News Martin-Green: Star Trek Is About Universality

[Shaka Zulu]

I think what’s going on here is very similar to what happened with ghostbusters 2016 and sexism a couple of years ago. The people involved in making it are drumming up controversy where I’m not sure one exists.

With GB16 you had people saying that if you didn’t like it you were a sexist misogynist who was a giant manchild whose fragile masculinity was intimidated by female ghostbusters

All of which is true; most of the people against it are sexist misogynists full of shit about this movie, and wanted to see it fail because their precious boys weren't back as the Ghostbusters.
...

When in reality it’s just that Ghostbusters 2016 just wasn’t that funny. For some people. Like me. (I did go and see it. I think I laughed once? I don’t think it ruined my childhood and the actors did the best they could with poor material). The furor created about the apparent sexism seemed to be the studio trying to create buzz about the film.

The studio didn't create said furor, the whiny butthurt male fans did- again because their precious male clubhouse was invaded by girls. If that's you, and you don't like being insulted, tough shit-next time, don't be like them. Be open and try to accept a change like this.

Compared to DSC describing itself as “woke” (cringe) and SMG hinting at people being intolerant, it looks like it’s the same thing going on - the generation of buzz for the show by creating a controversy around it where I’m not sure one exists.

The show's into a second season, it's got critical acclaim and fans, and so-called 'fans' were against it because of who was cast as the series leads. How hard is that to fathom?

As for the stories, it looks like said so-called 'fans' are pissy because the show's 'dark' or whatever older people love to say about current TV shows because something complex is beyond them (ironically and most likely the same people who were complaining about how the plots and characters of TNG and Voyager weren't any good, and how nothing was as complex as what was on BSG and other programs of the day.)

I also didn’t think there was any kind of heavy handed “Gay” agenda or whatever while watching the show, but these points seem to keep coming up when people talk *about* the show.

They 'come up' because people are raging homophobic morons who can't seem to accept that LGBT people exist (the same thing came up due to 'Blood & Fire' on Phase II dealing with this, and that was a show that was a complete copy of TOS. ) Again, if your're one of those people....

Just as with Ghostbusters, I get the sense of some people involved with DSC trying to create a furor where one doesn’t exist

Again, the people creating said furor are the so-called racist sexist homophobic neocon 'fans' finally showing their true colors (although I believe that these 'fans' were like this during DS9 owing to the skin color of Sisko/Brooks, which is why DS9 wasn't as popular as TNG, IMHO.)

...

Possibly to distract us all from the fact that their show wasn’t very good.

To people like you. But only to people like you trapped in Star Trek's past expecting a modern-day 21st century incarnation costing millions of dollars filmed in high definition to look, be costumed, characterized, and plotted the same as its 1966 forebear program 'just because'.

Did you think Ghostbusters ain’t funny? You’re a sexist.

Did you think DSC ain’t very good? You’re intolerant.

Both are suffering because of the kind of people I mentioned above and of how much attention they get; no more, no less than that.

Now, I can’t prove my assertions here and I’m not getting on my soapbox (although I’m sure it seems that way haha!), but when I read interviews like the one in the OP, that’s certainly what *seems* to be happening. I hope I’m wrong.

So far, I find your assertions to be the same as those of the people against the Abrams movies because the 'purity' of the franchise isn't being respected. Those were wrong then as these ones of yours are wrong now.

Also, apologies if my Mintaka III comment came across as snarky. I was alluding to the tendency on the part of the DSC writers to stick in random references to better episodes of Star Trek from elsewhere in the franchise. The Mintaka III reference when Georgiou meets Tilly is a particular bugbear of mine as it served no useful purpose and reminded me of how good the TNG episode was and how bad I find Discovery.

How the frak is mentioning Mintaka III a bad thing, and why does it make Discovery a bad show automatically?

Hopefully they’ll drop all this “woke” description (whilst still trying to be progressive, just not yelling about it) as we get into season 2.

Hopefully, the showrunners will keep on doing what they're doing, and leave fans like you behind, in the dust.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Be open and try to accept a change like this

I couldn’t agree more.

the plots and characters of TNG and Voyager weren't any good, and how nothing was as complex as what was on BSG and other programs of the day.

I don’t agree with your assessment of TNG and VOY here. They both had their ups and downs. IMHO when VOY was done well, it was done very well. When it was done badly, we got episodes like “threshold” *shudders*. But I’ve been watching VOY again on Netflix and much of it (particularly when they focus on Janeway, Tuvok, or Chakotay) was better than I remembered. In fact, there were episodes I don’t even remember watching first time round... shows the effect they had on me haha!

