I don't think any one series has used it more than twice. I could easily count the uses on one hand.
All the Negative people.
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
I wonder how much of that is the writing and how much is Patrick Stewart. He's a good actor, but I have yet to see anything he's been in which doesn't have the feel of Shakespeare, when it comes to his performances. There is a....sameness. It's like he can't quite come down from that elevated stentorian tone....which sounds pompous.
I wonder what Frank Langella would have been able to achieve in the role....
I think on some level people who don't like Picard don't like the idea that their Hero not only is not fully respected by all as a Hero which people have talked about before but also I don't think people like the idea that Picard basically spent 20 years being unhappy and miserable and sad. People like their heroes to happy endings and even in a case like Kirk he basically died being a hero. Their is something though about a guy living through 20 year of Depression that feels disrespectful to the guy you grew up watching. I mean even I feel it and I like Picard as a show. It might be realistic but I think people sometimes just want the happy ending and even if he becomes happy now it still means he basically wasted 20 years of his life.
Jason
Logic doesn't apply here.
I think this is fairly accurate, which goes to show how the Disneyfying of stories has taken full effect after Snow White and the "happily ever after" trope became widely rampant.
I understand that people feel that it is disrespectful. But, I would take a different approach in my few of characters, possibly informed by the shock of reading "The Man in the Iron Mask" and "Robin Hood," neither of which have that "happily ever after" like the movies. And, that was the recognition that those stories and those characters are not being disrespected to be treated as human.
To my mind, modern storytelling treats characters not as humans but as gods. They are to be revered, respected, and immutable in their presentation. If they have any failings then they must be made up for in the last act. And, while that sounds very pleasing and comforting it also reflects an inability to accept bad endings. Maybe because we want good ends, we want bad things to happen to bad people, and good things to happen to our heroes.
And, in my small installments those stories can work quite well. But, especially in Star Trek, which works on the idea of a growing and developing humanity, there is a deep need to present what reality will teach us is true-that bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad, and people make choices that they regret. Honestly, that's the lynch pin of Kirk's arc in both TMP and TWOK.
tl: dr-Yes, people don't want more realistic. But stories show us all aspects of humanity.
Stewart is amazing as Avery Bullock in the animated American Dad.
Still, quite a step up from "double dumbass on you!"
Ooo, ya got me. Or as JL says, merde!
It depends for me.
If it's something like Star Trek Continues where they were trying to create a continuation of TOS, I don't have a problem with that. It's made by fans for fans. If it's a fan film where I can tell it's a project celebrating Star Trek, then I can get behind it. They're never going to make Star Trek like TOS again. Not even Strange New Worlds will be like TOS. Though I'm sure it'll be closer than DSC, PIC, or LD. So, when they were making Star Trek Continues, they were filling the '60s Star Trek niche.
But something like Axanar? No. That's basically a "Fuck you! We can do Star Trek better than you can! Hahaha!!!!" The Hell with them.
Last edited:
Eh, it's a swear word humanity has been using for the last 400ish years. The idea that its not going to be present is, well, dumb.
I agree with that. I would also though look the times as well to the Disneyfying aspects you talk about. I think if people were more happy and society wasn't so far off the tracks that people might be more open to experimenting. Right now I think the desire for pure escapism is maybe at a all time high and thus some of the edgy stuff that got started with the golden age of tv starting with The Sopranos is not what many people are looking for right now. It also plays a role in so many people angry when tv shows go "political" which they mean political in the sense they are talking about issues happening in the present day as opposed to more broad strokes looks at issues that could be done in any tv show going back to the 80's. People hate living in 2020 and want to turn to anything that allows them to escape from it. I think this is part of the appeal of shows like Orville and Stranger Things which are great shows of course but they could have been great shows in 2005 or 1998 etc as well without much tinkering.
Jason
I'm all for shows looking at the issues of the day. I think shows are praised later on for dealing with issues of the day when no one else would...
... that having been said, I do have an issue with shows becoming too "political" these days because it basically means it's going to be "Trump! Trump! Trump!" Whether for or against. And he's going to be out of the picture in either 2021 or 2025. But issues like Police Brutality, corruption, discrimination, a bad economy, Global Warming, those are all things that shows should tackle. At least the ones that don't want to be escapist. Because none of those issues are going away anytime soon. They were around before Trump, they'll be around after him.
