Should The New Show Include a Disabled Character?
- Thread starter hux
- Start date
And take one of the best casting ever in Patrick Stewart as Professor X away from us? No thank you. It's called "acting".This is about the character, afterall, the actor should disappear in the roll and if they do, then there's no problem.
Why can't we just cast great actors, why does there have to be a politically correct agenda behind every single decision we make anymore?
I really think that in the Star Trek future, there are still MUCH MORE humans living in other places than the old USA including not on Earth and I find this notion ridiculous, that they wouldn't clearly outnumber US humans in Starfleet. It sounds like a great and exciting job. The best of the best go to the Starfleet Academy. And naturally these talented people should from all over the world and other worlds.
Let's face it, the only reasonable explanation for these many US Americans in the Star Trek series is, that they are US series. Naturally they hired primary US actors and quite a few didn't play foreign characters, because TPTB assumed probably rightly, that US viewers like to see US characters on their screen.
Christopher Pike was in a wheelchair. Twice. Geordi was blind. Seven had many problems with her Borg implants. Bashir needed genetic alterations. I think for a science fiction setting, Trek already had a lot to offer.
I think Star Trek shouldn't be about including every minority ever. But Star Trek should generally have a few characters that are considered "outsiders" in their respective settings - wether they're half vulcans, aliens amongst humans, or those mentioned before - and generally show a positive future, where the outsiders of their respective setting are still included.
I think Star Trek shouldn't be about including every minority ever. But Star Trek should generally have a few characters that are considered "outsiders" in their respective settings - wether they're half vulcans, aliens amongst humans, or those mentioned before - and generally show a positive future, where the outsiders of their respective setting are still included.
There's more to disability than sitting. Xavier exists in a fantasy world where the sitting disability is conflated with great intelligence (Stephen Hawkings gets similar treatment). I'm talking about disabilities that don't have such simplistic Hollywood associations. Spina bifeda, deafness, cerebral palsy, tourettes etc.
Because the people that do the casting have a tendency to cast white, male, able-bodied heterosexuals and only stop doing this... when certain people in society put pressure on them to look further afield and embrace greater diversity.
Last edited:
The point is that it would be an allegory of disability. In the way that having a Klingon in the cast can be used as an allegory of ethnicity or nationality when the Federation address often presented very homogenously. While 24th century setting may exclude the realism of a person with a literal early 21st century disability, an alien ill adapted for a human environment encounters many of the same issues within a science fiction wrapper.
Perhaps because disabled actors are already discriminated against enough, without being told they can't play a character with their disability because they can't do a flashback scene where they walk?
Hiring non disabled actors in place of disabled ones to play disabled characters is the modern equivalent of blackface or hiring boys to play women. It plays into existing discriminatory practices and isn't something we should be encouraging, especially if one of the purposes of the character in the first place is representation.
"Political correctness" is a nasty term used to dismiss efforts to counter discrimination and prejudice. "Why can't we just hire great actors?" Not only implies that disabled actors don't fall into that category, but ignores privilege and the much wider range of opportunities offered to non disabled actors and immediately dismisses acknowledgement of the very real prejudice facing disabled actors as pandering to a fad. Tell me, why is it that Peter Dinklage was hired to play Tyrion Lannister? (And from that opportunity has gone on to many other high profile parts which didn't call for a specific disability.) After all they could have "just hired a great [non disabled] actor" and used the tried and tested LOTR tricks to make them seem small on screen. Easy. Why bother?
Last edited:
Could the people who cast Takei as Sulu sense that he was gay?
Last edited:
I know more than a few people who feel that "Melora" perpetuates the idea that it's perfectly okay for people in wheel chairs to be complete assholes, because (you know) they're in a wheel chair. The episode has it's share of problems, that being one.
But how many of them join Starfleet?
My point was people from certain areas join the military in greater percentages than the general population. And of course not all of the principal Starfleet officers are from American, two on TOS, one on TNG, one on DS9, one on VOY and two on ENT.
But if we're considering the possibility of a disabled character, why not actually have a "disabled character." Someone who has (for want of a better term) an abnormality, as a result of a birth defect, or a illness, or a injury, that causes them a ongoing problem. Starfleet can be a dangerous profession, it would have to be something that is obvious (for the audience), but at the same time no so disabling that realistically they would be disqualified from Starship duty.
Although we could see someone who is posted to a Starbase with a more major problem.
To be fair, political correctness also refers to a method that a small group can use to attempt to manipulate a large population into conforming to the particular vision of the small group. Which is why the concept of political correctness is viewed with such disgust.
From Takei's autobiography and the book Inside Star Trek, While somewhat discrete Takei never kept his sexuality a complete secret. At the end of season cast parties he would bring his boyfriend of the time.
The new series should run with the fan idea that Andorians in fact have four genders.
+
You bring up Tyrion Lannister later in your post, so I'll assume you are familiar with the show or the book. How would you handle Bran, a paralyzed child who was shown able to walk (and climb) until his accident, but then is also shown afterward walking in dream sequences?
I'm not sure that's an idea to 'perpetuate'. Although it was a good and honest inclusion in the episode that the characters were awkward around a disabled person and said and did stupid things to hide their awkwardness. Living around that all the time it is little surprise that Melora got a bit snappy at times. It occurs to me that ds9 did 'Bashir tries to cure disability of woman he fancies' twice, almost the exact same plot came up in season 7 with his genetically engineered pals.
