I am still amazed by the fandom for Shaw and demanding his return. He's an unevolved, 21st century, self-described "shithead" and this fits in to the evolved humanity sensibility of TNG?
Amazing.
Amazing.
What the frell happened?
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
How do I get a refund?
Exactly! That's the whole point! Shaw is a hit precisely because he ISN'T evolved. He isn't the perfect, bloodless, sinless, flawless, bland 24th-century type, and that's why we love him.
To bloody blazes with "evolved humanity" and all the politically correct wussification it implies. You want an evolved humanity, go watch Demolition Man. At least Shaw is real.
And no, Shaw isn't just being a dick because he feels like it. He just has very little tolerance for people who LIE to him, or try to go behind his back (like Picard and Riker always did). If you're honest with Shaw, he'll back you up, and he'll be the most loyal friend you could ever want.
Last edited:
I take so many issues with this it isn't even funny.
Hypocrisy is what it sounds like.
Good.
Wasn't meant to be.
Not only do I dearly hope that Legacy resurrects Shaw, I want Todd Stashwick to do a podcast where he gives a running commentary on TNG episodes, in character as Shaw. I am willing all this into existence.
"That time you hot dropped the saucer section of the Enterprise-D on a planet..."
It's ridiculous.Good.
Wasn't meant to be.
Not only do I dearly hope that Legacy resurrects Shaw, I want Todd Stashwick to do a podcast where he gives a running commentary on TNG episodes, in character as Shaw. I am willing all this into existence.
"That time you hot dropped the saucer section of the Enterprise-D on a planet..."
Shaw is the worst example of a human and he is praised! Raffi was treated like shit for being closer to a 21st century human and Shaw gets praised!?
Bullshit.
Probably involving fighting faceless apparitions of his father
I am still amazed by the fandom for Shaw and demanding his return. He's an unevolved, 21st century, self-described "shithead" and this fits in to the evolved humanity sensibility of TNG?
Amazing.
Certainly elements of redemption -- we saw that somewhat in the last episode, he acknowledged his flaws and prejudices. Had he survived then perhaps we'd have seen him enact that acknowledgement and stop mistreating his crew.
I love a good redemption story -- a true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place.
I think you exaggerate a little there. He wasn't great, but look at someone like Locarno in The First Duty.
Last edited:
You have a problem with Raffi supposedly being treated unfairly? OK, I get it. I also have a problem with Shaw being treated that way. That makes us even.
I mean, if Raffi deserves a second chance, then so does Shaw....
Besides, I would think that if Raffi had had her command yanked out from under her like Shaw did, she wouldn't take too kindly to that either...
Shaw in NO way mistreated his crew.
He clearly, and justifiably, had a problem with Seven mutinying against him and collaborating with Picard and Riker to steal his command, but there is precisely ZERO evidence that any of the rank and file among the Titan's crew had any problem with Shaw or were in any way mistreated by him.
But it could have been. There's elements there where he could potentially grow.
This isn't about "deserves": they're a fictional character. They deserve nothing.
It's a matter of what is stated repeatedly by Trek fans as the appeal of the 24th century is the evolved humanity and then have a 21st century presentation. It's frustrating.
So could Raffi's?
Why is Shaw so damn special? That's the confusing part. You had someone seeking redemption and stated to not fit because they're not "24th century human" and now Shaw is not and that's totally cool!
Speak for yourself.
IMHO, the more evolved humanity gets, the less appealing it gets. Like in TNG's "The Bonding" when the process of grieving for the loss of a loved one is seen as an aberration. Where (as Gene intended) nobody has any conflict with anyone else. Does that sound like the kind of future YOU want to live in? I thought not.
I'm speaking from what I saw, and what was used as a bludgeon against newer Trek for being "unevolved."
Then Shaw is roundly accepted.
What do we call that?
Payback.
Ridiculous.If, as I see it, Shaw is funny and Raffi isn't? Yeah, that's pretty much it.
The problem I had with Raffi's arc was when they made her right all along. I'd like to see someone deep - perhaps because of a failing support networks (Raffi taking Picard's banner, Picard marching off to sulk and not caring, leaving her high and dry. That worked fairly well)
However I wanted to see how someone can get back from that conspiracy theory point without them being right all along.
Even better would be to take an existing well liked character - say Torres - who went deep into SpaceQAnon (like the conspiracy guy on Lower Decks, but the more serious side), believed all the nonsense, possibly even, and then finally somehow managed to come back from the brink. At its heart is a cult rescue story.
I'd have rather seen Raffi's story played out like that. That would ideally be shown over a long period of time though, in the background, like how we could see ongoing threads in DS9 especially, but a fair bit in early Voyager too (Jonas for example -- another human who was worse than Shaw BTW, there were some great "soft arcs" in seasons 1-2 IMO).
You could possibly do it with a new character (like Raffi), with flashbacks showing their descent. It's how you bring them back in from the cold that I'd really like to see. Saying "they were right all along" felt wrong to me.
That said, by the time Season 3 rolled around in Picard I was fully on Team Raffi, and I think her arc in Season 3 was great.
Shaw was very different to Raffi -- it's your classic "society has moved on and I can't get round my own prejudice", which we found out in the end reached the "I accept I'm prejudiced" part -- his "it's not you, it's me" message. There's more that could be done in that story, or it could stay where it is.
I don't why this is a problem. You can be right and still act wrongly.
I found him to be extremely off-putting, He is not a good character. The double standard unveiled is even more deeply frustrating.
He deadnamed Seven, even before she mutinied. Though mutiny is not a legitimate reason to deadname anyone regardless. That's textbook definition of mistreatment right there.
Similar threads
