New Star Trek Series

User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7041
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland
Contact:
ArcticFox wrote: However, I'll bet you a week's pay against a jelly doughnut that there will be the first openly gay regular character in Star Trek. That isn't a deal breaker for me unless the show uses that character to get all preachy.

In fairness, I've not really liked Star Trek when it's "preachy" about anything. I think Star Trek is at it's best when it takes the assumption that everyone is on the same page and rolls with it. It's much nicer to find out a character is gay organically through dialog and natural conversation rather than "Look at me, I am gay, see we (the production company) can play the progressive game too!" sort of thing. A good example (Well, from what I recall, it's been a VERY long time since I watched it) was Felix Gaeta in the rebooted BSG. He was bisexual (revealed if you watched the webisodes in addition to the main series) but rather than harp on it, they accept it as a normal thing for that society, and as such, it rarely comes up. Which is how you SHOULD handle it in a fictionally society where such behavior is not seen as abnormal (or wrong, at the least). They never made proclamations about how his character "swung both ways" and "this is how things should be, people who disagree are wrong!" In spite of that, he was an interesting character. His character arc was interesting (I won't go into more, because spoilers).

The problem I had with "The Outcast," which was TNG's attempt to address transgender issues, was that it was hamfisted. It wasn't just forced, it was bashed over the head to the point of breaking immersion in the story. I can believe a 24th century society would be accepting of gender issues (And that alien cultures would not), but the way it was handled seemed to be directly saying "Hey 20th century audience! Listen to this radical proposition!" completely broke my immersion as a viewer.

While I don't think it's bad to address such issues, it's important to make sure that it's done without breaking immersion. The best discussion of issues arises from stories where you weren't even aware they were bringing up the issue because of how well it worked. This is why 2001: A Space Odyssey works so well as an allegory for human progress. It doesn't bash you over the head *well, not with dialog anyway) with the idea of technological development being an evolution of humanity, it suggests it throughout the entire experience while ostensibly being a chronicle of mankind. This is part of why 2001 is still seen as worthy of scholarly study, and "The Outcast" is not.

Apologies if this doesn't make much sense, I was really tired when I wrote this. XD
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Deepfreeze32 wrote: In fairness, I've not really liked Star Trek when it's "preachy" about anything. I think Star Trek is at it's best when it takes the assumption that everyone is on the same page and rolls with it.
Definitely. And TNG got preachy about a lot of things, especially in the earlier days. Who can forget the way Picard and Riker sneered at the 21st Century people who were awakened after being in suspended animation for 300 years? How primitive. "We've eliminated hunger, want and greed but all you people care about is money, television and alcohol. You aren't even worthy to be on my starship."

(Not an actual quote, but it does capture the essence of it.)
Deepfreeze32 wrote:It's much nicer to find out a character is gay organically through dialog and natural conversation rather than "Look at me, I am gay, see we (the production company) can play the progressive game too!" sort of thing. A good example (Well, from what I recall, it's been a VERY long time since I watched it) was Felix Gaeta in the rebooted BSG.
I agree. A character like that fits in fine with a show where the goal is to portray the characters as people, not always heroes. Whether one agreed with homosexuality or not, its' a part of humanity and a show honest enough to give us humanity as it actually appears needs to acknowledge it but not try and characterize it in any particular way. It just is.
Deepfreeze32 wrote: The problem I had with "The Outcast," which was TNG's attempt to address transgender issues, was that it was hamfisted.
Yeah I really hate that episode for exactly that reason. Trek is at its best when it gets you thinking about something, and looks at it from a variety of angles. This episode was pure, unadulterated propaganda.

The thing about good science fiction is that it uses a fictitious setting that is very different from real life to examine real life issues. In this way it's easier to see an issue from multiple angles, and understand it better. The goal shouldn't be to change minds or beliefs, but rather to encourage a broader view which can help us to understand our own beliefs better. You can't do that if everything's just an echo chamber with warp engines. You also fail if your stories are just sermons on whatever issue it is the writers believe in.
Deepfreeze32 wrote: Apologies if this doesn't make much sense, I was really tired when I wrote this. XD
You made perfect sense, dude.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7041
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland
Contact:
ArcticFox wrote:
Deepfreeze32 wrote: In fairness, I've not really liked Star Trek when it's "preachy" about anything. I think Star Trek is at it's best when it takes the assumption that everyone is on the same page and rolls with it.
Definitely. And TNG got preachy about a lot of things, especially in the earlier days. Who can forget the way Picard and Riker sneered at the 21st Century people who were awakened after being in suspended animation for 300 years? How primitive. "We've eliminated hunger, want and greed but all you people care about is money, television and alcohol. You aren't even worthy to be on my starship."

(Not an actual quote, but it does capture the essence of it.)

Ugh. Yeah, I remember that. That was the last episode of season 1, if I recall (Which also had an awesome plot involving Romulans, but also that...story). I'm going to ascribe that to Roddenberry, since his idea of "future" was "utopian super-evolved society where morality is unambiguous and everything is perfect." Which, fine, you can write that, but audiences crave ambiguity. Roddenberry reportedly disliked the idea of DS9 (I think he was on death's door by that point), but in my opinion, DS9 is the best Star Trek show because of how it bucked the trend.

*DS9 raving begins*

That's part of why I liked the way the Ferengi evolved in DS9. The Ferengi served as a kind of looking glass for the stereotypically "negative" (as Roddenberry would view it) attributes of humanity, but DS9 showed that even the "negative" aspects don't fully define us.

I could go on and on about how excellent episodes like "In the Pale Moonlight" and "The Visitor" are, but there's one scene in an otherwise inconsequential episode that still speaks to me, even today. The episode is "Heart of Stone" from season 3 (before the series is widely considered to have hit it's stride).

I'll let it speak for itself.



THAT is what Star Trek is about, in my opinion.

*DS9 raving ends*

So in good news:

Joe Menosky has joined the writing staff of the new Trek show. Menosky wrote, among others, "Year of Hell" and "Scorpion" (Two of the best episodes of an otherwise-meh Voyager) and my favorite TNG episode, "Darmok"

Hype *= 2
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Deepfreeze32 wrote: Ugh. Yeah, I remember that. That was the last episode of season 1, if I recall (Which also had an awesome plot involving Romulans, but also that...story). I'm going to ascribe that to Roddenberry, since his idea of "future" was "utopian super-evolved society where morality is unambiguous and everything is perfect." Which, fine, you can write that, but audiences crave ambiguity. Roddenberry reportedly disliked the idea of DS9 (I think he was on death's door by that point), but in my opinion, DS9 is the best Star Trek show because of how it bucked the trend.
Well not only that, but where many episodes of TNG felt like a visual manifesto of Roddenberry's personal politics, DS9 had a much more realistic perspective. In fact, it even lampooned Roddenberry's vision:


Deepfreeze32 wrote: That's part of why I liked the way the Ferengi evolved in DS9. The Ferengi served as a kind of looking glass for the stereotypically "negative" (as Roddenberry would view it) attributes of humanity, but DS9 showed that even the "negative" aspects don't fully define us.
Very true, but also serves as a mirror:

"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ZappierVirus
CCGR addict
Posts: 2457
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:05 am
Contact:
I have read through this topic and come to a conclusion. I really need to watch DS9!
Creepers + Boom Slimes = Big Crater
Minecrafting all the time!
I post too much.
User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2950
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.
Contact:
I've never seen all the episodes, but I've always enjoyed DS9. And, for some reason, Quark was always one of my favorite characters, too. Maybe, on a subconscious level, this is why.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests