if Jeri Ryan hadn't declined. In my headcanon, it would be Starfleet asking for Seven's help, after they wouldn't let her actually join Starfleet. Then Seven would be like, "So now you want my help? I will not comply." Then they have to look somewhere else.

 

[plynch]

I haven't met someone yet who isn't broken in some way. Myself included. As I've gotten older my parents share more of their stories and I learn the wounds and how it influenced their lives. The people I thought were the most put together still had broken parts.

The word "broken" to me implies fundamentally flawed, like really traumatized so it impairs your functioning.

Wounded, hurt, flawed, pained, yes all of us have been these things.

But I know lots (most) people whom I wouldn't describe as "broken."

We dwell so much on brokenness and trauma now. This wasn't always the case and to me the pendulum has swung unhealthily too far.

(Author's note: big history of depression and anxiety throughout the family, self included, a mom who was chronically disabled by it -- so it's not like I am posting as some superior unflawed being and everyone should stop their whining. I just simply think as a society we dwell on brokenness and trauma too much. Don't start accusing me of wanting an emotionless culture, yada yada -- I have been posting here enough to already predict what some of you were (are) getting ready to write.)

 

[fireproof78]

The word "broken" to me implies fundamentally flawed, like really traumatized so it impairs your functioning.

Wounded, hurt, flawed, pained, yes all of us have been these things.

But I know lots (most) people whom I wouldn't describe as "broken."

We dwell so much on brokenness and trauma now. This wasn't always the case and to me the pendulum has swung unhealthily too far.

(Author's note: big history of depression and anxiety throughout the family, self included, a mom who was chronically disabled by it -- so it's not like I am posting as some superior unflawed being and everyone should stop their whining. I just simply think as a society we dwell on brokenness and trauma too much. Don't start accusing me of wanting an emotionless culture, yada yada -- I have been posting here enough to already predict what some of you were (are) getting ready to write.)

The word broken to me in terms of people has always implied wounded, which perhaps is a better term for it.

The difference for me in culture now is that it still is acknowledge, but not taken very seriously. It is treated as something that people should just "get over." And until that attitude adjusts to recognize how healing works I will not be fussed by a pendulum swinging too far in to the dwelling side. But, that comes from someone who is deeply introspective and reflective upon past hurts, how trauma informs generational decisions, giving me a greater appreciation for a lot of spiritual and philosophical concepts. There are too many people I encounter on the daily who struggle with their own wounding and haven't felt "normal" for a while because of it. So, while I long for balance, to me, the pendulum of "shake it off" was too prevalent for too long and will take time to balance out.

Maybe that's inappropriate in a science fiction action/adventure show. I personally don't think so, since TOS was one of my favorite series and the episodes had those wonderful introspective Kirk moments.

 

[Mogh]

The word broken to me in terms of people has always implied wounded, which perhaps is a better term for it.

The difference for me in culture now is that it still is acknowledge, but not taken very seriously. It is treated as something that people should just "get over." And until that attitude adjusts to recognize how healing works I will not be fussed by a pendulum swinging too far in to the dwelling side. But, that comes from someone who is deeply introspective and reflective upon past hurts, how trauma informs generational decisions, giving me a greater appreciation for a lot of spiritual and philosophical concepts. There are too many people I encounter on the daily who struggle with their own wounding and haven't felt "normal" for a while because of it. So, while I long for balance, to me, the pendulum of "shake it off" was too prevalent for too long and will take time to balance out.

Maybe that's inappropriate in a science fiction action/adventure show. I personally don't think so, since TOS was one of my favorite series and the episodes had those wonderful introspective Kirk moments.

And yet, wouldn't it be nice to watch just one series that depicted a future where humans weren't still plagued by it?

 

[fireproof78]

And yet, wouldn't it be nice to watch just one series that depicted a future where humans weren't still plagued by it?

For me, no.

For others, maybe. I'm guessing yes judging by the nature of your question. For me (and only me here) I have studied history, philosophy, psychology and fiction writing and I would find such characters inaccessible. For me, if you want to me that people are no longer plagued by them then you better have a damn good explanation as to the why, other wise I will be looking at it askance like Kirk on supposed paradise worlds.

 

[Mogh]

For me, no.

For others, maybe. I'm guessing yes judging by the nature of your question. For me (and only me here) I have studied history, philosophy, psychology and fiction writing and I would find such characters inaccessible. For me, if you want to me that people are no longer plagued by them then you better have a damn good explanation as to the why, other wise I will be looking at it askance like Kirk on supposed paradise worlds.

I mean, it has the benefit of being a relatively unique take on people, given the preponderance of shows that do the alternative.

Isn't the explanation that in time, people come to master their ability to deal with tragedy and difficulty - along the same evolutionary path that means, say, that people of today generally deal with their feelings better than a century ago? I don't see any evidence that we've now hit a ceiling in terms of future progress.

And as to any more detailed than that... well, the same applies to warp drive, transporters, and phasers

 

[STEPhon IT]

Well, I wish I saw them that way... but I don't. Because like them, I'm the one who doesn't fit in.

The conventions are what they are to relieve tension from the gravitas of the matter at hand; it's a staple of the movie genre. Hey, if it was me, I wouldn't have those characters around at all because they're an annoyance to the process of the plot. I appreciated TOS so much when dealing with those kinds of characters such as Mr. Bailey in "The Corbormite Maneuver" when he started up his BS, the Captain gave him the hook, "You're relieved". It's okay for those characters to have a "Time Out" so they could collect themselves. Raffi is another one of those characters but there are ways to dilute that kind of behavior so its not so distracting when going through an already inherent - bizarre narrative.

 

[Mogh]

The conventions are what they are to relieve tension from the gravitas of the matter at hand; it's a staple of the movie genre. Hey, if it was me, I wouldn't have those characters around at all because they're an annoyance to the process of the plot. I appreciated TOS so much when dealing with those kinds of characters such as Mr. Bailey in "The Corbormite Maneuver" when he started up his BS, the Captain gave him the hook, "You're relieved". It's okay for those characters to have a "Time Out" so they could collect themselves. Raffi is another one of those characters but there are ways to dilute that kind of behavior so its not so distracting when going through an already inherent - bizarre narrative.

That's a really good point.

These people had active commissions in season 2.

Where was the "you're out of line, commander"?

 

[STEPhon IT]

That's a really good point.

These people had active commissions in season 2.

Where was the "you're out of line, commander"?

Picard is supposed to be that person, you know, like the daunting commanding officer who didn't take no crap on TNG. The series so desperately needs that guy.


Remember this?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[fireproof78]

Isn't the explanation that in time, people come to master their ability to deal with tragedy and difficulty - along the same evolutionary path that means, say, that people of today generally deal with their feelings better than a century ago? I don't see any evidence that we've now hit a ceiling in terms of future progress.

I don't think we have hit the ceiling either. But, if you're telling me we're better then show me how.