Sign in to follow this  
Garak the spy

Discovery going darker?

Recommended Posts

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-trek-discovery/37600/star-trek-discovery-why-its-heading-online-instead-of-onto-tv

"On the upside, the decision to head online means we could see more adult themes emerging in Star Trek: Discovery - naked aliens and future swear words were mentioned in the interview, too."

Ok, guys, this is starting to scare me up. They are trying to turn ST in pop shows that sell nudity violence and sex. Bryan Fuller might have some reasons for leaving... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-trek-discovery/37600/star-trek-discovery-why-its-heading-online-instead-of-onto-tv

"On the upside, the decision to head online means we could see more adult themes emerging in Star Trek: Discovery - naked aliens and future swear words were mentioned in the interview, too."

Ok, guys, this is starting to scare me up. They are trying to turn ST in pop shows that sell nudity violence and sex. Bryan Fuller might have some reasons for leaving... 

Sounds like little more than idle speculation.  I wouldn't worry too much just yet, Garak.  

But I am concerned that the show is only 6 months away and we're still not hearing anything really substantial.   We know a few sketches but you'd think there might be some cast, or story information or something.    I mean, I don't want to pound on the CBS soundstage doors but it would be nice to get an idea of what tone the show is aiming for. 

But if they're not ready?  Then they're not ready.  I don't want to rush them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-trek-discovery/37600/star-trek-discovery-why-its-heading-online-instead-of-onto-tv

"On the upside, the decision to head online means we could see more adult themes emerging in Star Trek: Discovery - naked aliens and future swear words were mentioned in the interview, too."

Ok, guys, this is starting to scare me up. They are trying to turn ST in pop shows that sell nudity violence and sex. Bryan Fuller might have some reasons for leaving... 

Sounds like little more than idle speculation.  I wouldn't worry too much just yet, Garak.  

But I am concerned that the show is only 6 months away and we're still not hearing anything really substantial.   We know a few sketches but you'd think there might be some cast, or story information or something.    I mean, I don't want to pound on the CBS soundstage doors but it would be nice to get an idea of what tone the show is aiming for. 

But if they're not ready?  Then they're not ready.  I don't want to rush them. :)

I know it's still just speculation, but it's a damn scary one, and it has logic too. Violence, sex, explosions, that's what people like to watch and they know it. Beyond's bad performance might just had them starting to question how far to go with the Trek original idea and how to change things up to get more $.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

Well I don't think "sex and violence and explosions" will make them a lot of money. People can see that anywhere, they don't need Star Trek for that.

"Real Star Trek" people can not see anywhere. It would be a reason to watch this show instead of some random other.

Now I just hope CBS does understand that, too... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took me a while to get used to hearing "ass" and "son of a bitch" on Enterprise.

Too bad Voyager or Enterprise wasn't on pay cable, we could have seen Seven and T'Pol "exploring" human sexuality :dance:

The "darker" theme for stuff nowadays is way overdone. Just give us straight ahead storytelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

I don't have much problem with the show going a little darker. But I would like to see the lead characters stay optimistic but the situations darker. Also I don't have a problem with swearing, especially by guest stars. Having a character say fark to establish his personality is fine with me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say get it right.  It's not like a movie where we need a set date and not getting it done is kind of weak.  Well, maybe to an extent they should have it done by now, but I guess I'm a little more patient given that I have no plans on paying to see this show.

I don't think Star Trek should be dark.  It's not that kind of franchise, and dark isn't what made it successful.  They tried making Superman dark, and it was a disaster. 

I think it's easier to lighten up a naturally dark property than it is to make a lighter property darker.  I guess it really will depend on HOW dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much problem with the show going a little darker. But I would like to see the lead characters stay optimistic but the situations darker. Also I don't have a problem with swearing, especially by guest stars. Having a character say fark to establish his personality is fine with me. 

I say get it right.  It's not like a movie where we need a set date and not getting it done is kind of weak.  Well, maybe to an extent they should have it done by now, but I guess I'm a little more patient given that I have no plans on paying to see this show.

I don't think Star Trek should be dark.  It's not that kind of franchise, and dark isn't what made it successful.  They tried making Superman dark, and it was a disaster. 

I think it's easier to lighten up a naturally dark property than it is to make a lighter property darker.  I guess it really will depend on HOW dark.

DS9 was darker in premise, yet the Starfleet characters remained true to the Federation's more optimistic idealism, hence creating conflict without too badly violating the rules of Roddenberry's 'perfect people' rule of TNG (a rule he frequently broke himself many times on TOS).  

I don't mind DSC going a little dark if it adds to the realism, but like scenario says, I would prefer the characters remain true to the premise of the show.  
I don't want to see DC's Bat Trek. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Originally I posted this on the Michelle Yeoh thread, but it makes more sense to put it here.]

Any modern Star Trek show is going to have to completely rewrite the basic rules of what Trek is. It's often said that Star Trek works best as allegory. Is it up to the task, in this modern world? Can Star Trek be relevant, and retain its essential optimism? I'd like to think so, and I'll cheer the casting of Michelle Yeoh (if it's true) but it's going to need some very daring, clued-up writers.

If ST: DSC ends up being tonally more like DS9, I could live with that. Even season 3 of Enterprise, made in the early 2000s looks hopelessly dated now. But DS9 still seems to me to be the most broadly relevant to today's world in its overall outlook, but it retained its essential sense of optimism. Right now, I think a sense of optimism is incredibly important. i think we really, really need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Originally I posted this on the Michelle Yeoh thread, but it makes more sense to put it here.]

Any modern Star Trek show is going to have to completely rewrite the basic rules of what Trek is. It's often said that Star Trek works best as allegory. Is it up to the task, in this modern world? Can Star Trek be relevant, and retain its essential optimism? I'd like to think so, and I'll cheer the casting of Michelle Yeoh (if it's true) but it's going to need some very daring, clued-up writers.

If ST: DSC ends up being tonally more like DS9, I could live with that. Even season 3 of Enterprise, made in the early 2000s looks hopelessly dated now. But DS9 still seems to me to be the most broadly relevant to today's world in its overall outlook, but it retained its essential sense of optimism. Right now, I think a sense of optimism is incredibly important. i think we really, really need it.

^

Couldn't agree more about the current need for optimism...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

I don't like hard and fast rules. Like no swearing. I wouldn't like the leads to swear. But what if you had a guest character that was the alien equivalent to a marine. Having the actors playing the ordinary soldiers be a little crude and use fark a few times would make them seem more real. They can still be optimistic but not so goody two shoes. 

TNG had aliens invade the Federation and take over the bodies of some of its leaders. If that was a running story line it could be quite dark. Blowing an alien's head off is pretty dark stuff. But the lead characters must still be classic star trek good guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer   

Some darker storylines are okay, what I don't want to see is Star Trek's future changed from Utopian leaning to a more Dystopian future.

I think that it's a double edged sword, while DS9 benefited in ways from the darker storylines, it also at times seemed like the writers were trying to brow-beat us with their political beliefs. War is bad, freedom fighters are good, the message just dripped with pre 9/11 naivety.

No matter how morally reprehensible Kira or fellow Bajorans actions were, the Cardassians were the bad guys so it was always okay. It was an obvious and sloppy allusion to the atrocities of WW2. There were never lessons learned for Kira, her hate never had any comeuppance. She was always 'right' in the end, there was no balance to the story telling. If Q thought that humans were savages, imagine what he must have thought of the Bajorans or Cardassians? The dark tone also meant that instead of exploring a new quadrant, it was mostly sealed off due to war. 

Enterprise tried the darker tone too post 9-11 with their Xindi attack plot, but people hated it because it reminded them of Bush policies. Lesson being, only left wing politics are allowed on Star Trek. Inclusive future indeed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because one needs look no further than the current political environment to see that rightward politics isn't, historically, particularly inclusive, unless you fit the ideal of those in power.

And, arguably, TNG leaned fairly rightward, at least when compared to anything before or since. Picard and the gang had a fair bit of disdain, sometimes pretty overtly in fact, for those that either came off as more primitive or, shock of shocks, didn't aspire to be like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think DS9 got a little too dark toward the end of the run.  That's why I tended to feel that it was good TV, but not necessarily good Star Trek.  Though I do feel Seasons 3-5 was as good as anything in the post-TOS era.

I do think that in many ways, TV and movies do have an effect on culture, so I absolutely agree we need a little more optimism out of discovery.  I don't want to see a Star Trek version of Man of Steel.

 

It IS funny that the comment "only left wing politics should be on Star Trek.  Inclusive future needed."  I don't know if the irony of that statement is lost or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

I think DS9 got a little too dark toward the end of the run.  That's why I tended to feel that it was good TV, but not necessarily good Star Trek.  Though I do feel Seasons 3-5 was as good as anything in the post-TOS era.

I do think that in many ways, TV and movies do have an effect on culture, so I absolutely agree we need a little more optimism out of discovery.  I don't want to see a Star Trek version of Man of Steel.

 

It IS funny that the comment "only left wing politics should be on Star Trek.  Inclusive future needed."  I don't know if the irony of that statement is lost or not. 

It depends on if your talking left wing/right wing U.S, style or worldwide. In the U.S. the right wing is based on fear and hate (not all conservatives, just the current crop of right wingers), so a show based on hope for a better future is automatically liberal now. When Star Trek first came out it wasn't as clear cut. Conservatives viewpoint was that technology would lead to a better world so the Star Trek was more middle of the road politically in the 1960's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think DS9 got a little too dark toward the end of the run.  That's why I tended to feel that it was good TV, but not necessarily good Star Trek.  Though I do feel Seasons 3-5 was as good as anything in the post-TOS era.

I do think that in many ways, TV and movies do have an effect on culture, so I absolutely agree we need a little more optimism out of discovery.  I don't want to see a Star Trek version of Man of Steel.

 

It IS funny that the comment "only left wing politics should be on Star Trek.  Inclusive future needed."  I don't know if the irony of that statement is lost or not. 

It depends on if your talking left wing/right wing U.S, style or worldwide. In the U.S. the right wing is based on fear and hate (not all conservatives, just the current crop of right wingers), so a show based on hope for a better future is automatically liberal now. When Star Trek first came out it wasn't as clear cut. Conservatives viewpoint was that technology would lead to a better world so the Star Trek was more middle of the road politically in the 1960's. 

Star Trek has had a long history of political progressiveness.  That's largely part of the series' original DNA.   TOS had racial unity in a 'United Earth', a clearly non-capitalist economy, free healthcare, religion largely relegated to 'myth', no need for insurances, money, etc.   Not to mention full gender equality (however clumsily this was presented; the show was made in the Mad Man '60s, after all....). 

And Star Trek is also the vision of progressive writers.   It's an evolving vision from this ever-widening collection of writers and artists.  Does this mean we're all suibjected to weekly sermons about the wonders of the worker's paradise?  No.  The show is also action/adventure as well.  But the political leanings are there, for sure. 

But there is no law or mandate that the show has to reflect BOTH ends of the US political spectrum equally; this is an entertainment made largely by Hollywood writers and artists, not the evening news.  Writers, actors and artists tend to be a progressive lot.  If one doesn't agree with the show's largely humanist politics?  One needn't feel inclined to watch.  It's not intolerance; it's in keeping with the intent and vision of what makes Star Trek what it is.  An issue of artistic integrity, not equal airtime for all political sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is no law or mandate that the show has to reflect BOTH ends of the US political spectrum equally; this is an entertainment made largely by Hollywood writers and artists, not the evening news.  Writers, actors and artists tend to be a progressive lot.  If one doesn't agree with the show's largely humanist politics?  One needn't feel inclined to watch.  It's not intolerance; it's in keeping with the intent and vision of what makes Star Trek what it is.  An issue of artistic integrity, not equal airtime for all political sides.

This.

I write and my characters are generally progressive thinkers because that's my mindset and that's what I want to write. Aaron Sorkin got pressure from the right to add a conservative character to The West Wing. Ainsley Hayes was quite moderate and sensible. She also didn't survive, save a few guest bits much beyond season 3.5 because Sorkin so disagrees with the conservative point of view he really couldn't stand writing for her.

His show, his rules, his prerogative. You can choose to consume or not, but you're not owed something the artist doesn't want to create just because you think your view has equal merit.

It does...to you. But it's not your book, movie, or television show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is no law or mandate that the show has to reflect BOTH ends of the US political spectrum equally; this is an entertainment made largely by Hollywood writers and artists, not the evening news.  Writers, actors and artists tend to be a progressive lot.  If one doesn't agree with the show's largely humanist politics?  One needn't feel inclined to watch.  It's not intolerance; it's in keeping with the intent and vision of what makes Star Trek what it is.  An issue of artistic integrity, not equal airtime for all political sides.

This.

I write and my characters are generally progressive thinkers because that's my mindset and that's what I want to write. Aaron Sorkin got pressure from the right to add a conservative character to The West Wing. Ainsley Hayes was quite moderate and sensible. She also didn't survive, save a few guest bits much beyond season 3.5 because Sorkin so disagrees with the conservative point of view he really couldn't stand writing for her.

His show, his rules, his prerogative. You can choose to consume or not, but you're not owed something the artist doesn't want to create just because you think your view has equal merit.

It does...to you. But it's not your book, movie, or television show.

It's just a fact of American life that certain professions tend to attract people of certain politics.  The arts tend to attract progressives, the military and police tend to attract conservatives, etc.   That's just the way it is.  Like it or not.   Not saying that there aren't progressive cops or soldiers (I've known a few myself) or conservative actors/artists (Sylvester Stallone, Dwayne Johnson, Bruce Willis).   But overwhelmingly, the numbers favor the stereotypes in those professions.

Some writers are more successful at keeping their politics out of their work, and I say great for them.   But some aren't.   Star Trek began life with a very specific social agenda; Roddenberry insisted on inclusive casting (during the time of the Vietnam War and the Watts race riots in L.A), and it was initially his vision of the show that kicked things off.   Many other artists and writers added to the overall chronology of ST (series and movies) but overall, the vision of the franchise has been a progressive one, fair or not.

If one wants to make a conservative space show or entertainment franchise?  There are no laws to prevent them from that endeavor.  But to insist that the existing Star Trek somehow turn conservative or present 'fair and balanced' political messaging just to appease a fraction of its audience is just nonsense because ST is (at its core) not a conservative show.   Yes, there are present-but-softened military overtones to the ship, the ranks, etc. but it's still a very progressive overall message and worldview.  

I don't know what DSC will look like, or how it will reflect current politics (whatever those will be in the next few years), but I really doubt we'll see it deviate too far from what ST is all about.   Otherwise it wouldn't really be Star Trek anymore, would it?  

And ST's message of hope for better times ahead is more important now than ever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the U.S. the right wing is based on fear and hate (not all conservatives, just the current crop of right wingers), so a show based on hope for a better future is automatically liberal now. When Star Trek first came out it wasn't as clear cut. Conservatives viewpoint was that technology would lead to a better world so the Star Trek was more middle of the road politically in the 1960's. 

Um, that's simply not true.  It's the other way around.  You never saw Republicans go on TV saying the democrats are going to kill Big Bird.  Nita Lowey did that. 

You're making generalizations about 50 percent of the country, which is hardly IDIC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

In the U.S. the right wing is based on fear and hate (not all conservatives, just the current crop of right wingers), so a show based on hope for a better future is automatically liberal now. When Star Trek first came out it wasn't as clear cut. Conservatives viewpoint was that technology would lead to a better world so the Star Trek was more middle of the road politically in the 1960's. 

Um, that's simply not true.  It's the other way around.  You never saw Republicans go on TV saying the democrats are going to kill Big Bird.  Nita Lowey did that. 

You're making generalizations about 50 percent of the country, which is hardly IDIC.

 

The conservatives I'm talking about are the tea bag/fox/alt right type conservatives, not all conservatives. These type conservatives have been fighting against science and science education for more than 30 years. That type of conservative was rare in the 1960's. In the 1960's a common conservative line was that we didn't need to worry about things because science would fix it.  The science part of Star Trek fits perfectly into the conservatives version of science in the 1960's. There's no poverty because science fixed it. There was no need for any social programs in the Star Trek universe because man's hard work and ingenuity fixed the problems. 

I would go into more detail but that would be derailing the topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the U.S. the right wing is based on fear and hate (not all conservatives, just the current crop of right wingers), so a show based on hope for a better future is automatically liberal now. When Star Trek first came out it wasn't as clear cut. Conservatives viewpoint was that technology would lead to a better world so the Star Trek was more middle of the road politically in the 1960's. 

Um, that's simply not true.  It's the other way around.  You never saw Republicans go on TV saying the democrats are going to kill Big Bird.  Nita Lowey did that. 

