Season 1 as a Whole
- Thread starter Lord Garth
- Start date
I agree the broken and fragile characters fell flat on this show. What did they overcome? How did they change? They’ll still be broken in season 2.
Sisko was broken for one episode and his brokenness was central to the plot.
What was the purpose of any of Raffi’s issues? Especially the bit with her son? What did it add except runtime?
I’m not saying Trek characters should be perfect but when they are fundamentally broken people who can barely control themselves...that’s just not interesting to me.
And we can debate for all eternity about what Star Trek is or isn’t... but what it was made it unique. This story and its characters were not unique. Copy and paste “peak TV”.
Sisko was broken for one episode and his brokenness was central to the plot.
What was the purpose of any of Raffi’s issues? Especially the bit with her son? What did it add except runtime?
I’m not saying Trek characters should be perfect but when they are fundamentally broken people who can barely control themselves...that’s just not interesting to me.
And we can debate for all eternity about what Star Trek is or isn’t... but what it was made it unique. This story and its characters were not unique. Copy and paste “peak TV”.
Except to show that her obsession with what really happened on Mars cost her her family. Except to show that she stayed on La Sirena because she felt like she had nowhere else to go.
And because Sisko's story of grief was wrapped up at the end of two hours (or however much as grief can be resolved, you can't ever completely resolve it) because DS9 at that point in its run was still episodic. Musker's story is continuing, they're still adding. Presumably you won't be around to watch S2 since you've given up on the series, but the second season will probably delve deeper into all the characters because that's what second seasons in most TV shows do.
You're just assuming the worst possible things for this series. "I didn't get anything out of it so it must mean nothing! It's just there to fill up time! Bah! How dare this character have other sides to her life besides Picard Picard Picard! How dare she!" Well, I know what people who seek to criticize just to criticize do. If we didn't see anything else of Musiker's life in the first season and they introduced it in the second season, then they'd pull out the old "Well why didn't see anything in the first season?!" move. If they don't get them one way, they'll get them another.
Last edited:
Which is more fair than this never happens in Star Trek.
Exactly.
I do think they overdid it a bit with Raffi to establish she is broken. (We got it...) But imho she's begun an upward path, just like Rios after coming clean about his trauma, and Seven, and Picard, of course. (And Murderati is practically glowing.) There may be setbacks ahead, but basically, the ending seemed quite optimistic to me.
Last edited:
Well, yeah? If a character doesn't resonate with me, then I'm going to think the character is a waste. That's normal.
Raffi is indicative of my problems with this show. I never bought into her character or her struggles regarding the conspiracies she believed in or the toll it took on her.
It's not that it never happens. It of course happens.
What's different now is the brokenness of the character IS the character. Except for villains, I can't think of a single main star trek character on any show who's brokenness defined them to this degree, which is why I said this crew would be villains on previous iterations of the show.
I'm not saying you can't enjoy it. Please do so! And I'm not saying Star Trek needs to be 90's Berman era forever.
But Discovery and Picard have made it just another dystopian show with broken down, self-obsessed humans in the future... meh.
It's not dystopian.
The definition of dystopia is this:
I suppose one can argue that the attack on Mars is “post-apocalyptic.” But there is really no injustice or suffering that we see. Earth is still a paradise. There may be some self-described injustice from Picard or Raffi but really they seem to be doing well for themselves. Picard’s got a vineyard and Raffi seems to own Vazquez Rocks (or at least land near it). There is no general suffering of the populace. So I really question the continued use of dystopia here.
Who are striving to be better. That's what I enjoy is that they are showing it is possible to fail and work back up.
“And you might ask, “Doesn’t the collapse of all our much of what we have now mean the end to all of us?” Of course not. Humanity is an incredible creature. Knock us down, destroy our civilization, and we will probably get up and build a better one on top of it as we have done time and time again.” – Gene Roddenberry, April 7th, 1974
link
link
Which explains the career progressions of the characters in ENT TATV after ten years and a galactic war
Living in a trailer in the 21st century might equate to poverty, in the 24th century it might equate to 'I want no one around me, so I live in the desert'. Raffi was not as wealthy as inherited wealth, aristocratic Picard but she was not poor. Was Kirk rich because he owned a ranch with horses? Or Scotty rich because he bought a boat? Spock was definitely richer than his peers.
Last edited:
Thank you.
People throw that word around and do not know what it neans.
Picard is no more dystopian because of the suffering of some xBs and Romulan redugees than DS9 was because of the suffering of Bajorans.
Fine, replace the word "dystopian" from my last post with "bleak".
While these characters don't live in a universal dystopia. They are themselves largely dystopian. They are good and moral only in the sense that they aren't the bad guys.... thus they would be minor villains in previous Trek shows.
While these characters don't live in a universal dystopia. They are themselves largely dystopian. They are good and moral only in the sense that they aren't the bad guys.... thus they would be minor villains in previous Trek shows.
If Picard was all "happy happy joy joy!" after Romulus was destroyed, how would that make him look? If Picard was happy to be alive while Data sacrificed himself and he didn't have any survivor's guilt at all, how would that make him look?
In the context of the situation set up, Picard being all smiles would make him look like an asshole. Feeling depressed is how he should feel.
If Picard didn't stick to his principles and didn't leave Starfleet after they called his bluff, how would that make him look? He would've forfeited any integrity he has. Because Starfleet Command would know he'd always back down and it would make anything he'd say and believe in afterwards look hollow.
So the Picard people who don't like Picard want to see haven't thought this through, IMO. The way they want him to behave would make him look bad. All the way around. But as long as the "Sanctity of Trek" is preserved.
No. One size does not fit all.
In the context of the situation set up, Picard being all smiles would make him look like an asshole. Feeling depressed is how he should feel.
If Picard didn't stick to his principles and didn't leave Starfleet after they called his bluff, how would that make him look? He would've forfeited any integrity he has. Because Starfleet Command would know he'd always back down and it would make anything he'd say and believe in afterwards look hollow.
So the Picard people who don't like Picard want to see haven't thought this through, IMO. The way they want him to behave would make him look bad. All the way around. But as long as the "Sanctity of Trek" is preserved.
No. One size does not fit all.
Anyone remembers when the always heroic and moral Captain Janeway tortured a Starfleet crewman for information or when gentleman explorer Jonathan Archer resorted to piracy and led an unwarranted attack on an alien ship for spare parts? And let's not even get started on the kinds of things Sisko and Kira did or how screwed up Worf's entire life and history is...
Kirk wanted to blow up a planet and armed a conflict against Klingons in a war in TOS. There are trillions of beings in the UFP and hundreds of thousands, if not millions working for Starfleet, they are not all like Picard and should not expect to be.
Humans living in a better future does not equal humans living in a perfect future, no matter what crazy ideas GR wanted to bring to TNG, real life proves the tech gets better but humanity remains the same.
Last edited:
These are characters who are on a journey and they may start in a relatively dark place. But by the end of the journey they have dealt with their struggles and have made come out in a better place. Dystopian? Bleak? Grimdark? Villainous? I have to disagree with any of those. Dark? Yeah, I can agree with that.
But ultimately no darker than Star Trek has gone before.
I might be wrong but it seems its mainly the strong TNG fans who cannot handle a 'dark' Trek, since they are used to the TNG version of Starfleet which was just about one ship going from place to place. You never saw what was taking place in the rest of the Starfleet or on other ships.
TNG presented humanity as living in the Promised Land, TOS presented humanity as striving to get there, for DS9 the Promised land was light years away.
TNG presented humanity as living in the Promised Land, TOS presented humanity as striving to get there, for DS9 the Promised land was light years away.
Similar threads
