Picard Season 3

[Paul Farquhar]

I like Scott Bakula. I wanted him to do well. But let's be honest- Archer had two defining character two traits; he had a dog, and ... wait. He had ONE defining character trait. Which wasn't a character trait, it was a pet. Was Archer "duller" that Adira in Disco? Yeah. I think so. But no one says that Archer is a token!

Yes, Archer was a dull character, but since he was not a minority-group insert, he was not a token. People are not coming away from Enterprise thinking "all white heterosexual males with dogs are boring" because they have seen lots of other white heterosexual characters with dogs who are not boring. But if he was the only white heterosexual dog owner on TV, then you are teaching the lesson that white heterosexual dog owners are boring. People who are prejudiced against white heterosexual dog owners are not going to have their opinions changed, they are going to have their opinions reinforced.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes it does. HOW someone is represented matters. If the representation is a boring, unlikeable character it fuels prejudice. "They only got the job because..." But if the character is likable (eg. Nu-Uhura), people simply don't notice how that character might be different to them, and thus acceptance grows.

If you want to achieve change you are not going to achieve it by brow-beating people. You need to slip the new ideas in under their radar.

Yeah. It seems the brow-beating idea has really started to take hold in modern TV though.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, Archer was a dull character, but since he was not a minority-group insert, he was not a token. People are not coming away from Enterprise thinking "all white heterosexual males with dogs are boring" because they have seen lots of other white heterosexual characters with dogs who are not boring. But if he was the only white heterosexual dog owner on TV, then you are teaching the lesson that white heterosexual dog owners are boring. People who are prejudiced against white heterosexual dog owners are not going to have their opinions changed, they are going to have their opinions reinforced.

Ugh.

Please re-read what you just wrote! That's literally what I was saying. This, right here, this is the problem. This is why we continue to have issues with just basic representation.

White heterosexual male characters are always considered the baseline according to what you just wrote. So they never have to prove anything, or do anything. But if you want to actually reflect our diverse society, if you want to show people characters that represent them ... well, you're not allowed to unless, what? They meet some arbitrary seal of approval that they are "interesting enough?"

This is the issue. This is the problem with the tokenism argument. If they get more representation, then they're not tokens. But people will keep saying that they are tokens because they are fighting against increased representation!

Finally, the idea that bigots (sorry, "people who are prejudiced") are the people that we need to cater to when it comes to representation is kind of abhorrent to me. The bigots are already catered to by the default standards in a lot of media. The concept that having a character that has a same-sex relationship (for example) is "brow-beating" as opposed to ... normal ... is certainly an idea, but not one that I would want to touch with a 10' pole.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I like Scott Bakula. I wanted him to do well. But let's be honest- Archer had two defining character two traits; he had a dog, and ... wait. He had ONE defining character trait. Which wasn't a character trait, it was a pet. Was Archer "duller" that Adira in Disco? Yeah. I think so. But no one says that Archer is a token! No one goes on rants about Enterprise being bad because Enterprise had too much representation (HA!). No, it's allowed to be judged on its merits, for better or worse.

The problem here is that the token has a specific meaning, that connects to identity, and if the show traditionally centers white men and the culture traditionally centers white men, and this specific iteration of the show also centers a white man, he can hardly logically be called a token, can he?

I don't really agree with @Paul Farquhar's argument that the show has to do minority identities "right" or else it's committing some sort of crime, but the decisions re: Adira were not great. If you're going to be bold and have an NB character, why also make them an annoying Wesley-type. I don't think it's a duty or whatever, but it's like, a good example of what I see somewhat careless/inept writing in Disco. Disco has been willing to make bold moves - I don't think anyone could argue against that - but it's problem has been that the writing isn't up to the quality it has needed to be to really follow through on that boldness.

As for boring contest, I have to agree - Archer is a far worse character than Adira. The trouble is both are pretty bad. Archer is like a 3/10 yawn-fest zero personality but at least not actively repulsive (looking at you Paris, Neelix, early Chakotay) dude. Adira has some personality (not a great deal, but some), and whilst not a deep character, is at least vaguely memorable. The GreyTal stuff whilst a bit confusing honestly was sweet at least. Whereas her Wesley-like behaviour was... annoying. It's always annoying. I'm not sure why writers put "teen tech/science prodigy" characters in these shows. I've never met anyone who likes them. Certainly not even teen tech/science prodigies! I had a friend at school who was a Trekkie and years ahead of science/math stuff, and invited to CERN for half-term and stuff, and he loved TNG but he did NOT love Wesley any more than the rest of us. But they keep doing it - SeaQuest DSV did it for example.

Boring and unlikeable tend to be a matter of personal opinion.

I would argue that that's less the case than you're suggesting with TV characters.

