Star Trek - Space: The Final Frontier

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
It's been touched on here in the past few pages, but nobody has explicitly stated it yet- The biggest problem with "perfect strong female protagonists," - isn't that they're "perfect" "strong" or even "female"... It's that, whether it be Burnham, Janeway, Captain Marvel or countless other examples I could name (If you're a fan of Nu-Doctor Who, Rose Tyler comes to mind) it's that they *frequently* act like total cunts- in a way that would never be acceptable if a male character were to act that way, but we're still supposed to treat them as if they are perfect because the show/movie usually does. They're kind of Anti-Mary Sues in that regard... Only they're still somehow treated like regular Mary Sues.. I don't get it personally...
 
UnKillFill said:
It's been touched on here in the past few pages, but nobody has explicitly stated it yet- The biggest problem with "perfect strong female protagonists," - isn't that they're "perfect" "strong" or even "female"... It's that, whether it be Burnham, Janeway, Captain Marvel or countless other examples I could name (If you're a fan of Nu-Doctor Who, Rose Tyler comes to mind) it's that they *frequently* act like total cunts- in a way that would never be acceptable if a male character were to act that way, but we're still supposed to treat them as if they are perfect because the show/movie usually does. They're kind of Anti-Mary Sues in that regard... Only they're still somehow treated like regular Mary Sues.. I don't get it personally...
Click to expand...

Any compelling character is going to have flaws, no matter how idealized they are.

Indiana Jones is scared of snakes, James Bond keeps getting captured and Luke Skywalker is whiny, you wont find more idealized characters and yet they still have flaws.

If there's no flaws then there's nothing for a character to struggle against and hence there's no drama, it's just fucking boring, this isn't about politics at the end of the day, it's just fucking boring, it's about good storytelling versus objectively bad storytelling.

Giving a character flaws is basically writing 101, we're talking really, really basic shit here, it's incredible that mainstream, big budget Hollywood movies would lose sight of something so basic.
 
A female hero does not accomplish, she endures, this is fundamental part of the archetype. If you try to subvert that, not only will you come off as ridiculous, but you'll fail because what you're inevitably left with is a woman who reaps the rewards of the male struggle without the accomplishments of a leader.

You may ask "Why don't you just have the woman earn things via accomplishment then?" It doesn't work. God knows Hollywood would've done it by now if it did. It's like trying to reverse the structure of plot, it's technically possible, but no one will ever read/watch it because it will suck 100% of the time. I've tried doing both in my own short stories, and the structure of narrative as it has evolved simply will not abide it.
 
Dom Cruise said:
Giving a character flaws is basically writing 101, we're talking really, really basic shit here, it's incredible that mainstream, big budget Hollywood movies would lose sight of something so basic.
Click to expand...

It's because woke. Because some fat dangerwhales would freak out if any female was presented as having any flaws at all. Even if they do have flaws and are annoying Mary Sues, this can never be acknowledged.
 
Dom Cruise said:
Any compelling character is going to have flaws, no matter how idealized they are.

Indiana Jones is scared of snakes, James Bond keeps getting captured and Luke Skywalker is whiny, you wont find more idealized characters and yet they still have flaws.

If there's no flaws then there's nothing for a character to struggle against and hence there's no drama, it's just fucking boring, this isn't about politics at the end of the day, it's just fucking boring, it's about good storytelling versus objectively bad storytelling.

Giving a character flaws is basically writing 101, we're talking really, really basic shit here, it's incredible that mainstream, big budget Hollywood movies would lose sight of something so basic.
Click to expand...
Treating any and every person who questions your theoretical perfection, with disdain and rudeness (especially when you make a frequent habit of acting like a complete cunt,) is not a simple "flaw"...

Even if it were, that isn't the problem... The problem is that despite their *obvious* flaws, the shows will still frequently treat these characters as if they were perfect, and expect us to do so as well, despite them clearly acting like irredeemable cunts. Hence why I called them an "Anti-Mary Sues"
 
Julia Fortune said:
A female hero does not accomplish, she endures, this is fundamental part of the archetype. If you try to subvert that, not only will you come off as ridiculous, but you'll fail because what you're inevitably left with is a woman who reaps the rewards of the male struggle without the accomplishments of a leader.

You may ask "Why don't you just have the woman earn things via accomplishment then?" It doesn't work. God knows Hollywood would've done it by now if it did. It's like trying to reverse the structure of plot, it's technically possible, but no one will ever read/watch it because it will suck 100% of the time. I've tried doing both in my own short stories, and the structure of narrative as it has evolved simply will not abide it.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I will have to think on how this applies to the wizard of oz and wonderland. I can see in them proof of your points and counters to them as well.

Also have you read "til we have faces"? That and the myth it retells are additional fascinating data points. But then we could discuss the heroine's journey on a different thread/conversation. I suspect some of it will deal with socio-sexual selections.

What is interesting also is that Janeway could have been perfect for Voyager here. As the journey across the Delta quadrant would have been an endurance test, not an accomplishment.
 
I don't get the obsession of "finally" having strong female characters on Star Trek.

Can't speak for other series, but, I've been watching deep space9 and it has no shortage of actually very well written female characters.

