TNG - Time Squared

[Nobody700]

Marina Sirtis did want to play security chief... man, wonder what that world woulda been. Probably play herself as a judo master who throws everyone, and than is like 'Don't call me tiny'.

Sounds WAY better than Troi fainting cause I slightly disliked my Nachos.

[McAvoy]

I liked Pulaski. She was a breath of fresh air in the beige years of TNG.

I wonder if in hindsight it would have been better to have kept Pulaski as a recurring character once Crusher returned. Fun fact: there are meant to be two sickbays on the D. The main one in the saucer and a smaller one in the stardrive. There is also an intensive care ward that I think we do see occasionally. Pulaski could have run one of those.

I can think of quite a few episodes where she would have been handy to have around. Crusher dates a ghost, Crusher abducted by terrorists, the Worf's spine episode.

Plus we have to kind of admit that TNG did not have a particularly strong female cast. Motherly Crusher, motherly Guinan, sisterly Troi. We only had Kira-like Ro for about five episodes. Having someone like Pulaski would have been a good deviation from the norm.

Why does the show need a "strong female cast?" And what does that even mean?

Did it ever occur that maybe women don't really care for this kind of thing? Women don't build and defend civilizations, so if you're going to make a show like Star Trek not only believable, but geared toward those who actually do build and defend civilization, then having women behave more like men doesn't really help. There's a role for women, but it's not that. As SNW and STD proved to their demise (thank God), people don't like that kind of crap shoved at them, because it just doesn't work. The more you make women more like men, the less likable as characters they are, and then to make them competent, you have to emasculate all the men around them, and make them less competent. It's been the mode of Hollywood for at least the last 30 years.

Women are likeable when they are feminine, sweet, and fun, and most importantly, cooperative. Not commanding. Otherwise, you end up with a show that talks about irrelevant things like feelings in the hope of developing character, but that's not how characters are developed. Good characterization comes from characters making decisions and dealing with the aftermath.

So, for what it's worth, TNG actually had GOOD female cast roles.

I am going to grab popcorn for this one.

[Riedquat]

I liked Pulaski. She was a breath of fresh air in the beige years of TNG.

I wonder if in hindsight it would have been better to have kept Pulaski as a recurring character once Crusher returned. Fun fact: there are meant to be two sickbays on the D. The main one in the saucer and a smaller one in the stardrive. There is also an intensive care ward that I think we do see occasionally. Pulaski could have run one of those.

I can think of quite a few episodes where she would have been handy to have around. Crusher dates a ghost, Crusher abducted by terrorists, the Worf's spine episode.

Plus we have to kind of admit that TNG did not have a particularly strong female cast. Motherly Crusher, motherly Guinan, sisterly Troi. We only had Kira-like Ro for about five episodes. Having someone like Pulaski would have been a good deviation from the norm.

Why does the show need a "strong female cast?" And what does that even mean?

Did it ever occur that maybe women don't really care for this kind of thing? Women don't build and defend civilizations, so if you're going to make a show like Star Trek not only believable, but geared toward those who actually do build and defend civilization, then having women behave more like men doesn't really help. There's a role for women, but it's not that. As SNW and STD proved to their demise (thank God), people don't like that kind of crap shoved at them, because it just doesn't work. The more you make women more like men, the less likable as characters they are, and then to make them competent, you have to emasculate all the men around them, and make them less competent. It's been the mode of Hollywood for at least the last 30 years.

Women are likeable when they are feminine, sweet, and fun, and most importantly, cooperative. Not commanding. Otherwise, you end up with a show that talks about irrelevant things like feelings in the hope of developing character, but that's not how characters are developed. Good characterization comes from characters making decisions and dealing with the aftermath.

So, for what it's worth, TNG actually had GOOD female cast roles.

"Strong" doesn't mean "women behaving like stereotypical men," and too many films and programmes have done just that, but the counter-reaction shouldn't be "women should only play those stereotypical roles either." That's just going from one silly extreme to another. Why did we have the first one? A backlash of people fed up with, basically, what you're suggesting. Why do more and more people seem to be heading in your direction? A backlash against the backlash.

Why do we have to keep swerving from one daft extreme to another? I suspect it's because too many people like things nice and simple and straightforward, one easy don't-have-to-engage-brain picture of the world, and because they don't like how things are now they switch to the opposite one. It never makes sense (which is why anyone who accuses someone of being "inconsistent" on such matters is usually daft, appearing "inconsistent" because you don't blindly apply an oversimplified rule to everything is a virtue, not a vice).