I swear people that don’t watch trek think it’s just about lasers and technobabble.
I know people that refused to watch Discovery because ‘they made it all woke and now it’s all about women’.
Discovery has problems (I still like that show), but being woke it not one of them…
For me it was all the screaming.
This. I don’t watch Discovery anymore because I couldn’t stand a lot of the characters but it had absolute nothing to do with progressive views.
This! I could not stand the characters, just not my group of people I guess, which is fine. I don’t hate the show, it’s just not for me and I’m ok with that.
It’s got a very TOS-style of writing and story to it.
I remember seeing a fair few people pitch a fit about the Burn, for example, even though “angry man has a tantrum and nearly blows up the universe”, and “child with godlike powers” are common TOS plots.
They tried something new, which I don’t mind them for, but I don’t think it mixed well with people being used to more TNG-styles plots, and the writing not being that great. Still, it managed to help kickstart the modern revival of Trek, and gave us (non-wheelchair) Captain Pike, so it wasn’t all bad.
Since the beginning!
Star Trek in 1966: *has a bridge crew containing a black female, Russian man, and faaaabulous Japanese man, each of whom holds the rank of full Lieutenant on their own abundant merits*
And a Russian navigator at the height of the Cold War.
Oh yeah, I completely forgot about Chekov! Editing my comment now. Thank you!
And a Russian and Japanese crew member at the height of the Cold War. Not just as background, but as one of the main crew.
Not to mention, it featured the first interracial kiss on television.
In Nichelle Nichols’ autobiography she talks about how the network insisted the scene be filmed both with and without the kiss, and of course, being good loyal actors, they complied. But, on takes without the kiss, something always seemed to go wrong… Shatner flubbed a line, the boom was in the shot, the cameras weren’t quite set up correctly… eventually they ran out of time and were forced, “reluctantly”, to submit only the takes with the kiss. I recommend Beyond Uhura. Also Kate Mulgrew’s “autobiography” of Captain Janeway is a great read too. :)
And then, just as now, many said “I wouldn’t have a problem with it if they weren’t rubbing it in my face!”
*American television. IIRC British television had an interracial kiss over a decade earlier.
I’m sure they also watch Starship Troopers and completely miss the fact that it’s a satire.
That’s also the problem with any kind of forum that satirizes conservatives on the internet: sooner or later, it will get flooded with right wingers who completely fail to understand that they’re being made fun of, and who will start posting the satirized content in all seriousness.
Eventually, the original people who started the venue leave, and what’s left is just another right-wing echo chamber.
‘Make It So’: ‘Star Trek’ and Its Debt to Revolutionary Socialism
Beginning in 1966, the plot of “Star Trek” closely followed Posadas’s propositions. After a nuclear third world war (which Posadas also believed would lead to socialist revolution), Vulcan aliens visit Earth, welcoming them into a galactic federation and delivering replicator technology that would abolish scarcity. Humans soon unify as a species, formally abolishing money and all hierarchies of race, gender and class.
Thats not even the craziest part of that episode
Two things happened:
-
culture wars are at an all time high due to right wing lies and attempts to push everyone not like them back into a culture of fear and hiding. So they are more sensitive to stuff they would not have batted an eye over before.
-
stories no longer have men controlling everything and having all the authority/adventures
-
Star Trek has been utopian space communism from the very beginning.
Science fiction has always been a vehicle for exploring woke ideas. Separating an issue from its current context allows the audience to set aside their biases and look with fresh eyes.
I hate this reaction to removal they want, I’m a big fan of the placement card at the start of these things that say “What you are about to see is wrong and shouldn’t have been done,” but not that removal of the content. I think it’s way more powerful to put that content warning placard before a show from the '90s as proof there are still things that need to be done and it’s not a “distant” past thing.
Edit, I guess '80s for this episode.
What’s been removed?
Frakes recently renewed his call for the episode “Code of Honor” from season 1 to be completely removed from reruns, home video, and steaming platforms. He made the call in the past. So while they might not ever remove it, some people would like it to be removed.
“But I was told or I was under the impression that it had rubbed so many people the wrong way that it was pulled. I think they should take it out of the rotation. I think it is a great time to make that kind of – as small as it is – to make that kind of a statement would be fabulous.”
Also, I just realized I posted this on the completely wrong article that I thought I was, I thought I was posting to a different topic about Frakes’ request to remove the episode after finding out it was on Paramount’s streaming service.
which episode was that? pulling it is a dumb decision. just put the damn thing in context. i’m not going to pretend I didn’t do something stupid decades ago just to try to look good now. people (and franchises) grow and change.
Code of Honour
A.k.a “Dark men from Space Africa steal our white women”
In fairness, apparently when the episode was first pitched, they wanted the alien race to be reptiles, but it was subsequently changed to just be black people wearing tribal African clothing.