You're making generalizations about 50 percent of the country, which is hardly IDIC.

 

The conservatives I'm talking about are the tea bag/fox/alt right type conservatives, not all conservatives. These type conservatives have been fighting against science and science education for more than 30 years. That type of conservative was rare in the 1960's. In the 1960's a common conservative line was that we didn't need to worry about things because science would fix it.  The science part of Star Trek fits perfectly into the conservatives version of science in the 1960's. There's no poverty because science fixed it. There was no need for any social programs in the Star Trek universe because man's hard work and ingenuity fixed the problems. 

I would go into more detail but that would be derailing the topic. 

Yeah, let's not get TOO Kobayashi Maru-ish here, OK?

Yes, ST has a long history of politics in its DNA.  Most of it progressive.  Some of it not so much (at least not by modern standards).  But the point is, no one can dictate to artists how their work needs to reflect viewpoints other than their own or what was previously acceptable to their audience of 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

In the U.S. the right wing is based on fear and hate (not all conservatives, just the current crop of right wingers), so a show based on hope for a better future is automatically liberal now. When Star Trek first came out it wasn't as clear cut. Conservatives viewpoint was that technology would lead to a better world so the Star Trek was more middle of the road politically in the 1960's. 

Um, that's simply not true.  It's the other way around.  You never saw Republicans go on TV saying the democrats are going to kill Big Bird.  Nita Lowey did that. 

You're making generalizations about 50 percent of the country, which is hardly IDIC.

 

The conservatives I'm talking about are the tea bag/fox/alt right type conservatives, not all conservatives. These type conservatives have been fighting against science and science education for more than 30 years. That type of conservative was rare in the 1960's. In the 1960's a common conservative line was that we didn't need to worry about things because science would fix it.  The science part of Star Trek fits perfectly into the conservatives version of science in the 1960's. There's no poverty because science fixed it. There was no need for any social programs in the Star Trek universe because man's hard work and ingenuity fixed the problems. 

I would go into more detail but that would be derailing the topic. 

Yeah, let's not get TOO Kobayashi Maru-ish here, OK?

Yes, ST has a long history of politics in its DNA.  Most of it progressive.  Some of it not so much (at least not by modern standards).  But the point is, no one can dictate to artists how their work needs to reflect viewpoints other than their own or what was previously acceptable to their audience of 50 years.

I agree. Star Trek shouldn't have just one viewpoint. It would be interesting if they landed on two human planets, one pure liberal and one pure conservative. Both would be dysfunctional. Balance always works best.  TOS took on topics like racism. Why not take on the dysfunctional politics of the extreme common today? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conservatives I'm talking about are the tea bag/fox/alt right type conservatives, not all conservatives. These type conservatives have been fighting against science and science education for more than 30 years. That type of conservative was rare in the 1960's. In the 1960's a common conservative line was that we didn't need to worry about things because science would fix it.  The science part of Star Trek fits perfectly into the conservatives version of science in the 1960's. There's no poverty because science fixed it. There was no need for any social programs in the Star Trek universe because man's hard work and ingenuity fixed the problems. 

I would go into more detail but that would be derailing the topic.

Please indulge me one more comment, because I do agree that this is more KMish, and my hope is to do this in a non-confrontational and non-heated way.  How many tea party people do you know or associate with?  Any?  I think you may find that you're description of them is completely off base.  I think you read about it from certain sites and certain comedians, and maybe get some select stories that are designed to make them look as badly as possible, but not necessarily getting a true example of a real conservative.

I'm one of the few conservatives on this board, and I tend to avoid the KM section because I could literally spend all day there.  I actually don't even know if there are conservatives who post in there because I just stay away.  I get my political arguments in other forums.

Most of you all are left wing, some pretty far left, so I think it's fair to assume you're mostly democrats.  I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing. 

 

Now imagine a situation where members of your own party aren't doing what they are supposed to do.  Trump gets in, with a Republican congress, and while you understand they can't stop too much, your side doesn't even put up a real fight.  Or worse, your own party is in power, and they govern exactly the same way the Republicans do.  In other words, same crap, different party.  They aren't representing your interests. 

What do you do?  Now let's say the failures spark a group of left wingers to try to take back their party and call for them to do what they are voted in to do.  They become a separate wing of your party, and they do have some success.  Isn't that American politics at its finest?  Telling the incumbents of your own party to shape up or be replaced?

