Star Trek Social Club
r/startrek: The Next Generation
Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...
Maybe a little slash fic.
New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 08-28 | SNW 3x08 | "Four-and-a-Half Vulcans" |
| 09-04 | SNW 3x09 | "Terrarium" |
| 09-11 | SNW 3x10 | "New Life and New Civilizations" |
| 01-15 | SFA 1x01 | TBA |
| 01-15 | SFA 1x02 | TBA |
In Production
Strange New Worlds (TBA)
Starfleet Academy (2026-01-15)
In Development
Untitled comedy series
Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok.
It's hard to see one's own bias.
Yeah, indeed.
Still waiting for you to explain how something is sexist when it's not related to gender btw.
Sex and gender are two different things. It wouldn't be related.
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?
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.
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.