Holy moly....Raffis artwork. 😱😰😆 But better her than Soji, which looks awesome. 😜
Makes me think of...
I had the exact same thought... there's no depth to her hair, and something is off about her face (and not just the over-shadowing on the right side)… I just can't put my finger on it.
The hair is even worse than in the series which is a challenge to accomplish. But the right hand and the face are magnificent. Overall I quite like it.
Wir, die Mirror Tribbles [MiT] haben freie Plätze zu vergeben. Kein Zwang und kein Stress, dafür aber Spaß, Discord und eine nette, hilfsbereite Gemeinschaft, incl. voll ausgebauter Starbase und täglich 700 ISM.
While Roddenberry was alive the show was intended to be aspirational. Humans weren't perfect, but they reached a point where they weren't in conflict with themselves, and had the technology, so they were free to put all their energy into exploring the galaxy around them and engage in personal pursuits without being subject to wage slavery. The federation was not intended to ever represent any one nationality, but a best imagined mix of the whole. Conflict and social commentary was made through what they encountered as the traveled. It is misinformed to suggest the entirety of humanity was perfect. Individuals such as Daystrom who imagined turning too much control over to machines was a federation scientist. Internal conflict wasn't gone. Humans could still make mistakes. The key factor was that the federation struck and stuck a balance we are best able to imagine. It existed as a goal to reach, and defaulted to it.
It no longer strikes a balance. It is a dark reflection of our worst impulses put up as a cautionary tale, when the entire point was intended to show those dark impulses generally in what was encountered while maintaining the imaged goal for humans to achive. I understand the perspective of preferring a story to be told from a perspective more identifiable by the viewer. I enjoy many movies and shows told that way too. But not all stories need or should be told from the same perspective. There is a place for those told to present a goal to achieve and those told merely to reflect the human struggle to coexist and survive.
This current version of Star Trek is nothing to aspire to. It's now little more than the dark image of a broken and dying future where humans break themselves into pieces for power. They may be more like us today, and that is a tragedy. It is a testament to hypocrisy that Star Trek had to be reimagined to be told from a common baseline style and perspective. The people writing it complaining about being heard unrestrained, while they refuse to hear, appreciate, and respect how the person wanted it to be told. I think it speaks to human insecurity and the need to bring everything down into the mud. To alter the world to reflect the individual, to make it familiar.
My two cents:
There were two contrasting schools of thought back in the 60's/70's, one of optimism and one of pessimism, which very much influenced pop culture in general and speculative/science-fiction in particular. Gene Roddenberry's vision was full of idealistic hope for humanity, inspired by the ambitious progressivism of JFK's New Frontier concept. Conversely, Pierre Boulle wrote his Planet of the Apes as a sort of cynical and conflicted study of the imperfect human condition one would associate with the Vietnam era. While both philosophies were valid and had merit, Roddenberry's brainchild basically came out on top because the average person could be rallied to support positive change, and felt personally empowered enough to make a difference in the world. This is (of course) a gross oversimplification, but all I'm saying is that hope and responsibility were still powerful motivators within that cultural context.
But things eventually changed, all around. By the 80's/90's, a combination of technological and socioeconomic alienation had permeated much of society. The average person felt more fear and disenfranchisement than they did hope...they had gone from being the active hero of their own story to playing the passive role of the victim. Boulle's perspective became much more relatable to this mentality, and so the cyberpunk genre was born and continues to this day. Which is to say, the theme of all Trek produced from DS9 forward. IMHO, our society would have to advance enough to reach another plateau of cultural enlightenment, if we're to ever see truly inspirational sci-fi again. The art and medium can only reflect the values of the world which creates it, so it falls upon each of us to be responsible and effect a change.
Incidentally, some short essays were written in 2014 comparing the two different sci-fi paradigms of the 1960's. Humorist Dana Gould analyzed the topic with some academic skill, in the backs of issues of the Star Trek/Planet of the Apes crossover, The Primate Directive. And the story itself, written by Scott & David Tipton, was also very interesting. We see Captain Kirk (representing Roddenberry) coming to terms with Colonel Taylor (representing Boulle), within the context of Cold War machinations perpetrated by Commander Kor to topple the third-world regime of Ape City!
"We are visitors on this planet. We are here for ninety or one-hundred years at the very most. During that period, we must try to do something good, something useful, with our lives. If you contribute to other people's happiness, you will find the true goal, the true meaning of life." ~ H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama
"The eyes...are the groin...of the face." ~ Dwight K. Schrute III
Holy moly....Raffis artwork. 😱😰😆 But better her than Soji, which looks awesome. 😜
Makes me think of...