I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at here. 'Manipulate' them into what 'vision'?
Bran is an interesting character from a disability perspective; the books tackle the impact of his injury especially in the context of the setting a little more than the show, but both show a boy who is able to walk and climb before a fall which in modern terms paralyses him. How he comes by this injury is more than a 'flashback' an episode author might want to squeeze in at some point, but a fundamental part of the plot. So in that context I think either option (disabled or non) was a fair casting possibility. They are more than capable of faking someone walking on film these days - they bring actors back from the dead - so either could have worked.
My point is that if you create a series where one character is disabled, it is more than a little disappointing if you cast a non disabled actor in place of a disabled one because 'it's easier'. As an example from a totally different genre, it's disappointing they went with a non disabled actor for Glee, when not only is the character in a wheelchair, but his experiences of that are a big part of the character.
If you think about it, Picard was in "French-face" and not a very convincing one with that UK accent of his.
While we know the STU has banned genetic alterations, (for those who can't sneak around the ban) I think that we can presume, extrapolating from today, that their universe has both genetic testing and abortion, so the incidence of genetically disabled people who are not born reparable by the advanced medical techniques of the day would seem to likely be extremely low on high-tech worlds.
So right there you're probably limited to aliens (who either did not have access to the same technologies, or who come from different environments) or to people who have acquired disabilities (meaning at least the possibility or needing them able-bodied for flashback sequences.) Or maybe people who come from backwards planets like Turkana 4.
So right there you're probably limited to aliens (who either did not have access to the same technologies, or who come from different environments) or to people who have acquired disabilities (meaning at least the possibility or needing them able-bodied for flashback sequences.) Or maybe people who come from backwards planets like Turkana 4.
The vocal minority imposing themselves and their vision upon a larger group is such a well known phenomenon throughout human history of small offenses and large atrocities, that I don't believe the concept can escape anyone without simply playing naïve for argument's sake. In some cases, it results in death for the non-believer. Extreme? Yes. But it's part of what makes the smell of political correctness, as T'Girl describes, so "disgusting."
Where do you draw the line when it comes to disqualifying actors for roles? We've already stopped cross-racial casting. It's hard enough to keep stunt double races consistent, remember the Wrath of Khan anecdote with the stunt double for Terrell on Ceti Alpha V? There were some complaints about "The Danish Girl" casting of a non-transgendered actor. Of course that's another case of needing to see before and after, and the tiny pool of actors. Orange is the New Black got really lucky with their twin solution. Nobody complained when Cate Blanchett played Bob Dylan. Being an actor is all about being maximally flexible for the role, leaving maximum latitude for the writers. Thus being able to walk or see even if your character can't is unlikely to change. Do we keep women from playing mothers if they haven't had kids in real life? After all that's "a big part of the character". Additionally, time is money, anything that slows down a production is not going to be well received. Wasn't one of the issues with Terry Ferrell of DS9 her super sensitive skin? They had to write around her, it's why she was injured in "Rocks and Shoals".
Anyway, Star trek is an allegory show. The whole point of an allegory is to present an issue from a new light so that anyone with a preconceived opinion on an issue can see it without bias. And just maybe they reevaluate their position. If you give up the allegory angle and present stuff directly you completely loose the power. A direct approach is more likely to make someone turn off the TV rather than think about the issue.
Anyway, Star trek is an allegory show. The whole point of an allegory is to present an issue from a new light so that anyone with a preconceived opinion on an issue can see it without bias. And just maybe they reevaluate their position. If you give up the allegory angle and present stuff directly you completely loose the power. A direct approach is more likely to make someone turn off the TV rather than think about the issue.
when has identifying and modifying discriminatory language and customs, resulted in 'death for the non believer' exactly?
Around about the same time white people had to start saying N-Word.
You can think of no instance where a group of smaller numbers imposed its will unfairly, even brutally, against a group of larger numbers? Or use no non-literal imagination to apply such concepts in microcosm, abstraction, or loose analogy to political correctness?
Last edited:
And just to be clear, at this time are you a poster on this board, or a moderator?
Should you be a poster, an example of political correctness would be a individual attempting (and perhaps succeeding) to curtail the language and customs of others owing to the individual's personal perception of what constitutes "discriminatory" or derogatory words or actions. By describing words and terms in a certain way, the individual gains power and control over others, and can elevate their own position(s).
This is the manipulation I spoke of earlier.
The individual could additionally invoke the concept of "the safe place (or zone)" which is a area where only their ideas and constructs are permitted, but if others attempt to establish similar zones, that would be a (obvious) example of discrimination and perhaps even the dreaded hate speech.
Personally I resist the idea that my freedom of speech is superseded by another's supposed right not to hear. Don't get me wrong, others are perfectly free to disagree with my statements and ideas, and to offer a counterpoint of their own on any issue. But the opposite will hold as well.
In Brazil, using the N-word (nigger and niggra) while a bit "low speech" isn't considered particularly offensive, and is somewhat common. The idea of having to watch what you say in public (or even private) would be regarded with humor.
+
Last edited:
