What We Want VS What We'll Get?

[TwoJakes]

I'd rather have a crew whose characters have all developed in a natural, "organic" way [snip] than seeing it somehow being "progress" to alter them just to make the numbers work.

Not sure what you mean by "natural." The cast of characters in a television show are completely artificial constructions.

If we want the fictional Federation/Starfleet to be a depiction of a balanced egalitarian society, then it isn't going to be consistantly males in top positions, whites in top positions, Americans in top positions. A new series can deliberately balance out what has been seen in previous series.

It's funny how some people insist on a quota system. It's entertainment, people.

How isn't "everybody's white" not a quota system?

having a ship with more than 12-15% Caucasian males would be preposterous. .

If Starfleet is a assemblage of all Federation members, what are the odds that there be any white males in the command group. Or really, any Humans at all?

 

[Spot261]

Not sure what you mean by "natural." The cast of characters in a television show are completely artificial constructions.

As in "flows naturally from the writer's concept of the character", a weaker, but legitimate, use of the word than the literal "created by nature". I get your point (I even commented in the post to that effect), but there seemed no better way to phrase it.

You are absolutely right, statistically we would expect to see very few white males in that position and it makes it unrealistic to portray it that way. My argument however is that it does not follow that we should therefore apply a formula to extrapolate exactly what ethnic/cultural/gender mix to expect and then shoehorn it into the show.

A well written character does not start as a set of demographic labels which then gets a name and rank attached, they are created as a rounded person who originates in another (real) person's head and develops from there with their sexuality, race, gender, etc being a part of that progression. They are not defined from the word go by those factors.

How isn't "everybody's white" not a quota system?

They aren't, but just look at two contrasting examples of non white characters we do have:

Sisko: a thoroughly examined protagonist with flaws, doubts and foibles that make him very human. He is constantly beset by anxieties regarding his past losses, his actions, their consequences and the role the future holds for him. We go on that journey with him and become intimate observers of his transformation into someone who can face enormous responsibility precisely because he has faced his demons. In doing so we humanised the predicament faced by the wider society of the federation of how to reconcile ideals with necessity and live with the fallout. He also happens to be black.

Travis Mayweather: token black guy. Has such classic dialogue as "passing warp five now captain!". The constant butt of jokes in fan circles for playing virtually no part in the show and possessing zero personality, despite having dozens of hours of screen time. Not because he personally lacks charisma (that could have been used by a good writing team), but because no one actually cared enough about the character to make him frankly noticeable.

See my point? One is a character who is iconic amongst the fan base and deeply loved because he was so well written from the ground up, the other is just a space filler that puts a particular demographic on the bridge. Great characters and by extension great stories come from the former, non entities and therefore mediocre, meaningless stories come from the latter.

Granted the numbers are askew and could probably be made more realistic and I would welcome that, but not at the expense of quality writing. When you ask writers to start from the word go constrained by a numbers game you are tying their hands and by extension lessening the value and impact of their creation. Star Trek has a proud history of being a parable, a tool for social change, but the days of doing that at the casting stage have gone.

Far more impact could be made by giving the writers a free reign and allowing them to write thought provoking, relevant stories and expand the ST universe in ways that challenge preconceptions about their world and thus our own without making it a mathematical exercise much like every other show out there

 

[eyeresist]

Travis Mayweather: token black guy. Has such classic dialogue as "passing warp five now captain!". The constant butt of jokes in fan circles for playing virtually no part in the show and possessing zero personality, despite having dozens of hours of screen time. Not because he personally lacks charisma (that could have been used by a good writing team), but because no one actually cared enough about the character to make him frankly noticeable.

The guy was a terrible actor. They gave him a couple of his own stories and he failed to impress. So now the show was lumbered with this zero who they couldn't fire because the fans would complain. I don't see how the guy's mediocrity "could have been used by a good writing team"; zero x zero = zero, every time.

 

[cultcross]

See my point?

