Have the new Star Treks lost the progressive edge?

Or McCoy, one of the best doctors in Starfleet, has had multiple run-ins with Klingons, including when he detected the bio-signs of Arne Darvin on space station K7, doesn't know the first thing about the anatomy of a Klingon man dying from being shot in the chest, and then proceeds to perform CPR on that man?

 

Spock's story arc in ST'09 was a very blatant allegory for a closeted homosexual coming out. They just swapped loving guys for having emotions. Uhura was his secret lover, they only display affection openly after Spock "comes out" to his father in the transporter room.

 

Chekov only says he's been there, we never saw it onscreen. Not to be outdone, Khan says he knows Chekov, though we never saw them meet.

 

Very true, though Chekov recognized the name of the Botany Bay right away.

 

Been there or not, he should've at least been able to count to six.

 

I dont think trek had the first interracial kiss but they had the most popular interracial kiss at at time where interracial marriage was banned.

sometimes we have to be careful when we use the term possessive, progressive values can not always be a good thing. I believe in a balance of liberalism and conservatism but I am much more of a libertarian.


A film like Jurassic park 1 is the perfect example of the dangers of excessive progressive/liberals values.

 

Oh, definitely.

 

I always assumed everybody was accepted in the trek future, but yeah it'd be nice to see it on screen or namedropped. But ideally I would have like to have it for a main character on TV trek so there'd be more time to do some of the romance episodes straight characters would get.

 

Indeed. I always vote in favor of amnesty for illegal Costa Rican dinosaurs, and it always comes back to bite me in the ass, literally.

Please explain. Something to do with the genetic engineering, I presume, though I think you're misunderstanding things, if so. Also, the genengineering is in service of rampant unregulated corporate malfeasance and negligence, so you kind of lose your point there too.

Lost World is the one with the stupid People for the Ethical Treatment of Dinosaurs moron essentially committing attempted murder by causing a stampede in the middle of the InGen camp. It's fine to oppose their actions, but Vince Vaughn's character was an asshole in how he handled it.

 

A romantic arc? Kind of like what we got with Dr. Crusher and Captain Picard? If so, yeah, I'd be up for that! If I had my druthers, I'd pick Sulu having a boyfriend/fiance/spouse. Not because George Takei is gay, but because Sulu may be the best choice.

Well, wait, there's also Scotty. I bet Simon Pegg would go for it.

Wait, wait: for all we know, Kirk or Spock could be bisexual or pansexual.

Okay, now I have to really think on this one.

 

I agree. Even without Takei, Sulu would probably be the best choice. But because of Takei, it's the obvious choice--but don't mean that just because he's gay but because he's so famously gay.

I actually believe there's a good percentage of the population who think or assume Sulu is already gay. So if Cho appeared on screen kissing another man, most people would just .

EDIT: Scratch that. Now that I think about it, it should totally be Chekov.

 

I'm pretty sure the Star Trek was not the first TV show to feature a black officer. Maybe a black female officer in a recurring role.

And Rosy Grier kissed Cass Eliiott on the forehead (both dressed as the opposite sex, and Grier comes out of a closet!) in a Smothers Brothers skit which aired before Shatner ever fake-kissed Nichols.

​

The above is the whole skit, which makes hits on more 1968 hot button topics than any Trek episode. This LINK goes right to the bit in question.

 

And that's the rub for me - Star Trek doesn't need to make a point about a character being gay, think about how much more accepted into society gay people have become in say, the last 30 years or so. In 300 years time it will be seen as so 'normal' so to speak that it's just not really mentioned any more than someone's food preference, for example. As it should be.

 

I always thought Star Trek was very, very conservative when it came back to TV in 1987. The Abrams films took it back to its roots by actually having something to say about the real world around it.

 

But it doesn't air three-hundred years from now. So it should make an effort to discuss things that are issues in the here and now.

 

Correct, but Star Trek has addressed issues of persecution and bigotry plenty of times, In my head at least the issue is sort of covered without resorting to some heavy handed plot about a gay crewmember, for example. My initial point about same sex relationships being so normal as it's not highlighted in the distant future still stands within the Star Trek universe, as I believe that things will go that way if the last few decades are anything to go by.

That being said - the show is guilty of not having any same sex relationships in any of the various series and spin offs. I just don't want a big deal making of it that's all, as I don't think that it will be in 300 years time.

 

What show have you been watching?! TNG had plenty to say about the real world. The Ferengi were an exageration of almost satirical proportions of the misogyny and free-market ideology of the Republicans, "Justice" was both a critical view of religion and the death penalty, "Angel One" commented on the ridiculousness and danger of socially assigned gender roles, "When the Bough breaks" gave us a people sterilized by the radiation of their technology, "Symbiosis" showed people oppressing others through deception of dependance. And that's just season 1.

While "Into Darkness" did have a few critical moments, I felt they were overshadowed by the mostly unnecessary and often out-of-character action sequences. At least, it tried, so I'll give 'em that.

 

But they weren't working any taboo issues. The original Star Trek gets more credit than it deserves on this front, but compared to the spinoffs, it was a downright counter-culture production.

Drugs are bad! Mmkay, thanks for the heads up.

 

The thing is, by the 1980s, the content of TV shows tackled more liberal issues in general, thanks at least partially to the success of TOS was famous for doing so and was such a huge success (after cancellation, I know, but beside the point).
So, I think TNG wasn't any less progressive than TOS, and it did take on issues. The difference is that when TNG launched, all the other shows did so as well.

But TNG did break other taboos, though in a more silent way. There was the "society without money" part at the height of capitalism, and "Ménage à Troi" suggested that Riker and Troi, while not a couple, were actually Friends with Benefits.

 

The idea that there was no money in the future was first mentioned in TVH and the Riker/Troi relationship was baed on the Decker/Ilia relationship from Phase II. At the time TNG came out though there were greater attempts to shock audiences and really IMO TNG did that in Conspiracy when Maddox's head was blown up.