News Martin-Green: Star Trek Is About Universality

[eschaton]

There is perhaps an argument to be made that, casting requirements and makeup concerns aside, there is no reason why the "races" of the humanoid aliens in the Trekverse should mirror those of humans (or even worse, whatever humans are easy to snag in SoCal or Toronto). ENT didn't follow this trope, when it introduced the very pale telepathic sub-race of the Andorians.

 

[jaime]

I don't particularly recall any racism myself, in fact it took me till near the end of the series to actually make the connection Tuvok was black. The same thing happened with Worf, it was coming out of seeing FC in the cinema and overhearing a comment made by someone in another group when the lightbulb went on. Call me stupid but it simply hadn't occurred to me to think about the colour of an alien's skin.

Sadly though, it seems @ozzfloyd did pick up on a wee bit more and that was really what I was reacting to.

I guess word is more invisible in that regard because of the Klingon makeup vs the Vulcan make-up.

 

[Hey Missy]

From what I gather, the issue isn't about whether or not extra diversity is a good thing or not. No. It's that the PR for DSC likes to pretend that it has the "first racially and gender diverse cast" for Star Trek or "first time serialization is used".
I roll my eyes whenever clickbaity ""news"" articles would lead you to believe SMG is the first African-American actor to even be in Star Trek! That's not very fair at all.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That's why I don't read click bait.

 

[Jayson1]

From what I gather, the issue isn't about whether or not extra diversity is a good thing or not. No. It's that the PR for DSC likes to pretend that it has the "first racially and gender diverse cast" for Star Trek or "first time serialization is used".
I roll my eyes whenever clickbaity ""news"" articles would lead you to believe SMG is the first African-American actor to even be in Star Trek! That's not very fair at all.

I think their is some truth in this. People are mistaking the need to promote and maybe some ignorance from some who only know a couple of the shows or have simply forgotten stuff since it's been almost 20 years since the last new episode of "Voyager" and I doubt many of these people have spent a great deal of time watching old Trek reruns, with arrogance that what they are doing is somehow superior to the other shows. Mixed in with some pride as well because they are happy that they are doing a progressive show and combine that with some real racism and sexism they I am sure they have faced and it's easy to see how all this stuff has come together. Their only flaw is we haven't seen enough Nerd talk mixed into all these interviews or they have and people have ignored it because it doesn't offer enough click bait.


Jason

 

[Hey Missy]

Judging from the first season, DSC isn't any more progressive or "woke" than the previous series. They haven't done anything groundbreaking that hasn't already been done before.
Diverse cast? Already done.
Modern-day parallels? Already done.
Serialization? Already done.
Graphic violence? Already done.
So where's all these "firsts" I keep hearing of?

 

[Jayson1]

Judging from the first season, DSC isn't any more progressive or "woke" than the previous series. They haven't done anything groundbreaking that hasn't already been done before.
Diverse cast? Already done.
Modern-day parallels? Already done.
Serialization? Already done.
Graphic violence? Already done.
So where's all these "firsts" I keep hearing of?

Are you judging by TV standards or normal Trek standards? I think they are not anymore or less progressive than most regular TV. As for Trek standards the three things they have done better than the other Trek's was having the first gay human on any of the shows. Also the background players and extra's etc is more diverse than most of the other show's. Plus allowing a women be the show's first comic relief character in Tilly. The stories though are less sophisitcatted than DS9 and the violence except a couple of moments is still equal but that can also be said of the older shows that once in awhile got extra graphic like the alien being killed in "Conspiracy" or TNG or Sisko being stabbed by a Paigh Wraith cultist.

Jason

 

[gblews]

There is perhaps an argument to be made that, casting requirements and makeup concerns aside, there is no reason why the "races" of the humanoid aliens in the Trekverse should mirror those of humans (or even worse, whatever humans are easy to snag in SoCal or Toronto).

Not sure I understand what it is you're saying here. By use of the word, "mirroring", are you referring to "white" aliens played by white actors and "black" aliens played by other white actors?

ALL of the Aenar in Ent were played by white actors? Didn't know that. Of course, this was still Berman/Braga Trek.

From what I gather, the issue isn't about whether or not extra diversity is a good thing or not. No. It's that the PR for DSC likes to pretend that it has the "first racially and gender diverse cast" for Star Trek or "first time serialization is used".
I roll my eyes whenever clickbaity ""news"" articles would lead you to believe SMG is the first African-American actor to even be in Star Trek! That's not very fair at all.

I haven't read a single article, or heard a single interview by DSC cast, crew, or production staff, that states or implies that DSC is the first Trek show to display a racial or gender diverse cast. Nor have I read any articles that state this. Most reporters I'v read seem to be aware of the previous show's histories on diversity. If you really have, please provide a cite.

