@skythe Can you write me a detailed description of what "Star Trek actually is?" I hear this so often, but no one explains.
@dogg724 I can try.
@skythe Thank you.
I'm curious your opinion of 7 of 9 given without her getting a ton of focus, it's unclear how long Voyager would have run. Also, just the rise of characters like Picard who is "not a main character?" but given his own series?
I don't know if I've been as sensitive to 2020 lingo, references, or politics as you. I did not think the Stacy Abrams cameo made much sense though.
There are any number of characters in Star Trek that could be shown to be less than professional. This one makes less sense to me. Or, in the broader Star Trek universe, the amount of "unprofessional" behavior, so to speak, is everywhere. McCoy's distaste for Spock seemed to set the pace from the very beginning.
I can't really support the idea that using modern technology to update a look is not-Star Trek. That was like the highest praiseworthy point and push in DS9, for example.
I appreciate you taking the time! I seriously hear this criticism like dozens of times when I'm reading angry or critical reviews of things, but almost no one actually points to something specific. At the same time, I still think the show is considerably more the whole of its parts and the convergent message more than differences highlighted along the lanes you've laid out.
7 of 9 wasn't a character for 3 entire seasons and when she joined, she had way less screentime than Janeway or Chakotay for example. You might remember: almost every episode of Voyager focused on a different character. There's a Youtube video that shows screentime per character if you're interested.
Discovery completely changed the way Klingons look. DS9 did something similar? What do you mean?
@skythe 7 of 9 was introduced specifically to be more of a main character as a result of the show floundering a bit. If you listen to her and the rest of the cast explain it in extras, they were able to build better more compelling stories around her and the Borg which let them last longer than they felt they were going to. If we're measuring "main character-ness" by screen time, then I just return to my thoughts about Picard, but then further onto what/whether that time is being used to keep people engaged, or if some main characters are considerably better at putting out more that connects with less time or effort.
DS9, and again I'm drawing this from the commentary in extras, was lauded for maintaining a Star Trek vibe without confining itself to the ship format. Having two floors to be able to shoot from or frame shots was new and somewhat controversial as to whether or not it would "feel like Star Trek" enough. By extension, whether isn't better cameras, sets, or technology that puts a modern shine on the franchise, or the make a cartoon out of it, I'm looking for the pace, message, story-telling capacity first verses thinking it's necessarily vital to emulate how it's been shot in the past.
I'm down to check out Youtube channels about the franchise if you're keen to pass them along indeed. Thanks!
@dogg724 Yes, they added 7 of 9 to "add a bit of pizzazz to the show". The idea was that she would be like a reverse Data - robot to human. But that doesn't make her the protagonist any more than Data was the protagonist of TNG. Do a poll with 100 fans and Janeway will probably win. 7 of 9? No way. Wikipedia lists her as the last of all main characters.
Picard I haven't seen and don't plan to. Can't comment on that, sorry.
Strange New Worlds is watchable. Why? Because it sticks to the old and proven formula way more than Discovery or Picard. And: it's about a crew, not a single character.
Not sure what you're getting at with DS9 to be honest. My point was that Discovery rewrote the Klingons. What part of the Star Trek universe did DS9 rewrite?
@skythe I still don't really think I've grasped your definition of a main character. I think Star Trek absolutely has characters that get more or less focus, and in doing so, it doesn't de-Star Trek the overall show. You don't even need to watch Picard for the point I'm trying to raise about it to stick. If he's not a leading protagonist, I don't know who is. I'm unsure how I could accept Wikipedia is an authority on your specific understanding of who is "too main." I feel the more I press on a defined concept around it, I'm just gathering a repeated idea that I don't think holds on its face. Every Star Trek series depicts stories around the main cast and their antagonists or battle with the circumstances they're in, Picard included. The formula I believe is less formulaic than you might feel, but I also thinks its the space where the initial criticism from many arises.
With DS9, I was speaking to your speaking about the look and style of a show. I wasn't talking at all about character lore or Klingons. I know behind the scenes they've talked about why Klingon's have changed or made tongue-in-cheek jokes/allusions to it. I was speaking to lens flares, dutch angles, and fast cuts and saying how a show is shot evolving I do not believe take away from its heart.
@dogg724
I never said Picard wasn't built around a main character.
You should, of course, understand the concept of what a protagonist or main character is for this conversation to lead anywhere.
Feel like Wikipedia's list is inaccurate? Fine. Check IMDB. Or trekpedia. Or Memory Alpha. Or Screenrant. Or TheMovieDatabase. Doesn't matter. 7of9 was never the protagonist of Voyager. See my comment from 25 Apr for anything there is to say about this.
We're running in circles here. I've gone out of my way to list the reasons I (and many people) hate this show. You don't have to agree with us, but I hope I've made myself clear. :) You have a nice one.
@skythe "I never said Picard wasn't built around a main character."
I'm not claiming you did. You said, "Star Trek does not have a main character."
The existence of an entire series built around one character in the universe, seems, incredibly obviously so, that there's at least one "main character" by any sane definition or concept of "main." I don't even really understand how this in particular became a thing to push back on. You can't say something like, "Star Trek definitely treats some characters of the main casts with more time or care than others?" You couldn't acknowledge what DS9s own producers said about 7 of 9? Like, why is that so hard?
I don't feel anything about wikipedia's list. I didn't even speak to it. I didn't speak to any of those lists. I also didn't argue she was the protagonist. I argued that her introduction was specifically aimed at being something they could focus more on as the show was dying and her producers and fellow cast members testified to the purpose of her introduction into the series.
You listed reasons. I think I understood them and brought context to them that made your observations feel, at least incomplete if not almost wholly insubstantial. I think you mostly wish to hate on the show and Michael and aren't really concerned with sharing reasonable evidence beyond how the show makes you feel. It would have also been perfectly acceptable for you to just say that and not try to invoke proverbial crowd hatred once your reasoning was shown to be fluffy.
Thanks for playing, but I don't think I've learned anything beyond the same baseline empty hatred that pops up any time something new or challenging appears and bumps against rigid and unreasonable expectations regarding someone's sacred cow.
Shout by SkytheBlockedParent2022-05-29T12:39:51Z
The worst Star Trek thing ever made.
They traded acting skills and suspense and credible world-building for woke nonsense and diversity and the outcome is a dark, cringy nightmare made by people who got no idea what Star Trek actually is and who dont give a damn either.
The worst.