Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Star Trek: Picard - Amazon Prime [** POSSIBLE SPOILERS **]
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
H3llR4iser wrote: »
When it comes to Discovery...there's a huge, gigantic elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about, because it's not politically correct...but screw it, I'm doing this.
The big problem is that Burnham behaves, talks, looks and feels like the grandmother of all tryhard token characters. Every single one of her defining characteristics has been crafted specifically to reinforce that...almost as if the writers and producers were more interested in making a show about their "strong, unconventional black woman main character who has a male name just so we tick all the boxes!" than making a good show, nor a Star Trek show for what matters. And if you don't like her, nor the idea, or dare criticizing the character - you're a racist misogynist.
Nicely summed up post
I'm going to try to avoid going off onto a Michael rant because I guess I should save that for a Discovery thread. But what you mention is something I have felt as well, this rather blatant need of some shows to flash a sort of "Social Responsibility" score card in order to telegraph to the world how they managed to one-up other shows with their ability to score more "points".
Many have said that Trek has always been a progressive show, and it has been. But these steps at progression often felt to be beside the point, since the characters themselves were front and center. Although the Kirk / Uhura kiss elevated as this world-blowing first on-air interracial kiss...most followers of Trek would probably be more concerned with why the characters of Kirk and Uhura would even be kissing, due to the nature of how they relate to each other. It was the characters, not the race they happened to be which I feel mattered.
I remember some amount of a deal being made about Cisco when DS9 started. Again, was he a token black Captain? Or was he a man who was haunted by Wolf 359, trying his best to raise his son alone while rebuilding a space station and later becoming this awesome hard-as-nails war-captain who could design & build warships...all the while still being able go and hang out with his staff at Quarks?
Janeway's gender was a big deal for a short while too. We often debate wither or not she was a good captain, but I don't remember any debate about her gender being an issue. She was the Captain of Voyager and that felt perfectly natural. As with anyone else, it was her character we related to.
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that although diversity has been a theme in TV/Movie production over the past load of decades, I feel that it had often been done in the context of hiring people into developed roles that could have just as easily been applied to a person with any particular attribute. It was never enough to simply fill out the diversity check-list, you also had to make a decent character.
In the past 10 years, I can't help but wonder if that last point has been lost to the current batch of TV production staffers. I think many of them are filling out their Social Responsibility checklist first and foremost to gain public praise from the industry media, and then phoning in the rest. Then in some cases, like with Burnham alas, they forget that they needed to properly build up their character in order for the viewers to relate to that personality. But it appears they either rushed or poorly developed their ideas for her character and now we're still talking about her being a token diversity point for the show. If they had done a better job, I feel we would now be discussing how she was a good / bad first officer. We might be discussing her relationship with Vulcan society, if they had done a better job there. We might be discussing how she managed to redeem herself after starting a war...if they hadn't just glossed over that.
Another issue I feel worth mentioning is that these days by filling out their Social Responsibility checklist, shows suddenly gain a sort of criticism-armor. You cannot critique a show where lead characters are female, because then you are sexist. Critique of a show like Discovery might imply that you are racist or homophobic etc... I feel that production staff know this, and apply this armor as a way to also gloss over their failings.
The pay off of all of this I fear will be a further decline in the quality of writing and character development. Cast and crew will be wonderfully diverse which would be great, but the quality will likely be lacking over time. I fear a future where sci-fi shows might become increasingly soul-less and devoid of character while the production companies involved slap each other on the back in congratulations of how inclusive and "ground-breaking" they have been in the process.
That all said, I am hopeful that talent still exists and that Picard Season 2 and Discovery Season 3 still have the potential of becoming good Trek. They just need to remember that it was the characters that won us over.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement