Support NeoGAF

[ResurrectedContrarian]

The general philosophy that I've recognized in all of these modern productions is this: All of these people you used to see as the outliers are just like you. And so, when they write these characters, they are written with the typical archetypes overlayed on top of them. They can do all the things you can do! See? They're not so different.

Again contradictions. You might argue, "the point is to show that this trait doesn't define them", and again you are stuck with contradictions, "if this doesn't define them, then why bring it up?". "Because it doesn't define them...".

^ This, in particular, hits the problem really well, thanks.

In Disney (Marvel / etc), the concept of diversity really comes down to what you described, which is the replacement of all definite characters (people with a particular, specific set of attributes that define them, and make them interesting to encounter) with mere placeholders, or costumes, that any of us can fill. They want to say "any one of us can be this badass character!" and so they use diversity (mixing up visible combinations, genders, races in ways contrary to expectations) only in order to make the character seem open to any interpretation, not in order to tell a real story about how that person's specific existence as a woman etc contributes meaningfully to who they are or to how they tackle the world differently from a man.

It's the kind of diversity that corporate pop culture loves, though, because it sells products... it says "any kid can be the Star Wars hero, can hold the lightsaber!" when really, it's better for us all to encounter characters that are different in meaningful ways, not just in order to mimic a college brochure full of carefully PR-crafted "diverse" mixes on every page.

Difference is good, but only if it makes a difference. Using difference only to subvert any expectation of roles or types is just useless and actually reduces the characters.

 

[Lister]

Picard is best captain.

 

[I'm new be nice]

Picard is best captain.

For all my shitting on DS9 in this thread, I actually think Sisko is the best Captain. Way more human of a character combined with an actor that reached greater highs of the same shakespearean caliber imo.

Edit: Now i'm watching Sisko clips lol

 

[Yoshi]

McCoy's southern aphorisms would be shown to have some dark or bigoted side (because we must subvert the idea of gentleman, naturally)

That's already the case in his interactions with Spock. He is depicted as pretty non-accepting of different socialisation in his interactions with Spock. Graned, much of it is tongue-in-cheek and the banter is also a display of friendship, especially in the movies, but there are gray areas to this.

and who knows what they'd do with Kirk, but he certainly wouldn't retain his current mix of rogue-ish cowboy and genuine-if-a-bit-comic human.

Kirk is an interesting case, because such a character was not intended to be part of the series, but was required by the syndicate in order to order the series and to better fit the then-current zeitgeist. There were also limitations put in place in terms of having both, Spock and a female first officer on the bridge. So this negative influences of trends sipping into the writing were a problem back then already.

For all my shitting on DS9 in this thread, I actually think Sisko is the best Captain. Way more human of a character combined with an actor that reached greater highs of the same shakespearean caliber imo.

Edit: Now i'm watching Sisko clips lol

I prefer Picard as a captain, but Sisko has one of the best moments in TV, his speech at the end of In the Pale Moonlight.

 

[I'm new be nice]

I prefer Picard as a captain, but Sisko has one of the best moments in TV, his speech at the end of In the Pale Moonlight.

That moment is so bitter you'd almost rather forget it. Surely a sign of a master of their craft. It's almost too real.

 

[Liljagare]

This will be interesting. I really like Patrik Stewart as a onstage actor too, and boy, the genetics of the family just isn't fair.

Wonder what the storylines will be.

Finally some more good scifi, almost starting to feel like the 90's Scifi era again.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Some people see this as a retreat from the progressive ST Discovery because Patrick Steward is a white male. >.>

 

[Wheeljack539]

Some people see this as a retreat from the progressive ST Discovery because Patrick Steward is a white male. >.>

Oh come the fuck on...

 

[infinitys_7th]

Some people see this as a retreat from the progressive ST Discovery because Patrick Steward is a white male. >.>

Oh, obviously. Picard was such a Nazi Alt-Right misogynist skinhead in TNG that they're bringing him back to appeal to the tiki-torchers. It's absolutely brilliant.

I mean, do they realize that people who like Star Trek probably tend to lean left? Earth and the Federation are almost progressive utopias, and Picard represents the best of that society.

