Kurtzman intentionally killed Legacy?
- Thread starter Beyerstein
- Start date
But why would that happen? It was Matalas's idea which he made sound like it was an actual thing even though CBS had no interest. If they suddenly change their minds and decide to produce it, who else would they make showrunner for it?
How many showrunners did Disco go through?
They're a dime a dozen.
Yeah, they could get a different showrunner. My question is why wouldn't they use Matalas anyway?
S3 leaned in too close to Berman-era Trek for my taste.
It risked resurrecting the Berman-era sins (the homophobia, the misogyny).
Kurtzman is committed to highlighting the previously marginalized. More voices are a GOOD thing.
I have no love for Matalas, but you completely lost me with this line. I've seen zero indication of anything like this.
Michelle Paradise. Just so I could laugh at the reaction from certain people.
Shaw's whole reaction to Seven was borderline several times.
Homophobia and misogyny? He disliked her because she used to be a Borg.
I believe the "dead naming" of her as Annika was considered problematic.
Shaw was more problematic for being a 21st century style character in the 25th century and landed like a lead balloon. His relationship with Seven was the least of my irritation.
There's a certain section of the fandom that wants him back ("Yup, that dem there Shaw's a REAL man!")
Indeed. Deadnaming is something which is not tolerated in modern workplaces, military included. It should not even be heard of in 25th century Starfleet. To see someone in a leadership position doing it and getting away with it made the show look like its celebration of 1990s Trek meant reverting to a 1990s mentality on social issues. I honestly can't even figure out what the writers were trying to do by including it, other than going out of their way to make Shaw as much of a reprehensible asshole as possible.
I wasn’t implying that deadnaming wasn’t represensible. I was asking how Legacy under Matalas would devolve into homophobia and misogyny.
Through allegory of course.
As I pointed out, by featuring deadnaming and presenting it as a thing which is for some reason tolerated in 25th century Starfleet made the show look like it had a 1990s mentality on social issues. It's doubtful that mentality would be limited to one thing, so it wouldn't shock me if the show which practically worships Star Trek of the 1990s and has a 90s attitude regarding deadnaming also presented 90s attitudes in regards to homophobia and misogyny.
Legacy could do with a different showrunner.
Terry can write and produce, but I would prefer someone who didn't revert to the nineties-era mentality as head writer.
I dislike the presumption that a 90's era mentality is inherently bad. You can leave the bad stuff and embrace the good stuff. 
At times, Strange New Worlds feels like it is written with the 90s in mind and I love that fact. At times, it's so 90s it hurts.
Shaw is just...whatever. A character that embodies anyone with an unconscious bias. The Borg did something bad once, so therefore all borg are bad. Same with Kirk and the Klingons, "let them die". People learn, people move on. If he ever calls her Annika again, I'll eat my hat.
Also worth remembering that we're about to get a Trek movie about a genocidal maniac turned good....mostly. We're supposed to root for her and all! That's fine and dandy, but Shaw is somehow the reprehensible one? Fascinating.
At times, Strange New Worlds feels like it is written with the 90s in mind and I love that fact. At times, it's so 90s it hurts.
Shaw is just...whatever. A character that embodies anyone with an unconscious bias. The Borg did something bad once, so therefore all borg are bad. Same with Kirk and the Klingons, "let them die". People learn, people move on. If he ever calls her Annika again, I'll eat my hat.
Also worth remembering that we're about to get a Trek movie about a genocidal maniac turned good....mostly. We're supposed to root for her and all! That's fine and dandy, but Shaw is somehow the reprehensible one? Fascinating.
It was obvious that this was seen as a dreadfully bad thing. This is like saying Community condoned black face when the episode itself called it a "hate crime". (For example.)
We have a winner!
"Once"? And yes. They are. There are not "good people on both sides".
The Borg are not a species. The Borg are a system. Hugh is only OK once he is not controlled by the Borg anymore.
I would almost say Shaw's Borg-phobia has a leg to stand on except his fear is not that the Borg that Picard and Hansen used to be will unexpectedly "wake up" but that there is something wrong with both of them as they are. (I suppose that his paranoia kind of has a point by the end of the season only he's looking at the wrong people.)
Making Borg into a trans allegory is HORRIFYINGLY problematic. It is an involuntary violation. Star Trek has never posited that there is an upside to Borg assimilation. (OK, if there is a Voyager episode that contradicts this then... *throws hands up in the air and gives up*) There is no choice. This is not becoming who you are meant to be. It is not correcting an accident of birth. It is an artificial organism that for some reason will not exist without growing and corrupting every thing it comes into contact with and is always roaming for that opportunity. You cannot make the ultimate boogeyman and then make he argument for tolerance and acceptance.
One of the most powerful moments in three seasons of Picard was at the end of Season 1 when Picard and Seven have a heart to heart about what they had lost because of the Borg that will never be recovered. I'd say it was better than anything in Family or First Contact.
Where Shaw is dead to rights is that a retired Starfleet bigwig and his active duty besty (Riker was active, yeah?) tried to waltz away with a ship.
Where Picard's writers monumentally effed up was that they show Shaw standing up to Picard in his dimly lit cabin, hiding from his crew, eating a steak. Was having him wear Kleenex boxes on his feet too obvious? Is he just a really big Blade Runner fan?
And no, Shaw is not a "real man" at any point in the season by any definition. I kept waiting for that to happen because otherwise what is the point of the character? The actor is awesome. All the writer's fingerprints indicate that we were supposed to eventually like this character. That they never managed it is just malpractice.
Whew.
Similar threads
