Only to die again. Permanently, this time.Yar died. An alternate timeline restored her.
Only to die again. Permanently, this time.Yar died. An alternate timeline restored her.
Given that she's written to be a person with deep deep flaws I would argue this is completely false.
Only to die again. Permanently, this time.
Mariner is the sort of character who can be popular as the protagonist in a parody fanfiction type story: consider that she has mutilated Boimler with a bat'leth, pummeled him almost to death with an ambojitsu club, and threatened to kill him because he got promoted... and that's just what I remember offhand. If she were in a serious story, she would be a vicious, hateful sociopath.
They could just put her under Janeway's command if she made trouble. The Chuck Norris of Star Trek would eat Mariner for lunch.
Given that she's written to be a person with deep deep flaws....
My argument is that she's poorly conceived or badly written. She's exactly who the writers want her to be.
Getting back to Mariner, they could still have had her be a deeply flawed character, and indeed, have many of the same flaws that she has displayed, while making her more palatable. At the same time, some of the issue stems from fans' expectations, which may or may not be realistic, and their politics, which may read into the character different things because of her race/gender or their take on "liberal/woke Hollywood."
I have seen many people call Mariner out for her flaws/s*** behavior on many occasions. But I don't think I've seen people call out Boimler for his. Maybe that is just because there are more examples of the former, or they are so in your face, or because the average Star Trek fan is going to for various reasons identify more with Boimler than with Mariner.
Mind you, there's a lot to be said that what Boimler did in the last episode of Season One was motivated by revenge. Mariner had been hazing Boimler (read: bullying) for much of the previous season out of what we can construe as a misguided desire to help Boimler toughen up. When Boimler had the opportunity to promote himself, he took it and there's a certain level of "giving her a sarcastic vulcan salute on the way out."
I think there's a certain level of schadenfreude there that Boimler was engaging in.
I respectfully don't see that Mariner was hazing/bullying Boimler in S1 or that Boimler's reaction to the promotion was revenge-minded. In the clip you attached, it seemed he was just waiting for her to cool off. I don't think there's text that one can show to illustrate Mariner bullying Boimler, or Boimler resenting how Mariner treated him on a level that it motivated him to ditch her on purpose.
Mariner is, IMO, more like a bull in a china shop than a bully. She frequently devastates those in her path, but more out of cluelessness than malice.
Maybe. If not evil, sometimes clueless, like a bull in a china shop. Like with the ambojitsu match, in Mugato.
My argument is that she's poorly conceived or badly written. She's exactly who the writers want her to be.
You mean,, "My argument is that she's not poorly conceived or badly written," right?
In any case. she could still be poorly conceived/badly written even if she is exactly what the writers want her to be.
Lots of characters in live-action Trek are (presumably) exactly what the writers wanted them to be, but were poorly conceived or badly written or both. I would include among them in TNG Yar, Troi for the most part, Crusher, Pulaski, Wesley; in VOY Chakotay, Neelix amd Kim, and in Enterprise, Mayweather.
Or to go outside of Trek, the characters in Hogan's Heroes and The Dukes of Hazzard may be the best possibly written versions of those characters, but from my perspective of someone in 2021, I find the concept of "people having lighthearted fun in a Nazi POW camp" and "people tooling around in a car celebrating a famous racist traitor" to be too inherently flawed for me to watch either.
Getting back to Mariner, they could still have had her be a deeply flawed character, and indeed, have many of the same flaws that she has displayed, while making her more palatable. At the same time, some of the issue stems from fans' expectations, which may or may not be realistic, and their politics, which may read into the character different things because of her race/gender or their take on "liberal/woke Hollywood."
This is a meaningless comment. She could be "exactly what the writers" want and still be bad if the writers' ideas are bad. What's your point (again)?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.