What may be confusing you is the fact that DSC is the first Trek show to feature two openly gay human male characters as part of the regular crew/cast. Or perhaps, even though DSC is not the first Trek show to feature a woman of color, it is the first Trek show to present one as the main protagonist.

Overall, I'd say that makes DSC has taken diversity in Trek to a new level, and from what I'm reading lately, it seems that they are planning on leaning into it even harder in subsequent seasons.

As for serialization, again, what I'v read is DSC cast and crew mentioning that DSC isn't the only serialized Trek, but is the most serialized. This is especially true if you compare first seasons of all the spins.

As I wrote earlier, Voy was serialized like the X-Files, overall arc (returning home), which they touched on periodically, with most other episodes being standalones. Ent's last two seasons were highly serialized. DS9 was similar to Voy with it's Emissary arc, but became serialized in the last couple of seasons.

 

[gblews]

I think in Tuvok case it was more that he was going to be the first Vulcan series regular since Spock. The only racism around it I remember was misjudged attempts at humour, and that lasted all of three jokes from teenagers...though the joke amongst ,y group of Voyager watching friends was that Tuvok had decks on the bridge for when he was in command, and could mix some tunes for his shift.

At the time, AOL had a pretty robust Star Trek community and forums. The argument against a "black" Vulcan had something to do with some convoluted bullshit concerning Vulcan blood being green and so blah blah no way a Vulcan can have dark colored skin.

It was further pointed out to the poster who argued against Tim Russ as a Vulcan that what he was really saying was that 'Vulcans' should only be played by white actors, simply because the first actor he'd seen play a Vulcan was white. To his/her credit, the poster did concede that he didn't realize that that was what he was actually saying.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm so glad I posted on Psi Phi back then. Anyone remember those boards? We didn't have those discussions. My memory's fuzzy but I remember people wanting the show to do more with Tuvok. Kim and Neelix, on the other hand, took a lot of flack.

 

[Jinn]

So where's all these "firsts" I keep hearing of?

Klingon boobs and the word "fuck"?

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Klingon boobs and the word "fuck"?

and yet, from what one could see via the boob window on the outfits of Lursa and B’Etor I never would have expected Kloobs to be so... scaly.

Also I found the F-bomb a little cringey but I know a lot of people thought it was f****** cool.

 

[jaime]

Klingon boobs and the word "fuck"?

Don’t forget the shadowed Klingon vajayjay, the internal organs on display elsewhere, and the rape and torture in HD. And I say this as someone who actually likes DSC, but wishes they maybe had a little less ‘edge’ yet was a little more sharp.

 

[Jinn]

Also I found the F-bomb a little cringey but I know a lot of people thought it was f****** cool.

Funny thing is, I was watching the dubbed German version, and Tilly said something with "Scheiße" (meaning shit), so I didn't notice that until about 12k threads erruped to talk about the f-bomb.

 

[Kane_Steel]

This gender/identity representation push with STD is an interesting experiment. Hopefully it yields positive results, and doesn't backfire like it did with the Star Wars franchise.

In a way, this was bound to happen with Star Trek.

Enterprise and the Abrams films didn't push for the same type of diversity we see in STD. All the lead human characters were White Men, (Mayweather, Sato, Sulu, and Uhura were treated like background characters in comparison with less development). And that's really been our diversity in Star Trek casting for the past 17 years......till STD.

 

[Jayson1]

This gender/identity representation push with STD is an interesting experiment. Hopefully it yields positive results, and doesn't backfire like it did with the Star Wars franchise.

In a way, this was bound to happen with Star Trek.

Enterprise and the Abrams films didn't push for the same type of diversity we see in STD. All the lead human characters were White Men, (Mayweather, Sato, Sulu, and Uhura were treated like background characters in comparison with less development). And that's really been our diversity in Star Trek casting for the past 17 years......till STD.

Experiment? The show's issues doesn't have anything to do with it's representation. It has more to do with the fact that the people in charge don't know how to mix modern sensibilities such as more diversity with the more ingrained elements of these franchises that make them work. Sometimes you can't stick a round ball into a square socket though they seem to be trying. What you get is average stuff. Not Trek enough to feel like great Trek but not modern enough or edgy enough to feel like serious modern drama. You can have a almost all female cast if you want and still do a show that captures the feelings of what Trek is about. It's basically a kind of moderately entertaining shel of what Trek use to be and what it wants to be,