There have been plenty of white characters who were equally pointless and basically empty seat fillers. But I doubt they'd be referred to as 'token white characters there to fill a demographic'. Travis' total uselessness wasn't really related to the fact that ENT lacked cast diversity.

 

[Spot261]

There have been plenty of white characters who were equally pointless and basically empty seat fillers. But I doubt they'd be referred to as 'token white characters there to fill a demographic'. Travis' total uselessness wasn't really related to the fact that ENT lacked cast diversity.

Absolutely you are right and that poor writing is colour blind, but those characters have effectively been referred to as pandering to a largely white male audience throughout this thread and others. That is an equally bad situation I grant you but the answer does not lie in simply replacing bland white characters with bland black characters, straight seat fillers with gay ones.

Strong characters come from strong writing regardless of their colour, sexual orientation, whatever and whilst I agree that an all white straight male cast is a strange and unrealistic thing the problems that come with poor writing will only be exacerbated if the focus is on demographics rather than creativity.

I doubt anyone is making a case AGAINST diversity on the show, certainly I'm not, but when you look at the problems various iterations of trek have had, suggestions such as "it's time to have an (insert group) character" are pushing the focus in the wrong direction. Yes there is value in diversity, but the foundation needs to be strong writing, not casting by colour.

The guy was a terrible actor. They gave him a couple of his own stories and he failed to impress. So now the show was lumbered with this zero who they couldn't fire because the fans would complain. I don't see how the guy's mediocrity "could have been used by a good writing team"

Yes he was and no they couldn't, but to my mind that just goes to illustrate my point. From the very start they cared so little about the character that even at the casting stage the attitude seems to have been "he'll do". They could have had anyone, black or white, but why bother when all he was ever meant to do was sit there and be a glorified extra? Rather than bringing a solid meaningful black character to the show, he did the opposite, visibly relegating the black man to a subservient background role. That's tokenism achieving exactly the opposite of it's intent, rather than promoting equality, it pushes it back.

Subsequent writers may have attempted to do more with the character but they were swimming against the tide, nothing substantial had been established as a character the audience could relate to. When we met his family in "Horizon" the issue wasn't his performance per se, rather that we just don't know him well enough to care.

 

[borgboy]

Even one spotlight episode should be enough to make us care about Travis. A good actor could do a lot with that much screen time. If his performance in that episode was stronger he might've gotten more focus.

 

[Spot261]

Maybe, but he didn't become a weak actor during the series run, they had ample opportunity to cast someone else in the first instance. They had every chance to assess those acting skills before taking him on. They did neither, so the writing team responsible for that episode were left with a dud. Why? Because no one at the casting stage ever intended for him to be making an emotional impact.

 

[David.Blue]

Valid points here about inclusiveness versus tokenism.

There've been some interested debates lately comparing how the series The 100, Once Upon a Time and Person of Interest have each dealt with the issue of LGBT fans via a lesbian relationship among the characters. Sadly the consensus is that The 100 used those fans shamefully, making promises that this time a same sex couple would not be the subject of tropes usually associated with such, that the couple of Clarke and Lexa would fulfill fans' hopes and dreams. Instead the showrunners killed Lexa in a totally random way--literally a random bullet fired in her home, not aimed at her, not in a battle or anything like it--immediately after she and Clarke finally consummated their love. I watch reaction videos for some shows, and this was painful to watch. The genuine reaction of betrayal, of yet again being told (as it feels) that lesbians are there to die, that lesbians can never be happy--because in popular media that is what we usually see. Hence shows like The 100 are important--just as it was shocking/glorious to see Uhura as an officer on the original Star Trek.

Producers of Once Upon a Time, which has a large LGBT following, explicitly promised a same-sex couple this season and that it would be for real, involving a character we already know. At first fans thought it might be Mulan, a character already established as gay who left to join Robin Hood's band because she couldn't bear being around Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) any more. When she met up with Ruby (Little Red Riding Hood) fans thought this was it! Instead we got an episode--a perfectly nice episode--involving Ruby meeting and falling in love with Dorothy (all grown up from The Wizard of Oz), eventually saving her from a sleeping curse with True Love's Kiss, which only works if both people involved love each other. It was nice. It was well-acted. Many felt a tear in the eye. But it also felt like pandering, a pretty blatant example of fan service. Which was nice that the producers cared, they wanted to give their fans a present and all that. Certainly better than nothing, and certainly kind by any standards. But it isn't as if a same sex relationship got the attention or respect granted (for example) the romances of Hook and Emma, or Rumple and Belle.

Then we have Person of Interest, in which for two years the character of Root flirted pretty relentlessly with Shaw, who stoically accepted this with the occasional roll of her eyes. Producers and writers didn't wave any flags but it became very clear Root meant it, that she found Shaw more than attractive. The two women are very odd people, very alienated from much of society, but in the team which is at the heart of the show they found the equivalent of a family. With each other they clearly had a bond. Fans picked up on this very quickly and at conventions etc. the stars joked about Root and Shaw, noting how they saw the feelings these two had for each other. Then, when the actress playing Shaw had to leave the series (she was pregnant and did not dare do the stunt work involved) there was no random bullet, no truck that simply ran her over, no lightning strike or sudden cancer diagnosis. In a firefight when it looked as if all our heroes would die unless one of them stepped outside an elevator directly into enemy fire to activate teh controls, Shaw suddenly grabbed Root and kissed her--then threw her to the back of the elevator. Root screamed as Shaw ran out to work the controls and fell as gunshots hit her. The fans felt great sorrow and angst at this--but not anger. They did not feel betrayed. Not least because the characters on the show tried to find out if Shaw still lived, tracking down clues desperately in hopes she had been wounded and capture. This relationship was treated with respect. When one half of a lesbian couple went down, she was not forgotten.

My point is, when it comes to diversity in casting, simply casting more women or actors of color or (as in TNG) making a blind (but not really) character the "driver" of the starship isn't enough. It doesn't accomplish anything unless you treat those characters as fully fledged interesting people. Most versions of Trek since its return have been anything but risky. Cookie cutter melodrama and formulaic solutions to problems reduced to a simplicity that rarely occurs in real life has been the rule of thumb. DS9 was at least something of an exception, because in Kira and Bashir and Sisko we had genuine representation of minorities (yes, for all practical purposes women are a minority) as fully fleshed characters. That show also took other chances, many centered around moral ambiguity. Then of course in VOY at least we got B'Ellana and Seven (personally Janeway never quite seemed real to me, but that may be totally me). Chakotay on the other hand rarely seemed more than a token, despite the great skill and charisma of the actor portraying him--not least because his ethnicity existed pretty much in total isolation.

Anyway, that is my rant. We are in a transition phase of our culture, moving (hopefully) towards genuine tolerance and diversity. We are still figuring out how that works, against a great deal of inertia, and our art--including dramatic media--reflect that.

 

[eyeresist]

Yes he was and no they couldn't, but to my mind that just goes to illustrate my point. From the very start they cared so little about the character that even at the casting stage the attitude seems to have been "he'll do". They could have had anyone, black or white, but why bother when all he was ever meant to do was sit there and be a glorified extra?

I've seen this problem in other shows with other characters (even *gasp* white ones). I always wonder what went wrong with the audition process. If it's a guest actor you can understand to some extent, because they had a limited time to get someone, but with main characters, I think the problem must be with the scenes they did in the audition. The actor playing Travis was fine at playing the star-struck kid, so they had obviously seen he could do that, but for some reason they didn't really test his dramatic chops. But if you like, I could name characters from previous Trek shows who had similar problems....

 

[Spot261]

My point is, when it comes to diversity in casting, simply casting more women or actors of color or (as in TNG) making a blind (but not really) character the "driver" of the starship isn't enough. It doesn't accomplish anything unless you treat those characters as fully fledged interesting people.

This. Absolutely this.

I've seen this problem in other shows with other characters (even *gasp* white ones). I always wonder what went wrong with the audition process. If it's a guest actor you can understand to some extent, because they had a limited time to get someone, but with main characters, I think the problem must be with the scenes they did in the audition. The actor playing Travis was fine at playing the star-struck kid, so they had obviously seen he could do that, but for some reason they didn't really test his dramatic chops. But if you like, I could name characters from previous Trek shows who had similar problems....

I really don't even pretend to know. Granted in any walk of life the wrong people often get the job, maybe because their interview skills outstrip their actual abilities, or the process was biased by personal relationships with existing staff/interviewers, etc. However it seems such a shame that such obvious miscastings can occur - especially when the audition process basically requires the auditionee to literally demonstrate their acting skills as they would be expected to use them on the job.

 

[STEPhon IT]

As in "flows naturally from the writer's concept of the character", a weaker, but legitimate, use of the word than the literal "created by nature". I get your point (I even commented in the post to that effect), but there seemed no better way to phrase it.

You are absolutely right, statistically we would expect to see very few white males in that position and it makes it unrealistic to portray it that way. My argument however is that it does not follow that we should therefore apply a formula to extrapolate exactly what ethnic/cultural/gender mix to expect and then shoehorn it into the show.

A well written character does not start as a set of demographic labels which then gets a name and rank attached, they are created as a rounded person who originates in another (real) person's head and develops from there with their sexuality, race, gender, etc being a part of that progression. They are not defined from the word go by those factors.



They aren't, but just look at two contrasting examples of non white characters we do have:

Sisko: a thoroughly examined protagonist with flaws, doubts and foibles that make him very human. He is constantly beset by anxieties regarding his past losses, his actions, their consequences and the role the future holds for him. We go on that journey with him and become intimate observers of his transformation into someone who can face enormous responsibility precisely because he has faced his demons. In doing so we humanised the predicament faced by the wider society of the federation of how to reconcile ideals with necessity and live with the fallout. He also happens to be black.

Travis Mayweather: token black guy. Has such classic dialogue as "passing warp five now captain!". The constant butt of jokes in fan circles for playing virtually no part in the show and possessing zero personality, despite having dozens of hours of screen time. Not because he personally lacks charisma (that could have been used by a good writing team), but because no one actually cared enough about the character to make him frankly noticeable.

See my point? One is a character who is iconic amongst the fan base and deeply loved because he was so well written from the ground up, the other is just a space filler that puts a particular demographic on the bridge. Great characters and by extension great stories come from the former, non entities and therefore mediocre, meaningless stories come from the latter.

Granted the numbers are askew and could probably be made more realistic and I would welcome that, but not at the expense of quality writing. When you ask writers to start from the word go constrained by a numbers game you are tying their hands and by extension lessening the value and impact of their creation. Star Trek has a proud history of being a parable, a tool for social change, but the days of doing that at the casting stage have gone.

Far more impact could be made by giving the writers a free reign and allowing them to write thought provoking, relevant stories and expand the ST universe in ways that challenge preconceptions about their world and thus our own without making it a mathematical exercise much like every other show out there

Berman and Braga really weren't thinking how offensive it was by having the black guy as the driver of the ship. But the show should've gave him more of a role or developed him as a first officer, but oh well.
I hope in the new series there are more black people cast on the show, and have more diversity in the races besides caucasians. It would be interesting to see a United Nations of races on the new Trek.

 

[Shalashaska]

My point is, when it comes to diversity in casting, simply casting more women or actors of color or (as in TNG) making a blind (but not really) character the "driver" of the starship isn't enough. It doesn't accomplish anything unless you treat those characters as fully fledged interesting people. Most versions of Trek since its return have been anything but risky. Cookie cutter melodrama and formulaic solutions to problems reduced to a simplicity that rarely occurs in real life has been the rule of thumb. DS9 was at least something of an exception, because in Kira and Bashir and Sisko we had genuine representation of minorities (yes, for all practical purposes women are a minority) as fully fleshed characters. That show also took other chances, many centered around moral ambiguity. Then of course in VOY at least we got B'Ellana and Seven (personally Janeway never quite seemed real to me, but that may be totally me). Chakotay on the other hand rarely seemed more than a token, despite the great skill and charisma of the actor portraying him--not least because his ethnicity existed pretty much in total isolation.

Anyway, that is my rant. We are in a transition phase of our culture, moving (hopefully) towards genuine tolerance and diversity. We are still figuring out how that works, against a great deal of inertia, and our art--including dramatic media--reflect that.

Pretty much. Cast actors based on how well they fit the character and their chemistry with other actors, not based on their race or sex.

I wouldn't mind a transsexual quadriplegic half-black/half-Horta attackhelicopterosexual retard as the lead of the show, as long as they're more than just that and it's not just a gimmick.

 

[Tim Walker]

We still need a robe-sexual character.

 

[Spot261]

Berman and Braga really weren't thinking how offensive it was by having the black guy as the driver of the ship.

No one said it was offensive, but what B and B were thinking was clearly NOT "this guy is a valuable and meaningful addition to the thing we are creating who will add a new perspective and bring something others could not"

I hope in the new series there are more black people cast on the show, and have more diversity in the races besides caucasians. It would be interesting to see a United Nations of races on the new Trek.

Whereas I really don't see it as being anywhere near as important as what is done with those characters. The whole point of story telling as a vehicle for social change is that the story makes you think, leaves you with a message or even better a question which stays long after the actual event of watching.

Tokenistic casting is just a cheap gimmicky way to claim you are doing that without putting in any real thought. It was meaningful in the 1960s when it was new and challenged preconceptions, but it relied on the fact that it hadn't been done before, it wasn't the formulaic norm by which TV was made.

 

[JWPlatt]

I hope in the new series there are more black people cast on the show, and have more diversity in the races besides caucasians. It would be interesting to see a United Nations of races on the new Trek.

What if there's all kinds of diversity on the show except black? Is that still satisfactory? There's so much diversity to choose from, someone will get left out of a limited cast.

 

[Spot261]

What if there's all kinds of diversity on the show except black? Is that still satisfactory? There's so much diversity to choose from, someone will get left out of a limited cast.

Also very true. most ST (DS9 being the exception) series have a core cast of 8-10 characters, whereas we could easily list hundreds of ethnic groups alone, before we then start to look at gender, transgender iterations, various sexualities, possible disabilities (with 24th century medicine...?) political ideologies, etc, etc.

It's just poor casting to start counting the numbers and making a show that matches up statistically and even if you could, why? It's not sending a message or altering the way people look at the world, it's not challenging preconceptions, it's just getting as many demographic groups in as possible to help the viewing figures.

 

[TwoJakes]

Berman and Braga really weren't thinking how offensive it was by having the black guy as the driver of the ship

Georgi LaForge came straight from either Roddenberry or Fontana, his name was based on a disabled fan's.

possible disabilities (with 24th century medicine...?)

Without a experimental treatment, Worf's back injury would have been a permanent condition, the medical procedure that Bashir received as a child was illegal.

It's just poor casting to start counting the numbers and making a show that matches up statistically

I disagree, what your casting accomplishes is a depiction of the future society that you are trying to present to the audience.

As stated previously, casting is a deliberate contrived effort. Sisko was intended to be Black man, Janeway was intended to be a White woman, Hoshi was intended to be East Asian woman. None of them "naturally" just happen to be so.

It's not like you just take the first half dozen actors who walk through the door, and send them down to wardrobe. You have already decided the "types" you want before you put out the casting calls to acting agencies.

and even if you could, why?

So that the bright optimistic future doesn't look like a Hitler youth rally?

It's not sending a message or altering the way people look at the world

Yes, it does. This is the future that is Star Trek, it's consciously challenging preconceptions of what the fictional Federation is, and what Starfleet stands for. It's not about Starfleet advancing a White Human majority to top positions, while only allowing "token" others to do so in tiny numbers.

it's just getting as many demographic groups in as possible to help the viewing figures.

