Kurtzman intentionally killed Legacy?
- Thread starter Beyerstein
- Start date
Yeah, he's not a Sisko rip off.
As dead as anyone in a science fiction series.
Meaning, until they want to use him again.
Two things to that:
- I was addressing your question about what there was to Picard Season 3, not Legacy.
- Terry Matalas said that he plans to bring back Shaw in some way.
One thing of my own: I'm not too crazy about the idea of Shaw being brought back. Not because I don't like the character but because any way that I can imagine to bring him back sounds stupid. But then, I'm not the one who comes up with this stuff.
As far as Legacy itself, I'm going to switch gears and compare it not to SNW, but to SFA. When Starfleet Academy was announced, I thought back to DSC Season 4's episode "But to Connect". I liked the episode, and I liked Tilly and Adira's part in their half of the episode, but the cadets didn't leave much of an impression on me. And as much as I like Tilly, I didn't see her as Series Lead material. That left me unsure about SFA. I was going to support it because it continued the 32nd Century and was an extension of Discovery, but otherwise I was unsure. And you can see that in my posts whenever I'd talk about it, before Holly Hunter was announced as the series lead.
After Holly Hunter was announced, I started thinking, "This is probably going to be different from what I thought." Then Paul Giamatti was announced. My brother shared that on Facebook (I try not to talk about Star Trek that much on Facebook, that's why I'm here) and that interested some Non-Trekkie friends of his who commented. So, that made me think even further, "I shouldn't go by that one Discovery episode or Tilly." Then they started unveiling who the Cadets were (and they were different cadets, which I figured they'd be), and then we found out exactly who was coming back from Disco (and The Doctor too!), put that all together... and now there's an actual show that I'm actually excited about... as opposed to something that was just an idea in my head where I didn't know anywhere close to the entire picture.
So now I'm completely onboard with Starfleet Academy, instead of supporting it just because I see it as an extension of Discovery.
I expect if Legacy were made, it would be the same thing. New characters specific to that series would be introduced. I already am a fan of Seven. I've liked Raffi right from the beginning in Season 1, when it seemed like everyone else was trashing her. So, I'm of the mind of "If it happens, we'll see what it is." Hopefully I'll be onboard with Legacy because of Legacy and not simply as an extension of Picard. Especially since I'm already onboard with who would be the series lead.
There's one other thing I want to bring up. Might as well bring it up here: another thing I'm looking forward to with Legacy on the progressive angle -- if it happens -- would be Seven as Captain and Raffi as First Officer. A female Captain, a female First Officer. On an ongoing basis. It'll be great to have that combination in a Star Trek series.
I didn't think about it before, but I think about it now with Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee for US President but everyone says she should have a male running mate since most people presumably wouldn't accept the combination of a Female President and a Female Vice-President. Seven and Raffi would speak to a future with women in the first and second positions, whereas now it's always presumed and unspoken that there will be a man in one or both positions.
Last edited:
Because they both survived a horrible event then say a speech about it? (I can name a hundred characters that do this) They share a similar scene and name, absolutely nothing else is shared.
Looking at character, they are NOTHING alike. At all. Quint was a bootleg criminal while Shaw would NEVER risk breaking a law. For two, if they were similar, Shaw would be out hunting Borg for money, neither angry nor scared of them for what they did. Which he would never do.
I see inspiration in the speech scene, yup. You can say the particular scene is a ripoff maybe, though they told their stories also for very different reasons (I saw homage, but whatever). But nothing close to a character ripoff.
Last edited:
Do you think the name "Shaw" is coincidence?
I call it "the Robau Effect." Latching onto a no-nonsense character who commands respect during their time onscreen, regardless of how brief or what happens to them in the end.
In Star Wars, a similar phenomena is called "the Boba Fett Effect."
Robau did a better job.I call it "the Robau Effect." Latching onto a no-nonsense character who commands respect during their time onscreen, regardless of how brief or what happens to them in the end.
In Star Wars, a similar phenomena is called "the Boba Fett Effect."
As an homage, obviously. But the characters are absolutely nothing alike save having a superficially singular similar scene.