Enterprise didn't have much diversity but like Discovery that isn't why it failed. It failed because the people running it were burned out on Trek and possibly because UPN wouldn't let them try some new stuff like doing most of season one on Earth. The Abrams movies also weren't super diverse but then they are basically creating a old 60's show so that has certain limits to what you can do unless your going for something completely new. Uhura didn't feel like a background character to me in the movies. That was them basically trying to get some diversity from the one main place you can get it from and that is by enhancing the importance of the Uhura character. Their only huge mistake was how they cast Khan but then again I am a big fan of the actor so I have a hard time getting upset in this case. PLus I know they thought they were going to try and surprise people by having him be Khan. If you cast a Indian actor the gig is up almost instantly. I think I would have double cast the chaaracter. Have Cumberbach reveal he is worrying a holo-emiitter and in the second half of the movie when we find out he is Khan the role switches to a Indian actor. Granted I would throw people of the track by having the Indian actor playing another character early in the film and we only find out that character was Khan simply not using his holo-image and he was basically faking two roles at once.

Jason

 

[gblews]

This gender/identity representation push with STD is an interesting. .

Have you read the article posted in the thread about season 2, and the "Future is female" threads? From what I've seen, I think you may be in for a very emasculating and irritating little shock in season 2 of DSC.

Experiment? The show's issues doesn't have anything to do with it's representation.

A fact.

It has more to do with the fact that the people in charge don't know how to mix modern sensibilities such as more diversity with the more ingrained elements of these franchises that make them work.

And this statement is in complete conflict with your previous one. Diversity in casting has NOTHING to do with the quality or lack thereof, in the production.

 

[Jayson1]

Have you read the article posted in the thread about season 2, and the "Future is female" threads? From what I've seen, I think you may be in for a very emasculating and irritating little shock in season 2 of DSC.

A fact.

And this statement is in complete conflict with your previous one. Diversity in casting has NOTHING to do with the quality or lack thereof, in the production.

I thought that was kind of what I said. Diversity doesn't make or break a show but it can change the nature of a show if you don't have good writers. If you have writers who only know how to write for one group of people then it means the characters who are different from them can fall into cliche's. We have seen this for years on TV. It's why so many ethnic and cultural sterotypes have existed. Granted it's basically something that is even bigger than just things related to race and gender. How many writers who might write a war based show actually know anything about the military for example. It's why I think it's good when shows have writers from a wide range of backgrounds and interests and races and genders. Different points of view brings more interesting new angles to explore a story. Granted sometimes a writer still has to write for a character or situation they aren't super familiar with but I got to think it helps to have a fellow writer around who has more insight who you can go to for advice or help.

Jason

 

[gblews]

I thought that was kind of what I said.

You did, in the first part of your post. But the second part of my post was referring to this part of your post:

It has more to do with the fact that the people in charge don't know how to mix modern sensibilities such as more diversity with the more ingrained elements of these franchises that make them work.

This part of your post states the opposite of the statement above it. Not knowing how to "mix diversity with ingrained elements..." is simply nonsense.

 

[Jayson1]

You did, in the first part of your post. But the second part of my post was referring to this part of your post:

This part of your post states the opposite of the statement above it. Not knowing how to "mix diversity with ingrained elements..." is simply nonsense.

No it's not. If your "Star Trek show" show feels like a ""Battlestar Galaticia mixed with "Voyager"" show then the diversity of your show won't mean anything other than it's nice that some working actors are getting a paycheck. Ingrained elements means the overall feel and spirit of a show and what kind of stories it is trying to tell and how they tell them. "DS9" feels like Trek just like "TOS" and "TNG" does and the diversity among those 3 shows were very different. Of course what goes into making a show "feel" like Trek is different for different people so I admit that is subjective.

To me though the show feels like it's lost and doesn't know what it wants to be. Does it want to be old school Trek. It's fear of leaving the Prime Universe or taking many edgy dramatic turns we expect from more modern shows seems to say they kind of still want to be Berman Trek. On the other hand it feels more adult language and slightly more graphic violence and changing the tech and sets and even adding diversity in a postive way that only "DS9" really came close to is all you need to be to elevate your show to the better stuff on tv even though those better shows are already doing and have been doing it before them is all they need to do to feel like a legit modern drama yet it's not enough really. Their going to have to push the envelope alot harder if they want to escape the Trek format cliches. A few more surprises would be nice as would some unexpected character development you didn't see coming yet it makes sense when it happens. Basically the writing needs to get better. What really makes Trek feel like Trek is quality writing and exploring the human condition. I did not see much exploring in year 1. I saw small doses of good characters being wasted. Their attempts at character depth never felt all that deep. I don't think they really had anything new or interesting to saw about Trumpism despite them having two Trump characters. They didn't even outdo what "DS9" was able to do or even the other Trek shows when talking about war. Their one chance to explore sexual abuse and war trauma was not done well when you don't really know what they were trying to say about Tyler and Lorca ended up being a space clown.


Jason