TNG - Time Squared

[clearspira]

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.

[Madner Kami]

sisterly Troi.

Hold on a moment. You see Troi as a sister? Sheesh, the millenials-love-incest-porn-jokes write themselves

[clearspira]

sisterly Troi.

Hold on a moment. You see Troi as a sister? Sheesh, the millenials-love-incest-porn-jokes write themselves

Lol, yes, maybe that does require a bit of explanation.

It is obvious what Gene intended Troi to be in a meta sense - the bridge bunny. But in-universe I never got the impression that is how she was treated by the rest of the crew. It was the guest stars who used to come along and want to do naughty things with her. Only Riker and Barclay were overtly attracted to her (Well, and Worf for like two episodes before forgetting it completely) but the rest of the time I always got the impression that she had a relationship with the team more like a sister than a mother. Crusher and Guinan nurtured you - Troi was the one that you went to for advice but also to gossip about boys. I'm not joking about that last part either. I can think of two scenes off the top of my head where Crusher did just that with Troi, when she was perving over her granny's diary and when they were working out 80s style in front of a mirror.

[Madner Kami]

Lol, yes, maybe that does require a bit of explanation.

It is obvious what Gene intended Troi to be in a meta sense - the bridge bunny. But in-universe I never got the impression that is how she was treated by the rest of the crew. It was the guest stars who used to come along and want to do naughty things with her. Only Riker and Barclay were overtly attracted to her (Well, and Worf for like two episodes before forgetting it completely) but the rest of the time I always got the impression that she had a relationship with the team more like a sister than a mother. Crusher and Guinan nurtured you - Troi was the one that you went to for advice but also to gossip about boys. I'm not joking about that last part either. I can think of two scenes off the top of my head where Crusher did just that with Troi, when she was perving over her granny's diary and when they were working out 80s style in front of a mirror.

I completely get where you are coming from, sorry for being a bit tounge-in-cheek there

I'm actually a bit surprised, in hindsight, that her character somehow didn't end up as the bridge-bunny, as you put it so nicely. We all know Roddenberry's tendencies in this regard and while it occasionally shines through (if you take her outfits into consideration, things shine through both proverbially and literally *coughs*), overall, Troi is a character in her own right even in Season 1. That is, if the writers didn't forget about her at all in a given episode.

[McAvoy]

I doubt Troi was ever meant to be a bridge bunny. I think Gene straight up thought having some councilor sitting on the bridge would be a good idea. Having one on any ships isn't a bad idea really but someone sitting next to the captain? I doubt he thought that through which goes along with how hard it was write for her. Where also her actual role in the series became redundant with Guinan.

She is just a leftover of alot of lot Gene ideas. No Chief Engineer. Humans evolved to have no conflict with each other. And so on.

[Durandal_1707]

Having just rewatched this one for the first time in a long while, I'm surprised Chuck didn't make his comment about how much more effective the music was in these early episodes, because holy hell, the music does a great job in the early scenes where the duplicate Picard is revealed.

[MaxWylde]

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.

[clearspira]

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.

Be honest with me now: Were you desperately trying to not use the words ''go woke, go broke'' here? I'm not trying to be offensive or combative to you, on the contrary, i'm saying that because what you just wrote could have been out of my own lips once upon a time. I have plenty of old comments on here proving that which I would delete if I could. I know first hand the chain of logic that you are using and the facts in which you think that you have on hand because I was deeply immersed in it.

The truth is, respectfully, its bullshit. For every film that failed because it went ''woke'', I can point to you several other reasons why it also failed. A strong woman does not mean that men are ''emasculated''. A strong woman isn't ''making them like a man''. And plenty of people love strong, powerful women who veer into the traits of what used to be the sole reserve of masculinity. That's why films are still made that are centred around them, not because of some agenda.

The PROBLEM is bad writing. The PROBLEM is Hollywood nepotism elevating the wrong people to the wrong jobs. No one back during T1 or T2 said that Sarah Connor emasculated Reese or John just by her mere presence - but they say it now regarding the modern films. Why? Because those films suck. That's why. Not because there is something inherently bad about strong women. Because if that was the case then T2 would be remembered just as badly.

And to roll this back to Star Trek, give me Kira over Troi any day of the week.

[Madner Kami]

Be honest with me now: Were you desperately trying to not use the words ''go woke, go broke'' here? I'm not trying to be offensive or combative to you, on the contrary, i'm saying that because what you just wrote could have been out of my own lips once upon a time. I have plenty of old comments on here proving that which I would delete if I could. I know first hand the chain of logic that you are using and the facts in which you think that you have on hand because I was deeply immersed in it.

The Internet does not forget. Besides that, never ever delete old posts of yours, even if you are dissatisfied with them. Correct them, ammend them, but leave them. They're a part of who you were and thus a part of who you are. They lay down a history of where you came from and where you stand now. There's no shame in changing your mind. If anything, it gives you even more credit.

[Durandal_1707]

Be honest with me now: Were you desperately trying to not use the words ''go woke, go broke'' here? I'm not trying to be offensive or combative to you, on the contrary, i'm saying that because what you just wrote could have been out of my own lips once upon a time. I have plenty of old comments on here proving that which I would delete if I could. I know first hand the chain of logic that you are using and the facts in which you think that you have on hand because I was deeply immersed in it.

The truth is, respectfully, its bullshit. For every film that failed because it went ''woke'', I can point to you several other reasons why it also failed. A strong woman does not mean that men are ''emasculated''. A strong woman isn't ''making them like a man''. And plenty of people love strong, powerful women who veer into the traits of what used to be the sole reserve of masculinity. That's why films are still made that are centred around them, not because of some agenda.

The PROBLEM is bad writing. The PROBLEM is Hollywood nepotism elevating the wrong people to the wrong jobs. No one back during T1 or T2 said that Sarah Connor emasculated Reese or John just by her mere presence - but they say it now regarding the modern films. Why? Because those films suck. That's why. Not because there is something inherently bad about strong women. Because if that was the case then T2 would be remembered just as badly.

And to roll this back to Star Trek, give me Kira over Troi any day of the week.

Dude. MAD RESPECT for this post.