this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025

47 points (100.0% liked)

Star Trek Social Club

14285 readers

139 users here now

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...

Maybe a little slash fic.

Rules

1 Be constructive

All posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.

2 Be welcoming

It is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.

3 Be truthful

All posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.

4 Be nice

If a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.

5 Spoilers

Utilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episode. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.

6 Keep on-topic

All submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books, etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/Quarks.

7 Meta

Questions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.

Upcoming Episodes

Date	Episode	Title
02-12	SFA 1x06	"Come, Let's Away"
02-19	SFA 1x07	"Ko’Zeine"
02-26	SFA 1x08	"The Life of the Stars"
03-05	SFA 1x09	"300th Night"
03-12	SFA 1x10	TBA

In Production

Strange New Worlds (TBA)

Starfleet Academy

In Development

Untitled theatrical film

Untitled comedy series

Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.

Allied Discord Server

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

ValueSubtracted@startrek.website

USSBurritoTruck@startrek.website

OpticalData@startrek.website

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. (beige.party)

submitted 2 months ago by LoganFive@beige.party to c/startrek@startrek.website

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Steve@communick.news 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Snowcano@startrek.website 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Steve@communick.news 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Snowcano@startrek.website 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

i'm so glad people like you arent the one writing shows

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Enterprises season three is like the next generation season 1 it's okay to skip

[–] hallettj@leminal.space 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] GeeDubHayduke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

I'm actually making my way thru TNG for the first time, and i gotta say that i found it kinda surprising how horny the first season was. But then i remember it came out in like '87 and it makes more sense.

[–] Anomnomnomaly@beige.party 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@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.

[–] farah@beige.party -3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

@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

[–] Steve@communick.news 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can see how that seems sexist, right?
Especially when 7 and The Doctor are debatably tied, for most interesting character on the show.

[+] farah@beige.party -9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@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)

[–] Steve@communick.news 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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"

[–] Steve@communick.news 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

Maybe the Borg just realized sexy drones serve as great tools to distract (overwhelmingly male) enemy soldiers in combat! The Borg weaponized the male gaze! :D

[–] Steve@communick.news 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Attacking a character for their character is fine.
Attacking produces being driven by sexism is fine.
Attacking a character because they were created by sexist producers, is sexist.
Attack the creation process, sure. But judge the character on the character.

You just attacked Harry Kim as a bad character. That's fine. It would be nice if you were more specific, but it's not important.
Your critique of 7 have been all about her appearance. (Comming up more substantive criticism of 7 now, would only seem a justification after the fact. I wouldn't recommend it.)

Another argument is: In US entertainment, nearly everyone is cast largely because of how attractive they are or aren't. Even the "uguly people" in movies, are usually just kind of average looking. Singeling out the "sexy one" for being cast by their appearance is sexist.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I am not attacking the character because of looks, but because of intention.

Seven is wearing heels and a boob armor as an objectification. The reason this is more significant than, I don't know, some random action movie crap objectifying women, is that star trek (and I would say, especially voyager) was not overall sexual, but they went out of their way to make a character that is overly sexual compared to both the tone of the show and the concept of the borg.

My criticisms were not about her looks, but about the goal of her looks and the implications of them. As I said, it is not only gross to try to make a character just to make people get hard while watching the show, it is also incoherent with the universe of the show (as before, borg and heels don't make sense) and extremely immoral (again, the character is shown as having the mind of a kid, not understanding sexual matters as you would expect from a kid, and yet the show is fine showing her as a sexual object).

The people responsible for the character are pieces of shit, the character is an abomination, and the looks are part of the package and a big symptom of why the character is bad. On their own, her looks wouldn't be the problem, if it didn't raise a lot of problems. As an example, if star trek was showing all characters wear overly sexual outfits like seven's, then this would be a different matter; but this is not the case. TNG was a bit like that sometimes, with Picard and Riker's pajamas that open down to the knees and weird stretching yoga sessions, and as such it's hard to specifically pinpoint a character, as it's just a general ambiance. Voyager doesn't have that.

Also, you keep on talking about sexism, but complaining about objectification is not even related to gender so I struggle seeing how that even fits. Objectification is always bad, no matter the gender, it doesn't make sense. The difference with seven is that her objectification wasn't a "once in a while" thing, it was permanent, as it was the whole purpose of the character, and it's not like the writing surrounding her saves anything.