Major Kira is incredibly flawed as she is usually the first to make morally questionable choices and even had an episode on how she didn't had remorse on harming innocent civilian. Dax is probably the smartest and also the most likely to make choices in a whim based on her emotions, Keiko who basically kept a school open after a freaking terrorist attack.

Even Quark's mom basically fooled her whole government, by playing dumb, to become filthy rich.
 
Pixy Misa said:
I don't get the obsession of "finally" having strong female characters on Star Trek.

Can't speak for other series, but, I've been watching deep space9 and it has no shortage of actually very well written female characters.

Major Kira is incredibly flawed as she is usually the first to make morally questionable choices and even had an episode on how she didn't had remorse on harming innocent civilian. Dax is probably the smartest and also the most likely to make choices in a whim based on her emotions, Keiko who basically kept a school open after a freaking terrorist attack.

Even Quark's mom basically fooled her whole government, by playing dumb, to become filthy rich.
Click to expand...
It's because in todays political and mass media climate, female characters can be used as social currency.

It also hides the fact, that the current generation of writers are largely talentless. Mediocre iterators who don't know how to craft quality characters. So, if you obfuscate that with bullshit or downright lying, "social evolution."

People won't notice, cause their caught up with social drama....
 
Ihavetinyweewee said:
It also hides the fact, that the current generation of writers are largely talentless. Mediocre iterators who don't know how to craft quality characters. So, if you obfuscate that with bullshit or downright lying, "social evolution."
Click to expand...


Couldnt' agree more. I think we are living in what I call "an age of unworthy successors" in pretty much all media. It's not just star trek. Pretty much every big franchise is being continued by people that are basically giving the middle finger to what came before them. Like a teenage kid in an emo phase that hates his parents, but still lives with them and has them feed him.

What's interesting is that 90's Star Trek shows were all basically continuing from TOS and they still had the utmost respect for it. Overall it felt like they were continuing a legacy. We even had an entire episode of Sisko fanboying over Kirk.

Remember that "let the past die kill it f you must?" quote from Star Wars? I think Ryan Johnson was being honest about his intent, and of most current writers, that instead of actually continuing with the torch that was passed onto them, they want to "fix" what was never broken.
 
Last edited:
"muslims exist int the future"
Click to expand...

I thought everyone was an atheist in the federation. Or at least the humans in Starfleet. Didn't Picard even made a speech about how religions were backward?


And incidentally, The Orville was even more explicit as they outright said it was weird the krill had FTL tech and still "hadn't outgrown" their religions.
 
Last edited:
Pixy Misa said:
I thought everyone was an atheist in the federation. Or at least the humans in Starfleet. Didn't Picard even made a speech about how religions were backward?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WvZt3bHN-cU
And incidentally, The Orville was even more explicit as they outright said it was weird the krill had FTL tech and still "hadn't outgrown" their religions.
Click to expand...

Eh, its kinda of purposely vague. Perhaps, there are people who still have religious traditions. But, religion is not controlling or significant in the daily lives of humans. Its probably more indifference it seems, perhaps open to the idea of spirituality or God(but not clearly defined)

Roddenberry was a humanist, but the lore of Star Trek is much larger than him....

I certainly don't think there would be an overt muslim, any more than an overt christian. But, I could see a person who continued to practice some of the rituals or uphold certain beliefs.

The female muslim above is just exceptional.
 
Last edited:
Pixy Misa said:
I thought everyone was an atheist in the federation. Or at least the humans in Starfleet. Didn't Picard even made a speech about how religions were backward?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WvZt3bHN-cU
And incidentally, The Orville was even more explicit as they outright said it was weird the krill had FTL tech and still "hadn't outgrown" their religions.
Click to expand...
Not sure if it really fits since TOS existed before Star Trek's lore solidified, but there was an episode of TOS where the crew come across Apollo, and Kirk says something to the effect of, "We don't need gods anymore, just the one."

It may have been a cheeky way to slip past 1960s censors by not outright saying humanity doesn't need God, but at the same time it does imply some sort of religious belief among the crew. Plus there was an episode in season 1 where two crew members get married in the ship's chapel which is adorned with Christian iconography.
 
Ironically enough, there are quite a bunch of people who are defending her in the comments section.
www.instagram.com

Star Trek on Instagram: “Fans share what #StarTrek means to them at #SDCC2019 🖖💫 #FanFriday #StarTrekSDCC Full video at the link in bio.”

8,662 Likes, 787 Comments - Star Trek (@startrek) on Instagram: “Fans share what #StarTrek means to them at #SDCC2019 🖖💫 #FanFriday #StarTrekSDCC Full video at the…”
www.instagram.com www.instagram.com
CY-Trekkie - cool it with the anti-islam remarks.png
CY-Trekkie - don't be a jerk, bend the knee to islam.png


Baldur's Gait said:
Not sure if it really fits since TOS existed before Star Trek's lore solidified, but there was an episode of TOS where the crew come across Apollo, and Kirk says something to the effect of, "We don't need gods anymore, just the one."
It may have been a cheeky way to slip past 1960s censors by not outright saying humanity doesn't need God
Click to expand...
The "just the one" part was added by the network.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom