Spoilers Star Trek: Picard General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
That's the one..........
https://twistedsifter.com/2011/10/celebrity-portraits-painted-like-russian-generals/
Sir Pat's says "Gurney Halleck" to me.
It really does, it's just that the uniform's details are different.
I think you are probably the only one, yes.
Don’t take it all so personally. As you said, it’s a mystery to you and that’s totally legit. We all have our own little things we wonder about.
I know! It’s very cool and a lovely Easter Egg.
Last edited:
There are always the Q Continuum novels.
Well, that's only to be expected when dealing with fans of such a conservative franchise that has never been obviously against any bigotry and intolerance and never champions peaceful solutions and reason and certainly didn't have a prolonged scene early in one of their shows with half the bridge crew going on about how countries and flags and patriotism are silly archaic concepts.
I would say that Star Trek in general is conservative (as with much US media) - it's not really depicted the consequences of its possible socialist future, and of course has for most of its history been a majority white, American, hierarchical, masculine, heterosexual, sometimes militaristic, rarely heterodox vision of the future. It's very popular with conservative as well as progressive people, because it is chimerical - while it shows what remains arguably a conservative world, it preaches - in a limited fashion - something which rhymes with more progressive values (if you wish to hear it) - but rarely shows it.
The last few years have a more forceful confrontation with a more "progressive" vision of the future in Star Trek, as with much media made in Hollywood these days, that perhaps annoys less "progressive" or "left-wing" or whatever fans - but I don't find it odd there is kickback from more "conservative", "traditional", "law-leaning", etc., fans, because the franchise has rarely lived up to the ideas that more liberal fans have tended to read over its more glaring failures to live up to.
Even away from the tv and film, where creators could be more 'progressive', this was always a mixed bag. For example, Treklit from 2000 to 2021, which was uber-left in many ways and preceded the series for having really great LQB representation (if not always TQ+), still was conservative in its often reliance on militaristic and strong state solutions. The cast were much more diverse - captains and lead characters were Muslim, Latino, queer, female, or other kinds of characters we hadn't seen on screen - even the Federation President has been at points female, and at another point one of the two Andorian female sexes living in a non-standard relationship. Some authors pursued really impressive and challenging future ideas - Una McCormack especially on a more feminist version of the future as well as exploring the consequences of advanced education paradigms, and queer identities, Heather Jarman on the Andorians and their four sexes, etc - but also tended to apply onto the 23rd or 24th century 20/21st century paradigms and ideas too, and there was also sometimes too much shooty-shooty in some of the most commanding stories. Although that Treklit period remains far more "progressive" than what has been on screen, even in Discovery.
And the biggest non-tv or film media product of the last decade - Star Trek Online - is pretty conservative in feel, at least with its rah-rah focus on war and ships and away parties and blowing things up. I know it's not always that, and its story pushes towards conflict resolution at points, but war is its immediate feel - and not in a "war is against our values" way explored in DS9 or Treklit (for example, The Fall series).
The last few years have a more forceful confrontation with a more "progressive" vision of the future in Star Trek, as with much media made in Hollywood these days, that perhaps annoys less "progressive" or "left-wing" or whatever fans - but I don't find it odd there is kickback from more "conservative", "traditional", "law-leaning", etc., fans, because the franchise has rarely lived up to the ideas that more liberal fans have tended to read over its more glaring failures to live up to.
Even away from the tv and film, where creators could be more 'progressive', this was always a mixed bag. For example, Treklit from 2000 to 2021, which was uber-left in many ways and preceded the series for having really great LQB representation (if not always TQ+), still was conservative in its often reliance on militaristic and strong state solutions. The cast were much more diverse - captains and lead characters were Muslim, Latino, queer, female, or other kinds of characters we hadn't seen on screen - even the Federation President has been at points female, and at another point one of the two Andorian female sexes living in a non-standard relationship. Some authors pursued really impressive and challenging future ideas - Una McCormack especially on a more feminist version of the future as well as exploring the consequences of advanced education paradigms, and queer identities, Heather Jarman on the Andorians and their four sexes, etc - but also tended to apply onto the 23rd or 24th century 20/21st century paradigms and ideas too, and there was also sometimes too much shooty-shooty in some of the most commanding stories. Although that Treklit period remains far more "progressive" than what has been on screen, even in Discovery.
And the biggest non-tv or film media product of the last decade - Star Trek Online - is pretty conservative in feel, at least with its rah-rah focus on war and ships and away parties and blowing things up. I know it's not always that, and its story pushes towards conflict resolution at points, but war is its immediate feel - and not in a "war is against our values" way explored in DS9 or Treklit (for example, The Fall series).
What I've long found weird about the loud part of the online Trek fandom (and, sadly, literally all but one Trek fans I've met in person) was that a lot of them aren't even simply conservative, but often outright alt-right white nationalists (even though a lot of them claim to be "enlightened centrists" beyond any politics) who tend to complain about the new shows in culture/gender/race war terms, and I just couldn't reconcile Star Trek's progressivism with the kind of people that (to me) long seemed to be its primary audience.
