I was giving Enterprise another chance, and even Archer was starting to grow on me in season 2. Then season 3 happened and he became a war criminal.
#StarTrek
#Enterprise
@startrek@startrek.website
@startrek@lemmy.ml
@StarTrek@mastodon.social
I’m not sure what the problem is.
Does it make Archer a bad character, or Enterprise a bad show, when he breaks bad for understandable reasons?I think the character decisions were motivated, intentionally difficult to wrestle with and especially relevant for the time it was made. I think what makes the show unforgivable for it however, is the complete lack of consequences for those transgressions.
And before someone brings up DS9 and In the Pale Moonlight, I would point out that that entire episode was doing the work of questioning and condemning decisions just like this. It’s what ENT was missing.
You’re still judgeing the quality of the story by your morality.
It’s common for terrible acts to go unpunished. There are lots of movies and shows where the bad guy wins. Many where you can’t even tell who the bad guy is. But they’re still good stories.It’s common for terrible acts to go unpunished. There are lots of movies and shows where the bad guy wins. Many where you can’t even tell who the bad guy is. But they’re still good stories.
That’s kind of my point though, the show failed to make any statement about it, including this one. In fact, what you say here would have been an exceptional statement to make, especially considering the post-9/11 backdrop of this season’s arc. Instead they were just like, “ANYWAY, time for some timetravel shenanigans” or whatever the next season was doing, I don’t recall. That absence of comment is the failure the show makes is what I’m really saying.
Enterprises season three is like the next generation season 1 it’s okay to skip
I just rewatched TNG season 1, and I found it much more fun than I remembered! (Excluding Code of Honor ofc.) Super goofy, super Wesley-heavy. But fun!
Faulty memory from way back in the first run here, but… Archer suddenly drove some ratings with the sexy hard captain act. Writers may have taken it a little too far in Season 3.
@SurfinBird omg, but he was so awful!
Now you are making me want to rewatch.
@LoganFive @startrek@startrek.website @startrek@lemmy.ml @StarTrek@mastodon.social
And yet… still better than Voyager.
and yes… I am prepared to die on that hill.
@Anomnomnomaly @LoganFive @startrek@startrek.website @startrek@lemmy.ml @StarTrek@mastodon.social Sir
I mean voyager went downhill after certain crew member joined the ship; but still
You mean Barclay I assume?
You can see how that seems sexist, right?
Especially when 7 and The Doctor are debatably tied, for most interesting character on the show.@Steve I’m confused. Are we talking about the hologram doctor? Because that guy was awful. For Star Trek doctors, he was hands down, the second worst. (The worst goes to Julian Bashir of course)
The hologram was the only doctor on the show.
And the only character actually named The Doctor. Note the capitalization use.And thinking the show went bad because a sexy actor was brought on to up the sexiness, is sexist.
Unless you didn’t like her evolution as a character, or thought she was a bad actor. Those would just be bad takes, not actually sexist.So not liking a character that was just here to be an objectified woman is sexist?
How the fuck do you even reach such a stretch?
The character of seven was not just an objectified, sexual thing, she was also debatably a kid (mentally) being sexualized as, let’s not forget it, her individual growth was halted when she got assimilated.
And also, I’m waiting for anyone to try to explain to me why a borg would have heels and a boob-armor, which is obviously absurdly nonsensical and showing that she’s just here to make a bunch of creeps get boners.
If I had to describe voyager, I would probably end up saying “an okay show, if you manage to pretend seven doesn’t exist”
Seeing a character as nothing more than her body is sexist.
It’s sexist to create and cast the character for it.
It’s sexist to dislike the character for it.In both cases you’re judging a character/person solely by their appearance.
This logic makes no sense.
Seven is a symbol of sexism by the fact that she was just here to be a sex object. I dislike the character (partly, as I mentioned there are a lot of reasons to hate this shitty character) because it is the typical product of sexism where the woman is supposed to wear hills and show her boobs, even if she’s a braindead robot.
I am judging the character by the purpose of it. There is no person that I’m judging, I’m attacking the concept and the people who made it.
Also, I struggle how it is sexist considering that it’s unrelated to gender. Harry Kim is an equally bad character that was just put here because the actor was elected sexiest man of the year or some other stupid shit like that; the difference being that he was not put as a central character, and didn’t completely destroy the coherence of the show.
On a side note, I really don’t understand what is the goal of trying to say that pointing out sexism is sexist. You’d rather have people not point out anything and let sexism happen freely? Now that sounds sexist.
@eryops @Anomnomnomaly @LoganFive @startrek@startrek.website @startrek@lemmy.ml @StarTrek@mastodon.social Neelix was an a-hole. Every ship crew needed an a-hole
Besides Tuvix was one of my favorite episodes
@farah @eryops @Anomnomnomaly @startrek@startrek.website @startrek@lemmy.ml @StarTrek@mastodon.social
7 of 9 saved the show.
I will take no other questions.
Oh look, it’s what ruined Şişko for me.
He can live with that.
that’s what makes it so bad.
