• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Was TNG less progressive than TOS?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really couldn't care less if Star Trek follows progressive ideas, I want them to follow realistic ideas. It's fine to have women in important positions, that would be normal. I've always had a bugaboo about leading female characters involved in fights. Like a 99 lbs. soaking wet Kira beating up trained soldiers more than twice her weight class. Happens way too much.
Star Trek is not as realistic as the press kits would have you believe.
 
I really couldn't care less if Star Trek follows progressive ideas,
Myself as well,certainly not exclusively, like it was running down some kind of checklist.
I want them to follow realistic ideas.
More realistic is what we saw, a fictional Starfleet with different characters holding a dversity of ideas and concepts, seen amoung the main and secondary characters.

We saw this with Worf during TNG, it was obvious in certain scenes that owing to his culture his mentality was different than say Picard's. We saw this through his advice and personal decisions. When Worf declined to donate tissue to a dying Romulan and was resolute on his decision, he stood out .

From what you know of Worf's personality, would you describe him as progressive?
Boy have you got the wrong franchise
No, he's got the right one.

Kirk wasn't Picard, and Picard definately wasn't Sisko or Janeway. Kirk undeniably wasn't a progressive, but most likely Picard was. But they're both enjoyable characters in the Star Trek universe.

The Federation is composed of hundreds of members, and they (should) each bring a multitude of separate ideas and beliefs to the Federation. Not all of which would make sense or even be comprehensible to the other members.

People within the Federation poisoned the founders, and when the Federation council found out about it the council hung onto the cure allowing the poison to continue it's work, sound progressive?

The Federation in Picard made certain decisions concerning artificial lifeforms, did those decisions sound particularly progressive to you (assuming you know what I'm referring too)?

The Federation certainly has progressives, but it isn't itself a progressive organization.

I'd say Starfleet is neither exclusively progressive nor conservative, possessing elements of both.

Nerys Myk, would you watch a Star Trek that challenged you? Where the much of featured hero group didn't line up your own political/ social/ cultural exspectations and preferances.

Because that is what you've been watching.
It was implausible for any of the human Starfleet officers to be able to go one-on-one in hand-to-hand combat with the Klingons
My impression going back to TOS is that the Klingon aren't as a species stronger than Humans, in fact I think they're slightly weaker. As in any group there would be individuals with above average strength, Kurge in TSFS seemed unusually strong for a Klingon.
 
Last edited:
No, he's got the right one.
Star Trek was created as an action adventure show with a Science Fiction setting. As such is uses several action adventure tropes, including the kick ass 99 pound woman. Looking for realism in it's fights will probably never happen. Our heroes (male and female) will always triumph over adversaries twice their weight and size, because we like Davids over Goliaths.
Kirk wasn't Picard, and Picard definately wasn't Sisko or Janeway. Kirk undeniably wasn't a progressive, but most likely Picard was. But they're both enjoyable characters in the Star Trek universe.
Sure he was. He was in many ways an avatar of Roddenberry, including his progressive ideas and Star Trek was the vessel for those ideas. Perhaps not progressive by 21st Century standards but still progressive.
Nerys Myk, would you watch a Star Trek that challenged you? Where the much of featured hero group didn't line up your own political/ social/ cultural exspectations and preferances.
I do it all the time with other shows, films and books. I don't require my entertainment to reinforce my personal beliefs. Trek is no different. It has a certain point of view like most fiction.
 
Male characters need to be neutered and female characters should be more masculine. That's progressive.

Apologies if I assumed anyone's gender.
 
In what way?
I was talking about the basics, like who would likely win a fight, not the entire episode or season arc. If you have to have the woman defeat the soldier that could break her in two, then she needs to do it with a weapon, etc... Not beat him up.
Sorry for the multiple replies, my first replay didn't show up for me until after I did the second reply.
 
You called Kira beating up men twice her size unrealistic. I countered with you've picked the wrong franchise for realistic fighting. :shrug:
You said franchise and genre, so I thought you were talking about a much higher, overarching level. That's why I said your answer was broad. But, no troubles.
 
I was talking about the basics, like who would likely win a fight, not the entire episode or season arc. If you have to have the woman defeat the soldier that could break her in two, then she needs to do it with a weapon, etc... Not beat him up.
Sorry for the multiple replies, my first replay didn't show up for me until after I did the second reply.
Who would win and how they would win is less important than who the character is. Seeing Kira open a can of whoop ass mano a mano is usually more satisfying for the audience that her clobbering her opponent with a weapon. For a different character, the weapon thing would work.
 
Who would win and how they would win is less important than who the character is. Seeing Kira open a can of whoop ass mano a mano is usually more satisfying for the audience that her clobbering her opponent with a weapon. For a different character, the weapon thing would work.
I guess, for some people it would. I see her beat up someone twice her size, and I'm like, "That would never happen." It just bugs me because they could have done better. Not that I am going to turn it off, it's not that bad. Just a bit of a stretch.
 
Oh. Then I'm not sure who you are talking about.
The short version is that far right extremists have used the internet to radicalize people, mostly young men. They've been involved with several protests where they killed people and multiple mass shootings. They're all over the internet, especially on Twitter and YouTube. They and many like minded groups call anyone who isn't a white supremacist, racist, sexist or bigoted a SJW because they think that makes them look bad. It's sort of a boogeyman who wants people other than white men to be in media. The fact that they're so angry about this is hysterical, especially as media becomes increasingly diverse.
 
The short version is that far right extremists have used the internet to radicalize people, mostly young men. They've been involved with several protests where they killed people and multiple mass shootings. They're all over the internet, especially on Twitter and YouTube. They and many like minded groups call anyone who isn't a white supremacist, racist, sexist or bigoted a SJW because they think that makes them look bad. It's sort of a boogeyman who wants people other than white men to be in media. The fact that they're so angry about this is hysterical, especially as media becomes increasingly diverse.
Well, I guess you have people on the fringe on both sides doing their extremist crap. But, I've heard that term used many times before, and none of the people I heard were white supremacists, racists, sexists, etc... I don't really know any of them.
 
Well, I guess you have people on the fringe on both sides doing their extremist crap. But, I've heard that term used many times before, and none of the people I heard were white supremacists, racists, sexists, etc... I don't really know any of them.
There is no "both sides" with Nazis, they want to commit genocide. Anyone who is against them is by default okay. Anyone who uses that term has bought into some of their ideas, if you care about them you should do what you can to get them away from it. It's like a cult, people are slowly seduced into it and eventually become trapped in it as it warps their view of reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top