There are very few characters, outside of Babygirl Meow Meow types (or the straight equivalents thereof), who really split the audience on whether they're likeable or boring or not. There will always be a few people who thought Wesley was a good character or whatever, but it's unlikely to be very many until the nostalgia sets in.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Just on a tangent and because I saw a comic con interview (timestamp 23:00 - 25:20 between all the messing around) with Kate Mulgrew and she raised an interesting point about theatrical and elevated style that exists within certainly the lead figures of the shows (historically speaking).
Willliam Shatner, Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew all had great diction and/or a background in theatre.
Even Scott Bakula had some experience with the latter.

I did not feel DISCO had this presence with their lead. I'd also say the largest issue existed with the writers, directors and the showrunner because they had decent actors and the production values were high, what they needed were some writers who didn't gush over teenage and young-adult writing and a showrunner who knew what he was doing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But people will keep saying that they are tokens because they are fighting against increased representation!

Some people will, sure. But mostly those are problematic people who can be safely disregarded, because they tend not to be very influential.

The argument that Paul is making, which is demonstrably true (even if I don't agree with his conclusion), unfortunately, is that if you put in a minority character and people like that character (even if they like them for being evil or whatever), the tokenism argument won't have any traction at all, and will likely backfire on the person making it. I can't think of any counter-examples. I can think of almost countless positive examples.

Also after a certain level of representation it just stops working unless the showrunners screw up and somehow make the character is a token, usually by exaggerating or hyperfocusing on something which exemplifies that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The problem here is that the token has a specific meaning, that connects to identity, and if the show traditionally centers white men and the culture traditionally centers white men, and this specific iteration of the show also centers a white man, he can hardly logically be called a token, can he?

...yes.

Which is why I think "tokenism" arguments are bad arguments. As I wrote before-

When people talk about tokenism (or brow-beating), they are really demanding a higher standard for representation. That's exactly what this is about. There is not a single person who says that "random white guy" is a token ... do they? No one requires that "random white guy" justifies their existence on a show.

Tokenism is just a fancy way of saying, "I think that people that have traditionally been underrepresented need to clear a higher bar to have the same representation as white hetero men." And when you put it like that, instead of saying "token," it not only becomes more clear, it becomes much more distasteful.

 

[Ryujin]

Ugh.

Please re-read what you just wrote! That's literally what I was saying. This, right here, this is the problem. This is why we continue to have issues with just basic representation.

White heterosexual male characters are always considered the baseline according to what you just wrote. So they never have to prove anything, or do anything. But if you want to actually reflect our diverse society, if you want to show people characters that represent them ... well, you're not allowed to unless, what? They meet some arbitrary seal of approval that they are "interesting enough?"

This is the issue. This is the problem with the tokenism argument. If they get more representation, then they're not tokens. But people will keep saying that they are tokens because they are fighting against increased representation!

Finally, the idea that bigots (sorry, "people who are prejudiced") are the people that we need to cater to when it comes to representation is kind of abhorrent to me. The bigots are already catered to by the default standards in a lot of media. The concept that having a character that has a same-sex relationship (for example) is "brow-beating" as opposed to ... normal ... is certainly an idea, but not one that I would want to touch with a 10' pole.

Yeah, the "brow beating" thing feels a lot like, "How dare you expose me to those people, who I actively avoid, and don't make me feel good about myself?!"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I liked Torres I admit I may be biased since I also thought she was hot.
You are right about Paris though being arrogant and pushy, but I also recall Janeway giving him a talking-to on more than one occasion. I cannot remember how he was by the end of the series. I'd have to rewatch it.

EDIT: I tend to agree with this and this take on Torres which does admit development of the character and her acceptance of Starfleet and her Klingon heritage.

I have too many Youtube videos to watch, but I actually agree that they developed her "acceptance of Starfleet" and Klingon heritage, they never fundamentally stopped being a downer and generally not a fun character, which like, on some shows could have been refreshing, but given on VOY we had:

Janeway - Often bad-tempered, sometimes bordering on being a martinet
Chakotay - Frequently smug and smarmy
EMH - Perpetually annoyed
Paris - Pushy, rude, arrogant
Neelix - Let's not even talk about it

We already had no shortage of bad-tempered/annoying characters. Maybe you can say "Well maybe one of the other ones should have been less of a jerk?", and sure, but like, that doesn't make Torres better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, the "brow beating" thing feels a lot like, "How dare you expose me to those people, who I actively avoid, and don't make me feel good about myself?!"

The problem as I see it is that some (not all) of these characters are primarily defined by being XYZ in the story, as opposed to it being part of who they are. Well-rounded characters are usually better characters.

On a separate note, are you supposed to give a poorly written character a pass because they are XYZ? Sometimes I feel like you are, and I'm having a hard time understanding it.