 

[Dizagaox]

Some people see this as a retreat from the progressive ST Discovery because Patrick Steward is a white male.

I think reality is the opposite. They basically said to him "what do you want to do with Picard?" This series will be full "libtard".

 

[Yoshi]

Some people see this as a retreat from the progressive ST Discovery because Patrick Steward is a white male. >.>

The author appears to be writing a lot about Star Trek, without actually knowing much of it, claims like Star Trek has always been episodic (DS9, Enterprise, parts of Voyager?) or the first woman of colour in a captain's seat was in Discovery (Let me show to you, Star Trek 4: ) makes me question how much an opinion piece of her about Star Trek is worth.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

I mean, do they realize that people who like Star Trek probably tend to lean left? Earth and the Federation are almost progressive utopias, and Picard represents the best of that society.

But Picard on TNG also represented a classical sentiment that conflicts irreconcilably with recent identity-based "progressivism." He was basically an old-school Renaissance man with a sometimes almost Straussian love of the old established canon (Shakespeare, etc), and his interactions with Q and others repeatedly reinforce the notion that his ideals of human progress are borne entirely out of that tradition and out of a respect for its models of intellectual order & restraint, and specifically Western ideals of maturity. His form of humanism is decidedly situated in that prior tradition, not in the uses of the term that dominate today.

So I object mainly on the grounds that the current batch of writers are incapable of grasping what Picard was, and will ruin the character in an attempt to quietly slide him into what humanism / progressivism mean today in our "Woke Inc." pop culture, while acting as if this is a natural rather than deformed and inauthentic transition.

 

[Ulysses 31]

The author appears to be writing a lot about Star Trek, without actually knowing much of it, claims like Star Trek has always been episodic (DS9, Enterprise, parts of Voyager?) or the first woman of colour in a captain's seat was in Discovery (Let me show to you, Star Trek 4: ) makes me question how much an opinion piece of her about Star Trek is worth.

Indeed, they didn't call it a retreat when Enterprise's captain was white again after have a black commander/captain in DS9. >.>

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

I just watched the clip of Patrick Stewart personally announcing his return at some Las Vegas Star Trek event, and it only further solidified my fears: he made a point of saying as a teaser, at the end, "it may not be the Jean-Luc Picard you recognize... it may be a very different man" or something to that effect. He emphasized that so heavily in his presentation that it's apparent the current writing direction is largely centered around trying to create a startlingly different Picard, and to downplay the continuity in his recognizable set of loyal values (his old Enlightenment ideals, etc) in favor of trying to show some kind of headline-worthy surprises.

That's sure to disappoint. Picard's strength was largely in his resolve, and immunity to faddishness in his values. There is still so much left to explore in who he was on the show; it's a failure of imagination to think some new twist will add to that. Even the balancing act over the Prime Directive from TNG has a great deal more of ethical ground to cover, or his various principled refusals to allow any small comprise on his ideals to end a terrible situation (under Cardassian torture, etc).

And to be honest, no one is interested in Picard for something "very, very different" he put it. Picard is adored largely for his paternal qualities; my wife is among those that basically admits she instinctually looks up to him as a father figure, more than any other candidate in scifi. TNG remains highly regarded in memory for that reason, and for a striking kind of innocence if often displayed that is refreshing amidst scifi... and if the aim is to create something very new rather than returning to revisit the old, we'd all be far better off if the old man remained in retirement.

 

[Yoshi]

I think this is more concerned with his position. Considering his age, he probably isn't starfleet captain anymore. He may be a diplomat, or an admiral, offering a very different perspective when compared to that of a captain. But I think both could lead to new and interesting perspectives on Star Trek.

 

[prag16]

I think this is more concerned with his position. Considering his age, he probably isn't starfleet captain anymore. He may be a diplomat, or an admiral, offering a very different perspective when compared to that of a captain. But I think both could lead to new and interesting perspectives on Star Trek.

This. I'll remain cautiously optimistic for now.

 

[shira]

I didn't like Discovery and their Klingon story.

I'll take a wait and see approach for Picard 2.0

 

[kaczmar]

I wonder how many former Trek actors are currently hitting the gym hard right now. Haha