News Martin-Green: Star Trek Is About Universality

[Kane_Steel]

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.

LOL. Yeah, I know what to expect. Season One made it clear what Berg and Harberts want to do with the series.

I'll watch the Season Two episodes with Pike (because STD airs for free on TV here). I don't care if they ruin iconic characters like Spock and Pike, or even Kirk.

We've had 50 years of Trek and pretty good continuity. That will always be there. It's fine for STD to come along now and screw things up. At this point, the best of Trek isn't in the future, it's in the franchise's past.

 

[Boomstick]

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.
.

How has it backfired with the Star Wars franchise? The Force Awakens brought in $2 billion, The Last Jedi brought in $1.3 billion, Rogue One brought in $1 billion. The first film in this new glut to look like it's not going to do as well is Solo, the one carried by a white male protagonist.

 

[Kane_Steel]

How has it backfired with the Star Wars franchise? The Force Awakens brought in $2 billion, The Last Jedi brought in $1.3 billion, Rogue One brought in $1 billion. The first film in this new glut to look like it's not going to do as well is Solo, the one carried by a white male protagonist.

There's fair ground to say Solo severely underperforming and the Star Wars 'franchise fatigue' that the trades are reporting is a result of how 'The Last Jedi' was received. TLJ had notable drop-off rates, toys and merch failing to sell in large quantities, and a growing backlash and hatred online... that seems to be souring audiences on the franchise and making it cool to hate Star Wars today. In today's connected world, online reactions (from YT commentaries to RT audience scores) for better or worse seem to have an impact on general audience response. Studios are starting to become aware of this.

TBH this could have all been avoided if they got someone who was a fan of the material to produce the films, the same way Marvel Studios did.

 

[Boomstick]

There's fair ground to say Solo severely underperforming and the Star Wars 'franchise fatigue' that the trades are reporting is a result of how 'The Last Jedi' was received. TLJ had notable drop-off rates, toys and merch failing to sell in large quantities, and a growing backlash and hatred online... that seems to be souring audiences on the franchise and making it cool to hate Star Wars today. In today's connected world, online reactions (from YT commentaries to RT audience scores) for better or worse seem to have an impact on general audience response. Studios are starting to become aware of this.

TBH this could have all been avoided if they got someone who was a fan of the material to produce the films, the same way Marvel Studios did.

i get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure how much youtube commentaries and RT audience scores really do matter. I think they're much more concerned about how much merch they can flog to children and how much money the can make from the Chinese market. I think franchise fatigue probably has less to do with quality and more to do with quantity. There was a film out five months ago, and we are being bombarded with how much more content they're going to create. Absence makes the heart grow fonder etc.

And I bet children enjoyed TLJ a lot more than adults.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

And I bet children enjoyed TLJ a lot more than adults.

Most likely, as they probably don't even give a shit about the "emasculation of the white male". They just want fun space adventures, and so do I.

And for those upset that Star Wars is being taken over by non-white males, I'm glad you're upset because you people are ridiculous.

 

[Boomstick]

Most likely, as they probably don't even give a shit about the "emasculation of the white male". They just want fun space adventures, and so do I.

And for those upset that Star Wars is being taken over by non-white males, I'm glad you're upset because you people are ridiculous.

This is my sentiment. If you feel emasculated because of watching Star Wars you are a loser.

 

[eschaton]

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.

Sorry, what I meant is why should you have the "races" of Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, etc, mirror those of humans. Meaning many of the "white" others "black" still others "Asian?" I mean, there are practical concerns regarding casting and makeup, but otherwise, I don't really see a reason to do this.

Why couldn't it be, for example, that all black Vulcans have red hair? Or have a Vulcan subrace which is tall and has literally green skin? Or have the "racial" divisions based upon something else entirely, like ear shape?

 

[Kane_Steel]

i get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure how much youtube commentaries and RT audience scores really do matter. I think they're much more concerned about how much merch they can flog to children and how much money the can make from the Chinese market. I think franchise fatigue probably has less to do with quality and more to do with quantity. There was a film out five months ago, and we are being bombarded with how much more content they're going to create. Absence makes the heart grow fonder etc.

And I bet children enjoyed TLJ a lot more than adults.

Marvel Studios managed to roll out films within a few months apart, one did 1.3B and the other will likely top 2 Billion.

Quantity doesn't matter if the quality is solid. The quality of TLJ is questionable at best, given it's lukewarm audience response.

And now, Star Wars: Solo has only grossed 83Mil domestic over the 3-day weekend, coming in under the flop Justice League's opening.

Solo will actually lose the studio money. Fans are voicing their disinterest and disapproval with their wallets. I have no doubt the Ep9 opening will be disappointing as well.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Sorry, what I meant is why should you have the "races" of Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, etc, mirror those of humans. Meaning many of the "white" others "black" still others "Asian?" I mean, there are practical concenrs regarding casting and makeup, but otherwise, I don't really see a reason to do this.

Why couldn't it be, for example, that all black Vulcans have red hair? Or have a Vulcan subrace which is tall and has literally green skin? Or have the "racial" divisions based upon something else entirely, like ear shape?

When it really comes down to it, Vulcans and Romulans looking SO much like humans is completely unscientific. It would be mathematically impossible for them to have evolved so similarly to the humans on Earth, given that our own evolution was driven by radical climate shifts and extinction level events.

Given the recent changes to the Klingons, I wonder how long it will be till the Vulcans and Romulans are radically reimagined visually...

 

[eschaton]

When it really comes down to it, Vulcans and Romulans looking SO much like humans is completely unscientific. It would be mathematically impossible for them to have evolved so similarly to the humans on Earth, given that our own evolution was driven by radical climate shifts and extinction level events.

TNG came up with the excuse of the ancient humanoids in The Chase. It's not one of my favorite episodes by any means, but it's interesting it gets so little flak, considering that it's exactly the same thing as the Affliction/Divergence two-parter in ENT - an attempt to explain away a random production/artistic choice within universe.

If I were retconning the whole series, I'd have all of the humanoid alien species be literal humans, who were taken offworld by the Iconians and genetically modified. It would explain how they can actually interbreed. But YMMV.

 

[XCV330]

hopefully never. the Klingon redo went a little too far, made them unrelatable. it might be unrealistic but its star trek. I like DSC but I did not like the reptilization of Klingons at all. Just another dead in Bryan Fullerism. Hopefully they leave the other species alone.

 

[Boomstick]

Quantity doesn't matter if the quality is solid. The quality of TLJ is questionable at best, given it's lukewarm audience response.

The quality of the entire film franchise outside of Empire Strikes Back is questionable at best.

 

[gblews]

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.

The highlighted part of your post is what I'm referring to. It seems to be saying that part of DSC writers' problem is that they don't know how to "mix diversity" with "ingrained elements" of (Trek). This is nonsense. How is "mixing" a cast of racially and gender diverse actors a factor in the quality of the show?

Sounds like what you're saying is that there are some characters on DSC who the writers are having trouble "mixing" with "ingrained elements" of Trek because those characters are played by minority actors. Can you explain this. Please stay on topic.

Diversity doesn't make or break a show but it can change the nature of a show if you don't have good writers.

We're talking about DSC here, not Seinfeld. What you suggest above has some truth in general, but isn't an issue on DSC. There is no need to present Burnham in a way that is true to her upbringing in South Central L.A., because that's not where she is from. This is not an issue that currently pertains to DSC. If you think it is, please explain.

Having women writers on the staff, however, is a plus and if they're going to feature gay characters, having someone who knows what it is like to be gay is also great. Both of those areas are covered by the DSC staff. And just for good measure, there is a black writer on staff.Now that I think about it, there's also an Asian woman on the writing staff. Tell me that's not the most diverse writing room in all of Trek.

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.

The "diversity" in the casts of DS9, TOS, and TNG, had no impact on how good or bad those shows were, just as "diversity' alone, has not, and will not, have any impact on the quality of DSC.

Jayson, are you trying to say that if DSC was a better show, people would stop harping on the diversity issue? If so, I think you're wrong. Diversity is one of the ways many of the show's critics attack DSC (but not the only reason).

Since the show's philosophy on the issue of diversity is not likely to change, nor should it, critics will continue to attack the show on that basis.

 

[gblews]

Sorry, what I meant is why should you have the "races" of Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, etc, mirror those of humans. Meaning many of the "white" others "black" still others "Asian?" I mean, there are practical concerns regarding casting and makeup, but otherwise, I don't really see a reason to do this.

Why couldn't it be, for example, that all black Vulcans have red hair? Or have a Vulcan subrace which is tall and has literally green skin? Or have the "racial" divisions based upon something else entirely, like ear shape?

Agreed. This would be interesting to see, especially with the Vulcans, since Tuvok has already shown us they don't all look the same.

This is what made the Xindi so intriguing as a race. Some of them were humanoid, others were Insectoid, others were aquatic or aviary, but they were all part of the Xindi race.

 

[Jayson1]

The highlighted part of your post is what I'm referring to. It seems to be saying that part of DSC writers' problem is that they don't know how to "mix diversity" with "ingrained elements" of (Trek). This is nonsense. How is "mixing" a cast of racially and gender diverse actors a factor in the quality of the show?

Sounds like what you're saying is that there are some characters on DSC who the writers are having trouble "mixing" with "ingrained elements" of Trek because those characters are played by minority actors. Can you explain this. Please stay on topic.

We're talking about DSC here, not Seinfeld. What you suggest above has some truth in general, but isn't an issue on DSC. There is no need to present Burnham in a way that is true to her upbringing in South Central L.A., because that's not where she is from. This is not an issue that currently pertains to DSC. If you think it is, please explain.

Having a women writers on the staff, however, is a plus and if they're going to feature gay characters, having someone who knows what it is like to be gay is also great. Both of those areas are covered by the DSC staff. And just for good measure, there is a black writer on staff.

The "diversity" in the casts of DS9, TOS, and TNG, had no impact on how good or bad those shows were, just as "diversity' alone, has not, and will not, have any impact on the quality of DSC.

Jayson, are you trying to say that if DSC was a better show, people would stop harping on the diversity issue? If so, I think you're wrong. Diversity is one of the ways many of the show's critics attack DSC (but not the only reason).

Since the show's philosophy on the issue of diversity is not likely to change, nor should it, critics will continue to attack the show on that basis.

No what I am saying is Burnham would be a weak character whether the character was male or female or if she was white or asian. She is basically Spock and Kira mixed together into one character. She is a strong action hero who can kick but like Kira and has a traumatic past. She is suppose to be smart like Spock. With some of the emotional baggage they both have yet also with the wisdom that Spock also had. They aren't doing a good job though of writing the character they seem to want her to be and the actress not being so great also hurts the process. She often says stuff in the show that is suppose to be deep or profound but it never feels deep or profound. Yet Trek always has characters who have interesting things to say about the human condition so that is one of those ingrained elements they are failing at. Heck Trek has even had better more well rounded strong characters than her. Kira,Dax.Janeway,Torres so it's not like Trek has not been able to write strong female characters before. The difference is those characters were in shows that felt like they knew what Trek was about. Yes even "Voyager" which not perfect has at least 4 decent seasons. If you somehow put this Burnham character on DS9 she would still be a bad character. Stammets and Tilly which I think are also progressive characters who actually work would be great on DS9 as well. The diversity is actually one of the few classic ingrained elements they are doing well. It's the exploring the human condition with skill and the making the universe feel like a interested connected place or having any sense of fun(except when Tilly does something) and even the designs are mostly not all that good. Those are the things it's failing at that the better Trek shows did well. Which would be fine if they really wanted to go in a new direction but they seem afraid of that as well.

As for the question if people would stop using diversity as a means to attack the show if it was better. Somewhat. I think we underestimate how welll people are able to ignore their own prejudices when it comes to entertainment. Do you think ever fan of someone like Will Smith or Buffy back in the day didn't also have some racist and sexist views? People have a amazing ability to rationalize some really terrible idea's and also make exceptions. That's how the racist "I have a black friend" comes from. I bet half of those people actually do have a black friend. If "Discovery" was great I bet you would have tons of people who loved the Burnham character yet when they see black people at the mall or wherever the have some not so nice thoughts going through their heads. I know the racism wouldn't fully go away online but it would be drowned out by all the love for the show. Kind of like how on "Battlestar Galatica" some of the complaints about Starbuck now being a woman kind of went away once the show established it was a awesome show. If the show had sucked though people would still be talking about it. In fact it would be the prime example by sexist as the reason the show failed. I think quality and talent always has away of drowning out criticism. It's why sexist got their way in the new "Ghostbusters" movie but didn't get their way in :Wonder Woman."

Jason

 

[Lord Garth]

As for the question if people would stop using diversity as a means to attack the show if it was better.

If it isn't one thing, it'll be something else. Regardless of the show's quality -- which I happen to think is very good -- we currently live in a time where a sizeable chunk of the population wants to backlash against all social progress. Those who want to complain about "SJWs!!!!" will do so regardless. They won't be happy until it's 1890 again. 1950 is too generous.

 

[gblews]

The diversity is actually one of the few classic ingrained elements they are doing well.

Do you realize that what you wrote above is just about the exact opposite of what you wrote previously:

t 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.

I think you wrote the above because it sounded good inside your head, without realizing that the statement actually goes against what you really believe (or so I hope you believe).

I don't think you really know what you mean, or what you wrote above really means, and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. And now, rather than admit it was a brain fart or whatever, you're throwing a bunch of crap out there hoping to cover yourself.

 

[Jayson1]

Do you realize that what you wrote above is just about the exact opposite of what you wrote previously:

I think you wrote the above because it sounded good inside your head, without realizing that the statement actually goes against what you really believe (or so I hope you believe).

I don't think you really know what you mean, or what you wrote above really means, and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. And now, rather than admit it was a brain fart or whatever, you're throwing a bunch of crap out there hoping to cover yourself.

I am confused by your confusion. Like me I assume you feel diversity is important in Trek. Am I right? If that is true and it's been something important then how is that not a core element of what Trek is? If this show has it yet still isn't quite as good as many of the other Trek's that also had diversity except maybe not quite on the scale of Discovery but it's still their then I am confused by what your trying to say. Do you think I am saying diversity is a modern sensibility? I mean maybe for tv in general it is something that has become a bigger deal but it's always been in Trek. To me the modern sensibilities is the story arc and the gloomy sets and the lead character who isn't given much of a personality because they see that as deep and complex. Also the more casual speech instead of that kind of future speak that Pillar basically invented though I think it did sort of go away once he stopped having much to do with DS9 and Voyager but I still think that Pillar Speak is something people still associate a great deal with Berman era Trek. Also the technobabble is almost gone as well which was another Pillar invention. That's one of those modern sensibilities they are doing right. I think the casual speaking is also another one. The story arc and the sets and overall look of the show and Burnham are the ones they have failed at IMO.

Jason

 

[Lord Garth]

Do you think I am saying diversity is a modern sensibility?

gblews directly quoted you saying this in his last post: "mix modern sensibilities such as more diversity".

I mean maybe for tv in general it is something that has become a bigger deal but it's always been in Trek. To me the modern sensibilities is the story arc and the gloomy sets and the lead character who isn't given much of a personality because they see that as deep and complex. Also the more casual speech instead of that kind of future speak that Pillar basically invented though I think it did sort of go away once he stopped having much to do with DS9 and Voyager but I still think that Pillar Speak is something people still associate a great deal with Berman era Trek. Also the technobabble is almost gone as well which was another Pillar invention. That's one of those modern sensibilities they are doing right. I think the casual speaking is also another one. The story arc and the sets and overall look of the show and Burnham are the ones they have failed at IMO.

But, reading this, and given that I know from another forum that you consider modern television to mean "post-2000", I'm leaning toward you don't think more diversity on TV is just a modern sensibility.

 

[Jayson1]

gblews directly quoted you saying this in his last post: "mix modern sensibilities such as more diversity".



But, reading this, and given that I know from another forum that you consider modern television to mean "post-2000", I'm leaning toward you don't think more diversity on TV is
just a modern sensibility.

Okay that was a brain fart in the first post.

Jason