That was such a bad situation. The whole, “how dare you question me, get out,” loss of Gates McFadden. Dr. Pulaski’s introduction as Bones 2.0 instead of as a distinct, unique character, and her first comments to Data. I think Diana Muldaur is very talented and a Star Trek icon – TOS and TNG. Pulaski is a strong character, but that first impression was hard for me to shake. I was happy when Dr. Crusher returned, but by then I was also also sad to see Dr. Pulaski go. I wish that PIC had made room for a Dr. Pulaski appearance.
You’re not alone in that. Pretty much everyone I’ve ever encountered who dislikes Pulaski as character… it’s because all they remember of her is that first scene.
She’s a great example of just how brutally important first-impressions are.
I definitely disagree that she wasn’t her own, distinct character – she was, I think you’re letting that bad first impression continue to color your perspective. It’s easy to misremember Pulaski as being abrasive and antagonistic because of that first scene, and hard to remember that she apologized very quickly after that, and very quickly became friends with Data (and remained very supportive of him throughout her time on the ship).
So it’s weird seeing so much of the “discourse” on Pulaski boiling down to fans being angry at her for being mean to Data that one time while conveniently forgetting that she was one of only two people on that whole ship who went out and befriended the Android.
i always liked her more than beverly crusher. it was obvious they tried to give her something so they could do some character development from that point. i understand that some people didn’t like it, but i think she was interesting character, while crusher was always so bland. if pulaski have stayed, i wouldn’t mind.
what was going on with the actress behind the scene is indeed different story, i am just talking about the character.
deleted by creator
I hated her as a kid watching the show. But now I realize that I agree with her teleportation-is-murder-stance. I mean, it’s definitely murder.
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how transporters function in the Trek universe. There is no destruction, duplication, and recreation of objects. Matter is simply converted into quantum information and then converted back.
@CeruleanRuin @cranstonapple i like that idea.
you might be interested in this outer limits episode, if you haven’t seen it. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0667991/
I was glad to see that Pulaski at got a tribute with a ship named after her in PIC Season 3. That at least implies that she went on to do great things after leaving the Enterprise. I like to think that the USS Pulaski was one of the last to succumb on Frontier Day because its crew had the oldest combined age of any ship in the fleet.
Yea, in general, it seems it was really just part of the whole season 1 shitiness and the crappy politics behind it.
I did a rewatch of the early TNG seasons not long ago and recall it being fairly obvious that even though S3 is “when it gets good”, there was a notable difference between seasons 1 and 2 with S2 being clearly underrated. I think S2 is more up and down, with episodes probably as bad as s1 (like the finale, but that’s unfair) but also with episodes clearly better. I would guess that it was S2 that kept the show alive.
I’m currently watching TNG for the first time (up to S4 currently), and while Bev Crusher was definitely missed in season 2, season 2 has a few iconic episodes like Data’s trial and Riker’s exchange program. I wouldn’t say the show is bad before S3, it’s just that it’s still finding its footing.
Something I definitely noticed is that the first 2 seasons tend to spend more time “setting up” the story of each episode, while S3 onward is when they begin to do more “in media res” starts to episodes. Those slow starts feel very similar to the TOS episodes that I’ve seen, while the “hot start” makes it feel a lot more like a modern show.
It reminds me a bit of how both The Office and Parks and Rec have weak first seasons. In both cases, it’s largely because the first seasons of those shows involved them trying to replicate the success of another show (the UK Office for The US Office and The US Office for P&R) rather than understanding what their show was going to be, particularly with the tonal differences and the strengths of the cast. A lot of the problems of the first season of TNG seem to be caused by it trying to be too much like TOS.
@bionicjoey @maegul Keep in mind that TNGs first two seasons had to also deal with a writer’s strike. There were struggles away from the camera. But once it caught its stride, TNG was unstoppable.
I didn’t know about the writer’s strike, but I’m in agreement with you.
But yeah, I’ve bounced off of TOS a couple times. I had this notion that I was supposed to watch Trek series’ in order. Just last month I was like “fuck it, I’ll try skipping to TNG” and especially after season 1 it has really sucked me in.
I’ve heard her and the other actresses talk about that first season at conventions and it’s hard to shake the feeling of how dire that show was for all of them during that season. McFadden fired, Crosby quits, and Sirtis thought she was being let go (the writers had stopped speaking to her/producers had stopped taking meetings with her) up until Crosby quit. She believes the only reason she was still on the show is because Crosby quit before they could fire her.
The show lost 2 out of 3 lead actresses going into the second season. Not a great look.
“The show lost 2 out of 3 lead actresses going into the second season. Not a great look.”
Excellent point. I’ve read the, “this is how a security officer would go out,” explanation for Yar’s demise, but I never bought it. News of Denise Crosby leaving TNG was out before “Skin of Evil” was first broadcast. When I saw the episode I thought that Yar’s death came across as being intentionally petty and meaningless. “We have women as main characters but we don’t know what to do with them,” is endlessly frustrating to me, with Star Trek and other shows. A ship’s doctor, a chief of security, and a ship’s counselor who can sense emotions – that is a pretty rich ground from which to grow stories, beyond the characters backstories.
This is one of the not so insignificant reasons I really like S3 of Picard, Gates McFadden and Beverly Crusher feel like they were validated on so many levels in a way TNG unfortunately never quite did directly.
Some people call S3 of Picard too fan servicey but idk, TNG as a whole has been meaningfully improved for me because now when I have to watch a TNG episode and some weird sexist, cringey scene comes up like this
I can just imagine Crusher
spoiler
carpet bombing the borg cube
until the cringey scene ends
No doubt cringe; but pales in comparison what they put Jolene Blalock through.
Got any specific examples? I’m about halfway through S2 of an ENT rewatch.
You mean for needlessly and overly sexualizing her? All the decontamination chamber rub downs come to mind of course.
Ah, yeah. Wasn’t sure what kind of cringe you were meaning. The decon chambers were 100% a fanservice device.
100%. And if ratings were really down they even put Hoshi in there with her … I kid of course but only half ;-)
that video doesn’t work for me, do you have a direct link?
nevermind, it works if I change to the local instance this was posted on: https://startrek.website/post/61401
i havent seen ome person say i was too fan-servicy. i think the genersl consensus is that its awesome
I think it was too fan-servicy. There. Now you have.
I mean, I liked it, but still…