Discovery and Lower Decks don't really deal with any of those things I just mentioned, so I'd say they are escapist. The least escapist new Star Trek so far is Picard. Ironically, PIC is the one you like the most of the three. So there we are.
I for one would love to be able to say "The Hell with Today!" and jump 930 years into The Future or recover a lost loved one from a Mycellial Network. But I can't. I'd love to hang around in some cool Alternate Universe where I can act like a pirate and get away with it. But I can't. If I went to prison (not that I'd ever do anything to get me sent there!), I wouldn't expect someone to come to my rescue six months later to draft me for a Super Top Secret Mission.
Last edited:
Well Picard happens to be the best written and best acted of the bunch IMO. So even though it doesn't always appeal to my nostigia it appeals to my ability to appreciate well made tv shows and movies. I do like Lower Decks I just feel like it's not as good as it should be. Like they are settling instead of trying to be more special. Discovery has many characters I like it's just Burnham is just so boring to me. She like that energy vampire on "What We Do in the Shadows." She drains all the energy out of every scene she is in.
Jason
Jason
I'm in a weird spot where I think Picard is better, but I like Discovery more.
It's kind of like how I think the first season of TOS is better, but I prefer the second.
I had no idea what to expect with Lower Decks, since I've never seen Rick & Morty. But now Lower Decks has made me want to check it out.
It's kind of like how I think the first season of TOS is better, but I prefer the second.
I had no idea what to expect with Lower Decks, since I've never seen Rick & Morty. But now Lower Decks has made me want to check it out.
??? How is criticizing a character for the way they speak racism?
https://twitter.com/djvoltz1701/status/1296882958700347392?s=21
https://twitter.com/djvoltz1701/status/1296882958700347392?s=21
The drawings are not done very well. Childish and with a 90s sensibility instead of my preferred 50s and 60s styles. Think Flintstones and Merry Melodies. Animation is herky-jerky. I’ll watch every single episode, regardless.
Jessie Gender's new video argues that TOS was just as (directly) political; it is only that we are so far removed from the times that we don't recognize, say, the Prime Directive being about Vietnam.
I agree there's a tendency towards escapism right now; I notice it with myself, too. I enjoy Lower Decks as silly (in a good sense) escapism.
But I don't think Picard or any other show with political undertones is or has to be "all about Trump." Not any more than TOS was "all about Vietnam and the Cold War." Less, actually, because DT is, most of all, a symptom and a culmination of developents that have started a long time ago, and which may not end with him, either.
I agree there's a tendency towards escapism right now; I notice it with myself, too. I enjoy Lower Decks as silly (in a good sense) escapism.
But I don't think Picard or any other show with political undertones is or has to be "all about Trump." Not any more than TOS was "all about Vietnam and the Cold War." Less, actually, because DT is, most of all, a symptom and a culmination of developents that have started a long time ago, and which may not end with him, either.
Last edited:
There are significant swaths of the American public sphere that insists any discussion of social reform is to beavoided at all cost . How many times are reformers accused of introducing race into a discussion by noting things like unequal treatment of African Americans by law enforcement (even before this year)? How did the racists become those who noted the disparities of education outcomes for minorities? Simply put, there is a see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil approach by people who have decided the best way to stop the evolution toward a just society is to deny problems exist, to blame the "other side," and to claim that a series like Star Trek is radical for describing what our society is like.
ETA: I guess what I am saying, is that a segment of the American public not only takes political discussion less seriously, they actively try to repress it.
There's also plenty of people who hide behind the issue of quality vs. politics. Maybe I'm being paranoid but I believe that a lot of the negativity around certain progressive projects is done by people who are avoiding attacking the message directly by instead going after the medium. The hatred of DISCOVERY, for example, being a vitriol not because the guys actually care about the bad Klingon costumes but wanting to see it destroyed for its politics or Michael's overfocus in the plot but actually because, yes, she's a black woman lead. I've seen similar accusations toward LOWER DECKS Mariner that she's a Mary Sue when all she has in common with Michael is....being a black woman.
In a way, I'm glad Sir Patrick Stewart dealt directly with political issues in interviews and where the series stood because it made the subject undeniable.
With certain people, that's two strikes against her right out of the gate. Not that most of them have the balls to ever admit that's the problem they have with Burnham and Mariner, but y'know....
Similar threads