TNG, DS9, and Voyager had great writers. They deftly wove in contentious issues designed to invoke introspection and consideration of one’s own positions, prejudices, and biases. They appealed to people of all political persuasions because they didn’t cast judgement. “Oh that’s what you believe? Well here’s a whole planet built on those hypothetical principles. Here are some cool things, and some terrible things. Make up your own mind.”
Star Trek writers today have all the tact and nuance of an angry baboon flinging faeces at the viewer while screaming “REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!” Without exploration of the plentiful and beautiful nuance in life, what’s left is a sermon. A preachy, dire, boring sermon. And who better to lead the ceremony each week than the Maryest of Sues, Michael Burnham.
Comparing TNG with whatever the fuck we have today is an insult to Star Trek, and Trekkie Bill knows it.
You’ve got an interestingly warped memory of these past episodes. Much judgment was cast, and tolerance of the intolerant was never a theme.
and tolerance of the intolerant was never a theme.
I’m sorry but this is bullshit. I cite episode 1-2, season 1. Q places Picard and the Enterprise on trial for the misdeeds of the human race. This character and plot re-emerges many times throughout this show and others. As recently as Picard season 3. Q’s accusation is that the human race is guilty of crimes. He calls humanity a “dangerous, savage child-race.” He’s right, of course, which is what gives the theme gravitas. Picard’s ongoing game with Q is a form of atonement rather than a test. The theme is that us humans are clearly fallible, and guilty of much, but also capable of heroism and feats of bravery and altruism.
Star Trek isn’t Star Wars, with a baddie and a goodie. The three shows I cited explore the grey area between what you think is right, and what someone else thinks is right. They are powerful and thought-provoking precisely because they don’t treat the audience like children, or parishioners in their pews. “Tolerance of intolerance” was one of the central themes in Star Trek, because the writers demanded we explore the nature of our morality ourselves. As a Star Trek fan I’m surprised to be explaining this to you.
I’m not defending the straw man in this screenshot of a tweet, but this is a bad comparison. Roddenberry created a world in which the ideas of equality, freedom, diplomacy, and justice could be explored organically. He shifted the underlying economic motivations for the existence of political systems. He fought constantly with the studio system and his own writers to bring about a revolutionary vision of the future.
Since Roddenberry’s death, Star Trek: The Franchise has been slowly oscillating downwards: away from a universe whose observation reveals the objective value of virtue into one in which virtue is paid lip service at the cost of strong “physics” – that is, the sense of a coherent universe. Star Trek is now a product researched, marketed, designed, produced, tested, distributed, and defended by committee. Where once we had revolutionary subversions of what was allowed on television, we now find performative affirmations of popular lifestyle. If you have to compare yourself to 90’s broadcast television in order to feel revolutionary, you’re not.
The use of “woke” and “political” in this hypercontextualist style is so vague as to border on non-expression. Reacting to a reaction to a reaction to a reaction to a form of expression in which my reply wouldn’t be allowed due to a character limit is not critical thinking. We can do better than this. Roddenberry already did.
How does creating a product through research and committee equate to being “woke?” Countless products have been and are created to appeal to specific audiences. If you just define any product that is designed by committee, researched, focus tested, and made to appeal to a certain lifestyle or segment of the population, then everything is woke.
Country music is woke because it’s made to appeal to rural audiences who believe in rugged individualism. The Fast and Furious movies are woke because they’re made to appeal to people who are part of the car culture and like racing and modding their cars. Sennheiser headphones are woke because they’re designed for audiophiles who are willing to spend thousands of dollars for the best audio quality.
And blaming bad writing on some vague undefined notion as “woke” makes no sense. I don’t like Discovery. My criticisms are based on plots not making sense, characters doing dumb things, characters and plots not being inconsistent, episodes ignoring previously established plot points or lore, etc. It’s the same kinds of criticisms I have towards any bad movie/show/book. For example, the Michael Bay Transformers movies were bad. Why were they bad? Plots not making sense, characters doing dumb things, people ignoring previously established plot points or lore, etc. The quality of those movies have nothing to do with the presence or lack of “wokeness.” Saying that Discovery is bad because it’s “woke” is like saying Michael Bay’s Transformers movies are bad because they have explosions.
The use of “woke” and “political” in this hypercontextualist style is so vague as to border on non-expression.
The use of “woke” is vague?
Unfathomable, no way anyone would use the term “woke” in a vague way, especially not a presidental candidate.
Edit: Or here – https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/star-trek-starship-enterprise-democrat-woke-david-marcus
You’re completely missing the more useful point. The right says “woke and political,” implicitly referencing the complex change I described above. The left quotes the right saying “woke and political” as an implicit dismissal of civil rights, diversity, representation, etc. Both of these lazy-ass anachronisms suck big huge elephant dicks and ruin the political discourse in the media.
