News Discovery New Character Breakdowns
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
Does not make it correct.
I concur. Someone made that argument directly earlier in the thread:
Several other people then replied questioning the idea that a wheelchair would be outmoded in the 23rd century.
As I've said, IMHO the best solution would be if Tig Notoro's character had some sort of light exoskeleton on her lower extremities which could be removed when in her quarters. It would allow the character (and actor) full mobility, yet still signal to the audience the disability. Which is exactly what Geordi's VISOR was - something completely unlike how blind people deal with the world today, but still a technological signifier of blindness.
A "hoverchair" would be much more useful in a wide array of situations than a wheelchair, but compared to an exoskeleton it's still going to be a bit bulky and unwieldy. What if she's on an away mission and needs to crawl through a tight tunnel? Sure, a chief engineer goes on less away missions (particularly on DIS I'm guessing - I don't think Stamets left the ship once in Season 1) but it's still a character limitation. I'm guessing that if she becomes a long-term character the writers will want some way around it, like they did with The Doctor on VOY with the mobile emitter.
I recall Pike being in that contraption and it was awful! Plus his character was shown to be suffering as opposed to the suggestion of this new character on Discovery who we should expect to be shown as competently doing her job. I'm not satisfied the Pike 'chair' or comparison is relevant.
Your idea I do like: "IMHO the best solution would be if Tig Notoro's character had some sort of light exoskeleton on her lower extremities which could be removed when in her quarters. It would allow the character (and actor) full mobility, yet still signal to the audience the disability."
Why not do a progression from wheelchair (simple but allows a quick visual shorthand) and then the character is moving on up as resources are made more available as the war winds down?
In the real world where disabled people are watching the show we don't have magical 23rd century science, we don't have people able to techno babble life's challenges away. It's hardy genuinely representing those people to brush their experiences under the carpet. That would really be a case of getting the priorities wrong, making the portrayal of the technology match some people's version of "canon" more important than the actual purpose and message of the show, which is about people, not the accuracy of imagined pseudo science.
As an alternative why not turn that idea on it's head and have a character wheelchair bound who struggles at first, who finds herself in an environment which is familiar but no longer welcomes her by passively assuming an able bodied norm. Why not show the crew around her finding it difficult at first to know how to adapt their own working practises?
Then show her and her colleagues gradually adapt to the challenges of being in that situation, changing their attitudes and habits to make the most of her talents, making small changes to the layout of the ship to accommodate that chair?
That way we actually see something meaningful about the experience of disabled people. We see how way the world often isn't set up for them and how it takes time for everyone involved to overcome that. The emphasis would be on how ultimately the responsibility is on us all to consider the implications of their limitations and how we should adapt to them as much as they should adapt to us, not on how we portray some nonsense fictional pseudo technology.
As an alternative why not turn that idea on it's head and have a character wheelchair bound who struggles at first, who finds herself in an environment which is familiar but no longer welcomes her by passively assuming an able bodied norm. Why not show the crew around her finding it difficult at first to know how to adapt their own working practises?
Then show her and her colleagues gradually adapt to the challenges of being in that situation, changing their attitudes and habits to make the most of her talents, making small changes to the layout of the ship to accommodate that chair?
That way we actually see something meaningful about the experience of disabled people. We see how way the world often isn't set up for them and how it takes time for everyone involved to overcome that. The emphasis would be on how ultimately the responsibility is on us all to consider the implications of their limitations and how we should adapt to them as much as they should adapt to us, not on how we portray some nonsense fictional pseudo technology.
Star Trek Discovery is not set in the real world of now, why should disabled people not have the same vision of hope and fantasy for a better way, than able bodied people? Why should they be locked down to the struggles they may already be living? Geordi La Forge was blind but his future was not.
Because that's the whole point of representation, to examine the human experience onscreen. It's what trek has always done. Geordie could have had his vision back and been "normalised" any time he wanted. He chose not to because he found value and worth in himself without having to be brought in line with some normative model of humanity. Doing that would have taken away everything that made the character so important.
The federation has never really been an image of a perfect future free of challenges, nor has it been intended that way. What it has been is a background for examining humanity and our challenges, not using magical hand waving technology to write those challenges out of existence. The tech is there to serve the story, not to be served at the expense of that story.
I disagree. The whole point of representation in my opinion should not hinge on creating a divide, if it does then it is failing. If an able bodied person can have a future beyond what they have now then by denying the same for one who is disabled may very well be this lesson in human experience, but it requires keeping someone else down. If I can watch Star Trek and imagine freedoms beyond my current ones (and that is not expecting perfection), then I expect others to be able to as well.
It's just possible that their only hope for the future isn't a cure - disabled people might have other dreams and hopes which they like seeing somebody who is like them fulfilling. They are more than their disability.
Then you are missing the point of what many disabled people experience and what star trek does. Having your own experience reduced and trivialised to something that can just be waved out of existence isn't positive representation, nor is it exploring or explaining that experience onscreen for the benefit of others.
The federation isn't a perfect future of hope, never has been. If it was we wouldn't see the crime, the suffering, we wouldn't see the famines and corruption. If everything could be "cured" with a magical medical device we wouldn't need therapists like Troi or Ezri Dax or psychiatrists like Cornwell. Geordie would have normal vision, Barclay would be free of his anxieties, Suder would not be a serial killer, B'ellana Torres wouldn't self harm, Nog and Picard wouldn't suffer PTSD, Worf's surgery wouldn't be a major ethical decision, Pike wouldn't be in a wheelchair, "asylums" wouldn't exist.
If it was it wouldn't anywhere near the value it does as a setting for either allegory or exploration of the human condition.
Last edited:
Some people have trouble understanding that there's a wide middle ground between all and none. Somehow, support for the proposition that the show would be more interesting if a main character had a disability is being twisted into the assertion that people who feel that way don't want to see a future in which disabilities are cured. That doesn't remotely follow.
In-universe, a cure might exist, but it might not be suitable for everyone. Maybe the person is allergic to the drugs that the cure depends upon. A cure might not even be available to everyone, say for example out on the frontier. Maybe a person with a disability moving into the Federation core from the frontier has to make a choice about whether to have their condition cured. A choice implies the possibility that not everyone in the same position will make the same decision. Let's at least agree that a utopia is not a place in which people are compelled to do things against their will when they weren't harming anyone in the first place.
Star Trek has always been more compelling when it makes a connection with and has something to say about people in the here and now, which is reason enough to explore this topic "out loud," so to speak, instead of just sweeping it under the rug as if a magic wand had been waved.
In-universe, a cure might exist, but it might not be suitable for everyone. Maybe the person is allergic to the drugs that the cure depends upon. A cure might not even be available to everyone, say for example out on the frontier. Maybe a person with a disability moving into the Federation core from the frontier has to make a choice about whether to have their condition cured. A choice implies the possibility that not everyone in the same position will make the same decision. Let's at least agree that a utopia is not a place in which people are compelled to do things against their will when they weren't harming anyone in the first place.
Star Trek has always been more compelling when it makes a connection with and has something to say about people in the here and now, which is reason enough to explore this topic "out loud," so to speak, instead of just sweeping it under the rug as if a magic wand had been waved.
What?
I like eschaton's idea of an exoskeleton.
So again, writing the whole experience of disability out of the equation?
No.
Yes. Real people don't have that option, it doesn't reflect their experience or honour the way so many strive to find a place in the world despite their disability. It doesn't explore the way that world can and should adapt to meet their needs and how often that is made difficult by exactly the sort of ignorance shows like trek endeavour to dismiss. Star Trek isn't about the future and stupid pseudo technology, it's about people.
It would literally be like reducing representation for gay people to synthesising a magic pill to make them straight, thus removing any reason to represent the reality of the human being behind the label, it would be offensive and arrogant. We are talking about marginalised groups who deserve to be represented onscreen, not edited out of existence.
No.
Consider this (from eschaton):
*As I've said, IMHO the best solution would be if Tig Notoro's character had some sort of light exoskeleton on her lower extremities which could be removed when in her quarters. It would allow the character (and actor) full mobility, yet still signal to the audience the disability. Which is exactly what Geordi's VISOR was - something completely unlike how blind people deal with the world today, but still a technological signifier of blindness.*
Exactly, thus avoiding any exploration of the actual reality of being disabled and the challenges and stigma that go with it.
Similar threads
- Locked