That's basically the Tea Party. They were formed to try to get some more fiscal responsibility in government.  There are bad apples in every group, and yes, that includes the left as well.  There are some horribly corrupt people in the democrat party, and you guys should have your own mini-revolution and clean some house.

 

So referring to Tea Party people as "tea baggers" is like referring to left wingers as "libtards."  I know that not all democrats are the same, and that unfortunately, there are some extremists that tend to get louder voices.  The same holds true for the right.  If people aren't going to listen to the other side, then division will only get worse.

It's not IDIC to demonize people because they don't agree with you politically.  The bad examples you come up with is NOT the majority. 

And please don't confuse alt-right with mainstream Republicans.  That's like confusing a moderate democrat with Fidel Castro.  The alt-right people are a bunch of animals. They do NOT represent conservatives at all.  They don't represent anyone except the worst of humanity. 

Getting a little more ON topic, I don't think Star Trek is as liberal as you all think.  I say this because as a conservative, at least with the original series, I see plenty of conservative ideals in there.  Sure, there are liberal ideals too, but Hollywood wasn't as left wing then as it is today.  There are characters in Star Trek that I feel would vote Republican in general, Kirk and Scotty stand out.  Spock is very centrist, with maybe a slight leaning left.  McCoy to me is a moderate democrat.  Ironically, I see Sulu as a slightly right of center guy, and no real opinion on the others.  Different characters, good and bad fall on either side of the spectrum.   Most of you probably see it as very liberal, but I think if Star Trek were truly like that, someone like me would be very turned off by it.

Berman era incarnations of Trek were far more leftist than TOS, though I think Sisko falls on my side of the aisle. :D

 

So in fairness, I'll respect Sehlat's wishes on whether to reply to the top part of my post.  I'm not sure if the Star Trek part of the post should be replied to or not, and I'll defer.

 

But I am pretty sure that your impressions of conservatives are not as cut and dried as you think.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the U.S. the right wing is based on fear and hate (not all conservatives, just the current crop of right wingers), so a show based on hope for a better future is automatically liberal now. When Star Trek first came out it wasn't as clear cut. Conservatives viewpoint was that technology would lead to a better world so the Star Trek was more middle of the road politically in the 1960's. 

Um, that's simply not true.  It's the other way around.  You never saw Republicans go on TV saying the democrats are going to kill Big Bird.  Nita Lowey did that. 

You're making generalizations about 50 percent of the country, which is hardly IDIC.

 

The conservatives I'm talking about are the tea bag/fox/alt right type conservatives, not all conservatives. These type conservatives have been fighting against science and science education for more than 30 years. That type of conservative was rare in the 1960's. In the 1960's a common conservative line was that we didn't need to worry about things because science would fix it.  The science part of Star Trek fits perfectly into the conservatives version of science in the 1960's. There's no poverty because science fixed it. There was no need for any social programs in the Star Trek universe because man's hard work and ingenuity fixed the problems. 

I would go into more detail but that would be derailing the topic. 

Yeah, let's not get TOO Kobayashi Maru-ish here, OK?

Yes, ST has a long history of politics in its DNA.  Most of it progressive.  Some of it not so much (at least not by modern standards).  But the point is, no one can dictate to artists how their work needs to reflect viewpoints other than their own or what was previously acceptable to their audience of 50 years.

I agree. Star Trek shouldn't have just one viewpoint. It would be interesting if they landed on two human planets, one pure liberal and one pure conservative. Both would be dysfunctional. Balance always works best.  TOS took on topics like racism. Why not take on the dysfunctional politics of the extreme common today? 

"A Private Little War" was an episode wherein Kirk took the conservative postition (arming Tyree's people) with McCoy taking the position of the 'doves' of the anti war movement.  But even that episode ended ambiguously; with neither side making what seemed to be the 'right' outcome, as it led to generational bloodshed.   This was a rare time when ST seemed to side with the conservative position, but it does happen every now and then.   Arguably the ending of TNG's "The Outcast" was another; with Riker's androgynous lover being 'cured' at the expense of her identity and Riker just walks away and accepts the outcome (possibly heartbroken at the time, but he seemed fine by the next espisode...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this