Michael Dorn's performance

[AntonyF]

You're mistakenly conflating machoism with misogyny. Machoism is not a belief that women are in inferior. Rather, machoism an exaggerated sense of strength and aggression.

While machoism can certainly manifest in misogyny (due to the desire to dominate), they aren't the same -- and one doesn't automatically lead to the other. It's entirely possible to be macho and at the same time consider women the equal of men. They aren't mutually exclusive.

So my characterization of Klingons as macho is valid (due to their exaggerated emphasis on aggression). Characterizing them as macho says nothing about their view of women.

That's eye opening. As I had largely equated to it that it was toxic against women. Mea culpa. Reading up misogyny is a big strand of it, I don't think it's wrong to conflate it, but I appreciate after your comments and reading more it's not exclusively so. There's a lot of self destruction in there too.

 

[AntonyF]

I thought he got better through DS9. More varied characters pushed Worf out of his comfort zone a little. It was good to see him take a walk on the wild side. *

Yeah I think Worf was way better in DS9. The first year he felt awkward and forced in, but DS9 being a place of misfits of all walks of life fit way better than TNG which was we are earth, we are American Earth, and you need to conform to American Earth.

 

[Ragitsu]

Worf experiencing teenage-esque angst after becoming acquainted with Jadzia? Worf jeopardizing a mission because of his feelings? Worf siding with eco-terrorists? Worf not substantially pushing back against Sisko's war crime*? Worf acting as Sisko's personal iceman?

Those are supposed to be improvements? Say what you will about TNG Worf, but at least he was consistent.

* Though, to be fair, no one else meaningfully protested against that action.

 

[Tosk]

(The New Essentialists were not eco-terrorists.)

 

[Farscape One]

I also think Worf was better written and taken more seriously as a character than on TNG.

For one thing, he wasn't tossed around every time the show needed to indicate something was a threat, like Paxan-possessed Troi tossing him across the bridge and breaking his wrist.

On DS9, they remembered Worf was a strong, very physical, and skilled warrior. Which was why it was rare that he was thrown around for kicks. And on the rare occasion he was getting beat, like in "BY INFERNO'S LIGHT", it was only due to being beat on again and again and again, not just becauss of one punch or throw.

 

[Ragitsu]

Hm...

(The New Essentialists were not eco-terrorists.)

Have you changed your tune?

I also think Worf was better written and taken more seriously as a character than on TNG.

For one thing, he wasn't tossed around every time the show needed to indicate something was a threat, like Paxan-possessed Troi tossing him across the bridge and breaking his wrist.

On DS9, they remembered Worf was a strong, very physical, and skilled warrior. Which was why it was rare that he was thrown around for kicks. And on the rare occasion he was getting beat, like in "BY INFERNO'S LIGHT", it was only due to being beat on again and again and again, not just becauss of one punch or throw.

Worf is shown as a capable combatant in exchange for...weird characterization otherwise? In the realm of DS9 discussions, the amount of utterances of "So-and-so character is a badass!" - Worf included - used a justification for certain questionable developments has never ceased to amaze me.

 

[Tosk]

Have you changed your tune?

They are terrorists. They are not eco-terrorists.

 

[Ragitsu]

They are terrorists. They are not eco-terrorists.

Ah. Is that a meaningful distinction? A dampening of a condemnation?

 

[Tosk]

Merely specificity.

Edit: Eco-terrorism is a specific thing.
I am not claiming that it is a lesser thing.

 

[Farscape One]

Hm...



Have you changed your tune?



Worf is shown as a capable combatant in exchange for...weird characterization otherwise? In the realm of DS9 discussions, the amount of utterances of "So-and-so character is a badass!" - Worf included - used a justification for certain questionable developments has never ceased to amaze me.

And in all the examples you listed, those situations made Worf a more rounded character, whether they are good or bad scenarios.

Him jeopardizing the mission to save his wife? Maybe not what a good officer would do, but you can't call him a bad husband for going back to save his wife. (Sisko even said he would have done the same thing, as a husband.)

Being 'Sisko's personal iceman'? I'd hardly call Worf his personal assassin. His actions were correct and within Klingon law and tradition. It was not murder.

Not pushing back 'Sisko's war crime'? Because there was no war crime. While not stated on screen in "FOR THE UNIFORM", General Order 24 grants Sisko the authority to perform the actions he took on that Maquis planet. (Which, by the way, was after the Maquis attacked and crippled TWO Starfleet ships, attacked a Federation convoy and stole its cargo, used said cargo to create biogenic weapons to target Cardassians directly, and poisoned TWO Cardassian colonies with the express intent to poison ALL Cardassian colonies in the DMZ. And that was just what they did in ONLY that episode.) And to be fair to Worf, he DID hesitate to fire.

The only time I agree that he was written badly was in "LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN...".

 

[DonIago]

Oh. I thought the allegation of a war crime was in reference to "In the Pale Moonlight", even though that didn't seem to make any sense...

I'm so tired of the "Sisko poisoned a planet!!!" hyperbole. It was inaccurate at the time and it's inaccurate now, and it particularly bugs me when the people who bring it up know they're being hyperbolic.

 

[Farscape One]

Oh. I thought the allegation of a war crime was in reference to "In the Pale Moonlight", even though that didn't seem to make any sense...

I'm so tired of the "Sisko poisoned a planet!!!" hyperbole. It was inaccurate at the time and it's inaccurate now, and it particularly bugs me when the people who bring it up know they're being hyperbolic.

Exactly! Sisko gave ample warning, there were no casualties, AND it restored balance to the region (as stated in his log entry at the end).

What the Maquis were doing was the exact opposite of all three things.

 

[DonIago]

More importantly, to me, is the fact that what he did made the planet poisonous to humans, but there's no mention of it being made toxic to anyone else. It clearly was not toxic to Cardassians, as evidenced, so the "poisoned a planet!!!" line is clearly erroneous on the face of it.

It's like the equally fallacious logic used by those who claim that people who support Black Lives Matter are saying that no other lives matter.

 

[AntonyF]

Worf experiencing teenage-esque angst after becoming acquainted with Jadzia? Worf jeopardizing a mission because of his feelings? Worf siding with eco-terrorists? Worf not substantially pushing back against Sisko's war crime*? Worf acting as Sisko's personal iceman?

Those are supposed to be improvements? Say what you will about TNG Worf, but at least he was consistent.

* Though, to be fair, no one else meaningfully protested against that action.

I love TNG but then DS9 became my favourite. And part of me wants to go into TNG and shake them. Oh you're at another classical musical recital... live a bit. Get drunk. Have a bit of fun. TNG was in some ways the antithesis of Worf.

So I think some of that can be atttibuted to him not being in a room of fuddy duddies. Personally I felt he had way more in common with Sisko than Picard.

However, let's not talk of the terrorist episode... it's best forgotten for all DS9 fans.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Worf is shown as a capable combatant in exchange for...weird characterization otherwise?

I mean, it’s all subjective, but I don’t see any of the choices you listed as weird… They all enhanced the character.