I think it might come from the fact that the allegorical representation of social issues combined with the Berman era tendency to play it safe led to Star Trek being perceived by people growing up in the '90s as an "apolitical" safe haven where you don't have to deal with all the crap that happens in the real world, contrasted with modern Trek that "injects politics into my childhood nostalgia." So these people could be radicalized politically on the internet as they grew up, and still remain Star Trek fans, because it's progressivism never really went beyond lip service. The post-scarcity economy has always been kept abstract enough that they would never need to think about how it could work or even be established, and in effect led to Star Trek being a convenient vessel for escapism instead of an exploration of a better future we actually could have. The oft-declared human equality never challenged white male or even specifically White Anglo-Saxon Male Protestant hegemony, black and Asian characters always "acted white" with the exception of Sisko's occasional mention of racism as a part of his history (but never his present), and women always just lived their lives and did their jobs without complaining about systemic oppression, instead treating occurrences of misogyny as specific single men being assholes, which plays well into the "not all men" mentality these viewers have developed; the focus of a nondescript human "equality" is also something they can easily accept, considering how often they try to argue for "equality versus feminism." LGBTQ people never appeared anywhere thanks to Rick Berman being a raging homophobe and vetoing any suggestion by the writers, and the fandom eventually developed the headcanon that "in the future, people don't feel the need to wag their identities in other people's faces and they don't care about the identities of others", which they even had the audacity to call "acceptance" when they meant "leave your gay out of my sight."
Basically, these viewers could view Berman-era Trek as an escapist version of a utopian future where they could actually believe their white male privilege was safe and wasn't challenged by women, people of color and LGBTQ people "taking it away". Instead these groups, in their interpretation, all just learned how to act like "normal people" without any mention of their pesky identity politics, and this led to "real equality" without any conflict.
I think it might come from the fact that the allegorical representation of social issues combined with the Berman era tendency to play it safe led to Star Trek being perceived by people growing up in the '90s as an "apolitical" safe haven where you don't have to deal with all the crap that happens in the real world, contrasted with modern Trek that "injects politics into my childhood nostalgia." So these people could be radicalized politically on the internet as they grew up, and still remain Star Trek fans, because it's progressivism never really went beyond lip service. The post-scarcity economy has always been kept abstract enough that they would never need to think about how it could work or even be established, and in effect led to Star Trek being a convenient vessel for escapism instead of an exploration of a better future we actually could have. The oft-declared human equality never challenged white male or even specifically White Anglo-Saxon Male Protestant hegemony, black and Asian characters always "acted white" with the exception of Sisko's occasional mention of racism as a part of his history (but never his present), and women always just lived their lives and did their jobs without complaining about systemic oppression, instead treating occurrences of misogyny as specific single men being assholes, which plays well into the "not all men" mentality these viewers have developed; the focus of a nondescript human "equality" is also something they can easily accept, considering how often they try to argue for "equality versus feminism." LGBTQ people never appeared anywhere thanks to Rick Berman being a raging homophobe and vetoing any suggestion by the writers, and the fandom eventually developed the headcanon that "in the future, people don't feel the need to wag their identities in other people's faces and they don't care about the identities of others", which they even had the audacity to call "acceptance" when they meant "leave your gay out of my sight."
Basically, these viewers could view Berman-era Trek as an escapist version of a utopian future where they could actually believe their white male privilege was safe and wasn't challenged by women, people of color and LGBTQ people "taking it away". Instead these groups, in their interpretation, all just learned how to act like "normal people" without any mention of their pesky identity politics, and this led to "real equality" without any conflict.
I wish I could like the previous post 10 times over...
"Acting like normal people" (=being invisible) would be the more generous interpretation. You could also come to the conclusion that, say, GLBQT+ people don't exist after watching TNG or Voyager. (Imagine in a then far-away future, the EMH educates the former drone about love and dating, and it's all about heterosexuality.)
"Acting like normal people" (=being invisible) would be the more generous interpretation. You could also come to the conclusion that, say, GLBQT+ people don't exist after watching TNG or Voyager. (Imagine in a then far-away future, the EMH educates the former drone about love and dating, and it's all about heterosexuality.)
Star Trek has always generalized race, gender, politics, etc. Ultimately you must have good characters and stories.
The problem has typically been the sledgehammer approach to showing morality, lessons and consequences. Episodic series played into the ingrained nature of that ethos.
Sad thing is no matter how "well" you present Star Trek - any show really - certain folks will nitpick, complain and tune out. Or keep watching.
The problem has typically been the sledgehammer approach to showing morality, lessons and consequences. Episodic series played into the ingrained nature of that ethos.
Sad thing is no matter how "well" you present Star Trek - any show really - certain folks will nitpick, complain and tune out. Or keep watching.
Because sadly, that is what makes the most money.
Plus, whenever they try to do anything else they’re mostly met with outcry. “Too much talking, not enough pew pew”
It’s a free to play game, so it has attracted a lot of people who have never actually watched trek before. They’re just here for the laser guns and explosions.
They had a mission a few years ago with a lesbian Klingon couple and holy shit did that bring out a bunch of assholes.
There was also a mission dealing with a hyper capitalistic polluted earth allegory complete with a Trump-like, that did the same thing.
Man, people are loosing their shit about the illegal immigrant angle. Saw a quoted tweet when visiting a twitter link posted in the Watcher thread.
Only the MAGA's and RWNJ's who are too ignorant to understand the show they proclaim to be fans of. Kind of the same dynamic with their patriotism.
Better image of the historical district plaque from episode 1
https://twitter.com/daveblass/status/1507249587278389254?s=21&t=u4FDYAvN-OuDTKL-GeK95w
https://twitter.com/daveblass/status/1507249587278389254?s=21&t=u4FDYAvN-OuDTKL-GeK95w
Dunno if this has been posted, and not to be a sh!t-stirrer, but nice goatee (from February) ... https://twitter.com/KitSwink/status/1490165850954866690
Similar threads
- Poll