No (again), it is story telling of a fictional future culture and society. The future society isn't about exclusion, and racism, and sexism, and alien'ism.

Sorry.

 

[Spot261]

No need to be sorry, although I think you are missing my point, I'm not objecting to a multicultural cast, merely arguing that strong characters or story telling rarely come from a formula, nor is it in anyway challenging to preconceptions to simply cast a multi racial crew and leave it there. It was groundbreaking when TOS did it, but it's now standard. How many ensemble casts are there on TV that DON'T do it?

First off, I need to get this one out of the way;

Georgi LaForge came straight from either Roddenberry or Fontana, his name was based on a disabled fan's.

Yes, but we were discussing Travis Mayweather.

No the future isn't about exclusion or sexism, alienism or entity ism either (I raise you that one), but nor is it about simply ticking a list. Of course the characters you mentioned were profiled before the casting stage, but that profiling is not the extent of the creative process, nor is it the most important part. A character begins in the writers head as an idea, then fleshes out as a person with a background and motives. If that character is to be believable the writer must feel they know them. Whether they are black or white is irrelevant, their backstory, strengths, weaknesses, fears and hopes make them who they are.

We may not know them yet but when we watch them onscreen they aren't likely to gain any emotional impact if the writer doesn't know who that person is beyond a list of traits. Having them matter to the viewer and putting them in meaningful positions where they have to make moral choices matters far more in terms of "the message" than the demographics of the bridge crew. I'm not saying that a multi racial, etc crew, isn't worth having, merely that it is secondary to strong character development and is no substitute for it.

I agree ST is about challenging preconceptions and that an all white male crew would be a backward step, but having a mixed race/sexuality/whatever crew is no longer challenging, it's no longer the way forward by itself and unfortunately I do feel there are plenty of cases where characters have been cast throughout the franchise where the profile was more important than the writing. Harry Kim is another example.

Arguably Voyager had the most diverse crew of any series, but how many fans if they were being honest would make a case for it being one of the stronger entries into the canon? Or for it having the most interesting, relatable characters? The diversity is a good thing and possibly I've overstated my case here, but by itself it doesn't make a good show or good characters. Nor does it help equality if the characters fail to make an impact or make us care about them.

 

[TwoJakes]

Arguably Voyager had the most diverse crew of any series, but how many fans if they were being honest would make a case for it being one of the stronger entries into the canon?

I would, VOY is number three of the five series in my opinion. DS9 is in last place.

but nor is it about simply ticking a list.

Diverse is a box, optimistic is a box, good guy is a box, gender is a box, ethnic group is a box. What's wrong with boxes in creating a character? The boxes are just another word for profile.

Yes, but we were discussing Travis Mayweather.

Yes, but how is Travis any more offensive as "the black guy as the driver of the ship" than LaForge was doing the exact same thing?

Plus LaForge was also "the blind guy driving the ship.

 

[Spot261]

It feels like you aren't actually reading my posts, just knee jerking whilst missing the point. I never said there's a problem with the boxes, merely the mind set that ticking them is enough.

I never said Travis Mayweather was offensive, merely that he was a pointless space filler and that is exactly what occurs when tokenism is allowed to make up for creativity. It is a throwaway effort to show diversity, the bare minimum in order to say the box is ticked and nothing more. That bit is crucial. I'm not saying the box shouldn't be ticked, merely that ticking it is enough to matter by itself.

I never mentioned Geordi Laforge. Not sure why he keeps coming up, he is a completely different case and this

Yes, but how is Travis any more offensive as "the black guy as the driver of the ship" than LaForge was doing the exact same thing?

Plus LaForge was also "the blind guy driving the ship.

strongly indicates you are missing the point of my argument. I'm not talking about offensiveness, and none of the similarities you raise even begin to address my point. In fact the very fact of the superficial similarities could well be taken to highlight the more (in my view) important difference. One is a well developed interesting character, the other is not. Thus one added substance to the show, the other did not.

Not unless you saw some serious subplots with TM that I missed.