I had the exact same thought... there's no depth to her hair, and something is off about her face (and not just the over-shadowing on the right side)… I just can't put my finger on it.
Looks like they forgot to do the shading on the hair on crown of the head and the top pony. Or do any of the loose curls. Otherwise, I think it's pretty decent.
Like, just a little more shading and separation in the hair...? Take down the middle back bouffont just a touch, lighten the left side a little and give her back her right cheek contouring a bit.
Smoking some weird vape, getting drunk on what is clearly not synthehol, and ruining a shot at getting to know her son because she’s whacked out on the above two.
Welcome to the dystopian tragedy <snip> ~Shan that is now Star Trek.
Yeah it's definitely not Roddenberry's Star Trek.... don't know if as a kid i would have been attracted to yet another "oh look we are all going to die " show ....
Except for all those "oh look we are all going to die" episodes and movies.
As for Raffi, are people supposed to no longer have troubled personal lives in the 24th century?
Yes, they're all saints, perfect and born that way. It requires no effort, you cannot fail, and as long as you're nice to everyone everyone is going to be nice with you. At least according to the "not Star Trek" crowd.
Except for all those "oh look we are all going to die" episodes and movies.
As for Raffi, are people supposed to no longer have troubled personal lives in the 24th century?
Exactly, I’ve never believed the humans are perfect unless the plot needs them to be stories. It should be a goal they are trying to achieve but never reach.
But that wasn’t Roddenberry’s ST. In HIS vision, humanity HAD achieved that level of evolution. The writers team for TNG was very unhappy about the direction Roddenberry wanted them to go because of the lack of personal strife. Hard to write compelling kumbaya stories.
In Roddenberry's Trek, the Federation people still commit genocides. If you call that an evolution then we've had very evolved people during the last century.
Except for all those "oh look we are all going to die" episodes and movies.
As for Raffi, are people supposed to no longer have troubled personal lives in the 24th century?
Exactly, I’ve never believed the humans are perfect unless the plot needs them to be stories. It should be a goal they are trying to achieve but never reach.
But that wasn’t Roddenberry’s ST. In HIS vision, humanity HAD achieved that level of evolution. The writers team for TNG was very unhappy about the direction Roddenberry wanted them to go because of the lack of personal strife. Hard to write compelling kumbaya stories.
In Roddenberry's Trek, the Federation people still commit genocides. If you call that an evolution then we've had very evolved people during the last c
I haven't read up on Roddenberry much. I just enjoy the shows. Please take this as an honest question and not sarcasm, baiting, or hostile.
Are we conflating Roddenberry's vision for humanity with his vision for the show?
DS9 and Andromeda (moreso Andromeda) showed the darker side of humanity more than his other shows. Could the networks have been the mellowing factors that kept the older shows from being as dark as the newer shows?
There also seems to be a push toward "raw and real" (I don't care for this trend) in contemporary media. Is this just an unavoidable move because of the times? I'm afraid this is the case, though again, I'm not happy about it.
Roddenberry died before Deep Space Nine and Andromeda were made. He had worked on the ideas for these shows but had no control in what they did. You are correct that every series now is going darker as it is the in thing. Netflix did it with Anne of Green Gables and Lost in Space. When all the shows do it it is no longer original just played out and cliche. In Star Trek Picard to me it felt like most of the deaths were over the top and did not serve a purpose except to say “look how dark we can make the show.” I disagree with those that say DS9 was dark though. They were Starfleet trying to explore and work with others and then the war broke out and they were taxed by it but ultimately triumphed and brought peace back to the Alpha Quadrant. I watched less of Andromeda but if I recall although that show’s version of the Federation was gone Kevin Sorbo’s character was determined to bring it back upholding those ideals. I think where showrunner Michael Chabon made a mistake with Star Trek Picard
is that what little he showed of Starfleet and the Federation showed that they had given up their ideals and the universe was devoid of hope. Michael Chabon was shocked when viewers saw the universe he had created that way but that was what he depicted. A universe in which the heroes were all corrupt or broken. Even Admiral Picard had failed to save people and given up which is something so anathema to his Captain Picard character. Admiral Picard did find a way to regain that which he lost and bring hope back but that part felt rushed and not earned. If the universe is darker then more is required to bring it back to the light. I think going forward Star Trek Picard will be more like what we have generally seen in other treks.
The major difference between ST:Picard and 60-80s Trek is that it doesn't ambition to be the opiates of the people anymore, you can't sit on your hands and hope for a bright future, you've got to work for it, it **tsk tsk**, it's frustrating because no one else cares, it's exhausting, people won't thank you for it but if you're a good man then you're still dong it.
All television is an opiate of the masses. But thanks for helping make the point that the show has been fundamentally changed from what it was. I did get a good laugh from the irony of defending a message about doing the hard work when it comes from people who hijacked some one else's show as a short cut to success instead of making their own. I also got a good giggle out of the narcissism of supporting a fundamental message change if it supports your values. It's an interesting perspective, that people who don't have the same values should accept loosing things that reflect their own values, simply because you don't share them.
However, the message presented by the show, and the one you seem to be getting from it, don't seem to match up. In every single episode Picard tells anyone willing to listen, that the Federation should have done more and given the Romulans more handouts. It is a clear modern liberal comment on developed countries failing in their responsibility to rescue people from refugees to immigrants. That anyone and everyone should have space made for them. That the Federation has a fundamental duty to embrace anyone and every one. The only exception to this is when he rants at them about needing to be more grateful and integrating better.
Contrast that with the exact same situation on DS9. On DS9, the Bajorans were the token refugees. The Federation gave them Sisko to work as an advisor, but thats it. Before they could join the Federation and get more from it, they had to demonstrate their ability to stand on their own. When presented with the option to shorten that time frame, Sisko advised against it and the Bajoran government agreed. The prime directive was created specifically to do the same. To ensure new species had developed what the Federation had to offer before they could exchange notes on it. Voyager repeatedly refused to offer those handouts even when it could have shortened the trip home. Picard denied help on several occasions in TNG because of the prime directive. Offering nothing more than supportive advise and mediation at best. On Enterprise the Vulcans absolutely refused to give handouts and even held back human growth to make sure they were better prepared when they went out.
If you like Picard that's fine. I watched it so I could have an informed opinion. Putting aside my bias for earlier shows. The new shows are a mess when it comes to writing. The plots are illogical and driven by the often inconsistent social messages. They try to hard to say too much and end up doing too little. And, without spoiling it, the end of the show jumped the shark. There is absolutely no way that a character with such horrible and specific PTSD would handle how the finale resolved.
It's not just the tone, it's the absolutely horrible writing I don't like. But in all fairness I feel the same way about a lot of the shows people have convinced me to watch. I have accepted that real Trek is dead (unless CBS wakes up and licenses it to Seth McFarland). So if you love it, enjoy it. The characters from those series mean nothing to me beyond their ability to help me farm the game. And that should be enough for everyone.
There are hierarchies in values. That's not typically what western societies teach us but if someone is of the opinion that the sky is green and someone else that the sky is blue, then one of them holds a superior opinion since one is right and the other is wrong. Not all values and opinions are created equal.
At the core of science fiction, there is science and for science to be possible, you need to ground your ideas into reality as science is a process to inform us about reality in a reliable way, otherwise it's not sci fi, it's fantasy. There's nothing wrong with fantasy, The Lord of the Rings is fun but it's not fair to call that science fiction.
In the 1960s, you could ground your science fiction into techno-optimism, ie you could reasonably think that technology and material plenty could handwave all the problems humanity had faced and that this would lead to an era where conflict and ego would belong to the past. With what we know today of man made climate change that is accelerated by technology (not going to explain this one but please read up on the Jevons paradox) what was science fiction in the 60s is fantasy today. So today's writers do the only logical thing, they do what everyone already did in the 1960s, they look around them and write a believable future. It's not about values or anything else, it comes from "what does science tell us about the world we live in and where are we headed to?" If you're not interested in answering that question, you're not a sci fi writer and you may as well use magic wands and unicorns. And again, there is nothing wrong with that, but both genres have bounds and it's only fairness to call a cat a cat. And before someone misquote me, no I'm not saying that TNG or TOS aren't science fiction anymore, but they're historic sci fi. They're dated.
There's another principle in techno-opitmist sci fi of the past that DS9 opted not to follow, which was that any problem had a technical or technological solution. When you remove that option, not all issues have a happy ending, which is probably why DS9 is regarded as one of the best entries in the Star Trek universe since it's far more relatable and why this exists. However it kept the material abundance thing that ST:Picard let go too in the light of modern knowledge and you end up with refugee crisis that aren't solved because resources aren't unlimited and sometimes your population has to chose between its comfort and helping their starving neighbour.
You are confusing science with the interpretation of scientifically collected data. This is exceptionally common. Science does not tell us stuff. It confirms stuff through test and observation. Science can demonstrate that the comet we see in the night sky is made up of certain materials (since we smashed a probe into one and observed it) and will orbit in a specific path. Science *cannot* "tell" us more. It can suggest things that scientists can attempt to prove. All of that is theory. All scientifically derived conclusions that cannot be observed are natural philosophy. It is not science that tells us about the Ort Cloud. That is a theoretical thing derived from a combination of the observed facts and the natural philosophy believed by the proponent. Please do not misunderstand me. That does not mean it is wrong. It simply means that science does not tell us these things. Science gives only observable and repeatable facts. Your world view will bias your interpretation of those facts. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is vital that we all understand this.
In addition, you conflate science and human experience. The fact that a majority of people and/or political organizations seem to be headed in a certain direction now does not mean that will be the case in hundreds of years. I believe an optimistic view of the future is the best view. Science cannot tell you where we are headed as a people. It can only tell us where we are and make testable predictions on where we might go. People can and will course-correct. It is a process that has been observed in both successes and failures throughout history. An optimistic outlook does not make things fantasy. Anyone who believes that needs to re-evaluate their personal philosophical beliefs. That attitude is most certainly not science. Nor does science tell us that there is a resource problem. Even on this small planet right now we have an abundance of resources. We most certainly have issues with resource allocation and distribution. That is something we can work on.
Star Trek suggests (even in the optimistic origional) that there are some scarcity issues, but human (or alien) ingenuity and determination, combined with technology can get us over it.
Let us remember that most of what we think of as science is really how our philosophy interprets the actual science. Once we can do that, we can see what is possible and try to achieve it. Don't allow natural philosophers posing as scientists tell you what science says. Look at the scientific facts and see what interpretations are reasonable.
Holy moly....Raffis artwork. 😱😰😆 But better her than Soji, which looks awesome. 😜
Makes me think of...
I had the exact same thought... there's no depth to her hair, and something is off about her face (and not just the over-shadowing on the right side)… I just can't put my finger on it.
I think that adding some light to her clothing (like the picture quoted) would go a long way toward making her hair and face look less like floating entities. Other than that, Raffi looks good.
Comments
Moppy?!?!?
Makes me think of...
Raffi: Can you make me look like a tribble smuggler?
Stylist: Hold my Romulan Ale.
I had the exact same thought... there's no depth to her hair, and something is off about her face (and not just the over-shadowing on the right side)… I just can't put my finger on it.
The Trouble With Tribble Head......
My two cents:
There were two contrasting schools of thought back in the 60's/70's, one of optimism and one of pessimism, which very much influenced pop culture in general and speculative/science-fiction in particular. Gene Roddenberry's vision was full of idealistic hope for humanity, inspired by the ambitious progressivism of JFK's New Frontier concept. Conversely, Pierre Boulle wrote his Planet of the Apes as a sort of cynical and conflicted study of the imperfect human condition one would associate with the Vietnam era. While both philosophies were valid and had merit, Roddenberry's brainchild basically came out on top because the average person could be rallied to support positive change, and felt personally empowered enough to make a difference in the world. This is (of course) a gross oversimplification, but all I'm saying is that hope and responsibility were still powerful motivators within that cultural context.
But things eventually changed, all around. By the 80's/90's, a combination of technological and socioeconomic alienation had permeated much of society. The average person felt more fear and disenfranchisement than they did hope...they had gone from being the active hero of their own story to playing the passive role of the victim. Boulle's perspective became much more relatable to this mentality, and so the cyberpunk genre was born and continues to this day. Which is to say, the theme of all Trek produced from DS9 forward. IMHO, our society would have to advance enough to reach another plateau of cultural enlightenment, if we're to ever see truly inspirational sci-fi again. The art and medium can only reflect the values of the world which creates it, so it falls upon each of us to be responsible and effect a change.
Incidentally, some short essays were written in 2014 comparing the two different sci-fi paradigms of the 1960's. Humorist Dana Gould analyzed the topic with some academic skill, in the backs of issues of the Star Trek/Planet of the Apes crossover, The Primate Directive. And the story itself, written by Scott & David Tipton, was also very interesting. We see Captain Kirk (representing Roddenberry) coming to terms with Colonel Taylor (representing Boulle), within the context of Cold War machinations perpetrated by Commander Kor to topple the third-world regime of Ape City!
"The eyes...are the groin...of the face." ~ Dwight K. Schrute III
Looks like they forgot to do the shading on the hair on crown of the head and the top pony. Or do any of the loose curls. Otherwise, I think it's pretty decent.
Like, just a little more shading and separation in the hair...? Take down the middle back bouffont just a touch, lighten the left side a little and give her back her right cheek contouring a bit.
Slight adjustment:
Original:
There are hierarchies in values. That's not typically what western societies teach us but if someone is of the opinion that the sky is green and someone else that the sky is blue, then one of them holds a superior opinion since one is right and the other is wrong. Not all values and opinions are created equal.
At the core of science fiction, there is science and for science to be possible, you need to ground your ideas into reality as science is a process to inform us about reality in a reliable way, otherwise it's not sci fi, it's fantasy. There's nothing wrong with fantasy, The Lord of the Rings is fun but it's not fair to call that science fiction.
In the 1960s, you could ground your science fiction into techno-optimism, ie you could reasonably think that technology and material plenty could handwave all the problems humanity had faced and that this would lead to an era where conflict and ego would belong to the past. With what we know today of man made climate change that is accelerated by technology (not going to explain this one but please read up on the Jevons paradox) what was science fiction in the 60s is fantasy today. So today's writers do the only logical thing, they do what everyone already did in the 1960s, they look around them and write a believable future. It's not about values or anything else, it comes from "what does science tell us about the world we live in and where are we headed to?" If you're not interested in answering that question, you're not a sci fi writer and you may as well use magic wands and unicorns. And again, there is nothing wrong with that, but both genres have bounds and it's only fairness to call a cat a cat. And before someone misquote me, no I'm not saying that TNG or TOS aren't science fiction anymore, but they're historic sci fi. They're dated.
There's another principle in techno-opitmist sci fi of the past that DS9 opted not to follow, which was that any problem had a technical or technological solution. When you remove that option, not all issues have a happy ending, which is probably why DS9 is regarded as one of the best entries in the Star Trek universe since it's far more relatable and why this exists. However it kept the material abundance thing that ST:Picard let go too in the light of modern knowledge and you end up with refugee crisis that aren't solved because resources aren't unlimited and sometimes your population has to chose between its comfort and helping their starving neighbour.
In addition, you conflate science and human experience. The fact that a majority of people and/or political organizations seem to be headed in a certain direction now does not mean that will be the case in hundreds of years. I believe an optimistic view of the future is the best view. Science cannot tell you where we are headed as a people. It can only tell us where we are and make testable predictions on where we might go. People can and will course-correct. It is a process that has been observed in both successes and failures throughout history. An optimistic outlook does not make things fantasy. Anyone who believes that needs to re-evaluate their personal philosophical beliefs. That attitude is most certainly not science. Nor does science tell us that there is a resource problem. Even on this small planet right now we have an abundance of resources. We most certainly have issues with resource allocation and distribution. That is something we can work on.
Star Trek suggests (even in the optimistic origional) that there are some scarcity issues, but human (or alien) ingenuity and determination, combined with technology can get us over it.
Let us remember that most of what we think of as science is really how our philosophy interprets the actual science. Once we can do that, we can see what is possible and try to achieve it. Don't allow natural philosophers posing as scientists tell you what science says. Look at the scientific facts and see what interpretations are reasonable.
I wonder how much some people would be upset if one of her equipment is "Raffi's Vape Pen".
they’ll probably label it ‘Raffi’s Diffuser Pen’
Proud member of Patterns of Force
Captain Level 99
Played since January 2017
TP: Do better!!!
They can call it what they want. We will acknowledge she lives the Vape Life........
I think that adding some light to her clothing (like the picture quoted) would go a long way toward making her hair and face look less like floating entities. Other than that, Raffi looks good.
Thx for the advanced heads up. 👍🏻
Thanks. I forgot that, too. I was thinking skirmish for some reason.
Not thrilled with Rafi’s skills though. Though she sh
Proud member of Patterns of Force
Captain Level 99
Played since January 2017
TP: Do better!!!
Same. I got the character I wanted aswell, sods law - oh well, 200 honor closer to the citation for Soji...
That is worse for new players. For me, the mega is a chroniton mega and so I don't need a lot of crew.