[–] Steve@communick.news 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I am not attacking the character because of looks, but because of intention.

Exactly. Your conflating the character, with its creation. Your calling her bad not for who the character is or who she became, but solely for the process that created her based on looks. You're implying or assuming, a good character couldn't come from a bad process.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah so you're ignoring most of what I'm saying on purpose.

I explained multiple times why the looks of seven, on top of being pure objectification which has negative consequences outside of the universe of the show, also have a pretty bad impact within the show, making it a bad character both from a meta and in-lore perspective.

I even said that if everyone was dressed like her it wouldn't have the same impact (even though it would be far from fixing the character).

If you're not going to debate in good faith there is no point, have a good day.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Literally everything you've mentioned was about her looks, and how they were the basis for her being put on the show. You've mentioned nothing about the characters actions, choices, relationships with other crewmembers, or Jeri Ryan's performance.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Her outfit matters as it makes the character incoherent. No one in the show wondered why a battle robot would wear heels. She didn't say why either. As such, her character already doesn't make sense. It is heels and a boob armor, it could have been a broom up her ass, either way it doesn't make sense and it's not about "her looks" but about the implications of the character deciding to wear something like this. Borgs are supposed to be ultra-rational, this makes her character stupidly incoherent.

And how is the fact that a kid is shown as being sexualized and romanced by adults characters about her looks? My point was that she's a kid mentally, and yet portrayed sexually, how is that about looks? Of course, the underlying meta explanation is that she was just a sex object put in the show for her looks, but my point was precisely that characters in the show, since they don't know that, are apparently fine with dating a kid. This is a horrible character, no matter her looks.

Overall, most of my points were not about her looks, but they do relate to it since the character was made badly just so that it could be objectified. To try to make you understand, her looks are not the problem, but the main reason that pushed the writers to make a bad, incoherent, shitty character. And of course I didn't even start digging into the things you mentioned because they are too many and less bad than what I mentioned, but yes, her actions and choices are incoherent, her relationships weird and bad and basically child abuse, and her performance was pretty abysmal. I just focused on the initial, core problem of the character, which is that it was written lazily because they didn't care about it making sense, about picking a proper actress, or about thinking about the moral implications of their choices, as all that they wanted was an object-woman.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Ok.
It's hard to see one's own bias.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, indeed.

Still waiting for you to explain how something is sexist when it's not related to gender btw.

[–] Steve@communick.news 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sex and gender are two different things. It wouldn't be related.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes and sexism is about gender, not sex.

But sure, let's continue on this bad faith argument, since my point was that I am against objectification of both men and women, so whether it is about sex and gender it's the same since it's related to neither. So how is it sexist?

[–] Steve@communick.news 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How many times have you been upset at a male being cast for their appearance? I mentionned before nearly all actors in US media have been cast for their attractiveness.

Do you rail against the unrealistic body standards of male superheros in comic books, the same way you would women?

Be honest, nobody does.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah so you're really set on talking to yourself.

I am talking about objectification. The concept of showing someone as primarily an attractive body, as if they were nothing else.

And yes, just in star trek I mentioned instances of it, and I didn't even get started on shits like Enterprise.

Of course comic books have an extreme tendency to show unrealistic body standards, and the fact that the idea of a "normal" guy now is a bodybuilder says a lot, but that's not about objectification. When Star Trek shows Riker naked in his bathtub just for the sake of it, yeah, that is. And yes I'm against it.

I think you are so stuck in your vision of things that you just cannot admit that someone would see things differently.

[–] benfell@infosec.exchange 1 points 2 months ago

@Solumbran @Steve

I agree with this in Voyager, a show I was never very impressed by anyway. She emerged as a much stronger character in Picard, however.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

I'm with you, I hated neelix too, but he was there from the beginning.

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 1 points 2 months ago

It was a response to 9/11.

[–] SurfinBird@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LoganFive@beige.party 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@SurfinBird omg, but he was so awful!

[–] SurfinBird@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Now you are making me want to rewatch.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh look, it's what ruined Şişko for me.

[–] DadVolante@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He can live with that.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

that's what makes it so bad.