Unless you can point out the similarities I'm missing? Again, looking at character "ripoff". Take away that one scene and the name, and except for them both being male with 2 eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth, there's nothing.
I specifically referred to his big moment being a rip off. And not a very subtle one.
My original response was to someone saying the character.
But I still say homage. The emotions and intent of the scenes were almost opposite, though shot in a very similar way.
I admit I was blinded to it because I was thinking "Sisko did it better."
Then there was the whole Seven thing. On the one hand he's still just a jerk. But then I never understood why she's hanging on so tight to the name her kidnappers and abused gave her.
But you can't have someone be that much of a jerk and not have the HUGE MOMENT where that person is blindingly right. And if Shaw ever got that moment it didn't land well enough for me to remember it.
People like the actor. That's something I guess.
I'll stand by the rip off statement.
Wolf 359 was obviously meant to be Shaw's "Indianapolis sinking." An event so traumatic, that it still haunts him till the day he died. It made Shaw into the fearful man we saw on the show. Living in constant fear of the Borg. Hateful, for what they did to him.
Quint wasn't any different. Just like Shaw, he took his fear and hatred and channeled it into his outward personality, an Asshole. But, deep down, he was still terrified. Terrified of being helpless, and vulnerable, as he had been in 1945. Just as Shaw had been terrified at Wolf 359.
All the bravado of Quint was shattered by just one line.
He'll never put himself into that position again.
And just like Quint, the terror of his past came back, and in the end, the Borg/Shark got him.
Eh? Sidney literally reminds everyone at any available opportunity that she's Geordi's daughter. Even the shapeshifter impersonating her does the exact same thing.
Basically how I see Shaw. Todd Stashwick delivered a fine performance, but when you get down to it the character is still an Ass no matter how great the actor was.
Except that he literally did. That's what he did, he hunted sharks and literally put himself in that position for profit. And he seemed to take joy in it all.
Again, Quint was the literal opposite of Shaw. They couldn't be more different.
He'll never put on a life jacket is his way of saying he'll never put himself in the position of sitting there, waiting to die. He'd rather drown. He still channels his fear into going out there and killing sharks. Just as Shaw still goes out into the vastness of space as a Starship Captain.
As far as the Star Trek Sitcom, I'll judge it on its own terms. It's either going to be funny or it won't be. I think it's either going to be really good or really bad. I don't think there's going to be a middle ground.
But anyone who gets into a flame war over a sitcom... I've been at this since high school, I've seen it all, but that would be a new low, sorry I mean a new level of craziness.
I think a live-action sitcom set in the Star Trek universe could work. Especially if it stayed a sitcom. Having it not on a starship really helps. From what I watched of The Orville (I've only seen Season 1), even there they had a hard time keeping it a true sitcom, and it turned into off-brand TNG.
Depending on how this goes, in the future, the Star Trek sitcom will either be looked at as 1) Truly inspired by thinking outside the box and expanding what can be done with the franchise, or 2) Throwing the kitchen sink.
But anyone who gets into a flame war over a sitcom... I've been at this since high school, I've seen it all, but that would be a new low, sorry I mean a new level of craziness.
I think a live-action sitcom set in the Star Trek universe could work. Especially if it stayed a sitcom. Having it not on a starship really helps. From what I watched of The Orville (I've only seen Season 1), even there they had a hard time keeping it a true sitcom, and it turned into off-brand TNG.
Depending on how this goes, in the future, the Star Trek sitcom will either be looked at as 1) Truly inspired by thinking outside the box and expanding what can be done with the franchise, or 2) Throwing the kitchen sink.
It is difficult to imagine any other captain standing silently while one of his crew is executed.
Or perhaps they simply don't want to have two series running at the same time that both take place onboard an Enterprise.
Whatever happens isn't going to happen tomorrow. Those of us on the campaign understand that.
It took THREE YEARS to bring Strange New Worlds to the airwaves.
What galled me was when he herded the bridge crew into the Ready Room (Talk about shooting fish in a barrel!
)Terry didn't do ANYTHING without Alex Kurtzman signing off on it.
Sidney was laying it on thick. She was trying too hard.
That may have been one reason Seven was suspicious (that and her calling Seven "Commander Hansen.")
Last edited:
Similar threads