And regarding BSG, frakked if I didn’t love that show. Especially the end. Gets me welled up every time I watch it... from Adama yelling that the crew should make their choice right up to the very end.

which is why DS9 wasn't as popular as TNG,

I think other factors may have contributed to that at the time, but DS9 seems to be experiencing better favour among fans now than when it first aired. I must admit I didn’t get DS9 first time around. I appreciated it more when I was a little older. Now it’s my favourite Star Trek.

expecting a modern-day 21st century incarnation costing millions of dollars filmed in high definition to look, be costumed, characterized, and plotted the same as its 1966 forebear program

That would be amazing, I grant you. But... I’ve made this point elsewhere too - nobody but me would want to watch that show lol. Heck I even think the Klingons should have smooth foreheads. I get why the visual reboot happened. But part of the fun is discussing it I think.

How the frak is mentioning Mintaka III a bad thing

Well, my personal feeling is that it wasn’t relevant to the story at all. It was an Easter egg and referenced one of the best TNG episodes. DSC has yet to approach that level of storytelling.

Hopefully, the showrunners will keep on doing what they're doing

If you mean that they’ll keep making DSC in the hope that we continue to get Star Trek on tv, I totally agree. As I’ve said many times, I hope DSC is wildly successful and spawns many spinoffs just like TNG. Don’t forget, TNG was as “woke” as DSC pats itself on the back for being. And I *expect* Star Trek to be woke. Hell I *demand* it. DSC doesn’t need to keep reminding us how enlightened it is. For a Star Trek show that’s superfluous information. I want to know about the story for season 2 dagnabbit!

And to be fair, we have the Abrams films to thank for DSC. I’m interested to see where they go with the fourth one.

 

[Tuskin38]

I wish people would stop using the word 'Woke', sounds dumb.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

I wish people would stop using the word 'Woke', sounds dumb.

I study language for a living and I have to acknowledge the fact of language change (for instance in the first half of the 19th century, people would say “the house is building” where today we say “the house is being built”) but regarding “woke” I’m in complete agreement.

That and “would of” (although that’s been around since at least the 1980s and will likely become Standard English one day).

I’m trying to think of an appropriate synonym for “woke”. I think “progressive” or “enlightened” are the closest to the popular definition of “woke”, although I’d have to check Urban Dictionary.

Sorry that reply was way longer than it needed to be - I’m a linguistics nerd.

 

[Jayson1]

Didn't people use to say "hip" to basically say "woke" before they started saying "woke?"

Jason

 

[Boomstick]

Didn't people use to say "hip" to basically say "woke" before they started saying "woke?"

Jason

These are different. You could be hip to something without being woke, you jive turkey

 

[Lord Garth]

I woke up this morning. I didn't want to.

 

[DaveyNY]

I won't woke, I'd rather wok.
Like, wok the hell you talkin' bout Willis???

 

[Refuge]

woke up this morning
i suddenly realized
we're all in this together
i started smiling
'cos you were smiling
and we're all in this together
i'm made of atoms
you're made of atoms
and we're all in this together
and long division
just doesn't matter
'cos we're all in this together

Ben Lee

 

[Jayson1]

Why do I get the feeling if someone researched the first use of "woke" as it is now called it will end up being connected to something like "Coke" or "Wal Mart" or some big corporation that thought it would be a cool knew way to get people interested in it's product and then it took off in a new direction. Kind of like Coke inventing how we think of Santa Claus.

Jason

 

[jaime]

Why do I get the feeling if someone researched the first use of "woke" as it is now called it will end up being connected to something like "Coke" or "Wal Mart" or some big corporation that thought it would be a cool knew way to get people interested in it's product and then it took off in a new direction. Kind of like Coke inventing how we think of Santa Claus.

Jason

I have a feeling it’s going to turn out to be a matrix thing.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Why do I get the feeling if someone researched the first use of "woke" as it is now called it will end up being connected to something like "Coke" or "Wal Mart" or some big corporation that thought it would be a cool knew way to get people interested in it's product and then it took off in a new direction. Kind of like Coke inventing how we think of Santa Claus.

Jason

Apparently it originates from the BLM movement. There are a couple of linguistic papers that mention it (Whitaker 2017 for example - the full chapter is available on Google - I can provide a link if anyone’s interested but it’s only a very brief mention of the origin of “woke”). I’ve not been able to find any specific dating evidence of its first recorded usage though. “Woke” used as an adjective like this is apparently in the Oxford English Dictionary though - I might have a nosy and see if I can figure out its etymology. Linguistics ftw.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

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.

Anyone who thinks fandom is in any way a qualification for being a screenwriter doesn't understand how writing works. Just like diversity has no relationship to quality whatsoever, the fandom or lack thereof of the writers is completely and totally irrelevant.

 

[jaime]

Anyone who thinks fandom is in any way a qualification for being a screenwriter doesn't understand how writing works. Just like diversity has no relationship to quality whatsoever, the fandom or lack thereof of the writers is completely and totally irrelevant.

See Moore, Ronald D., Logan, John, and cross reference with Moffat, Steven, Davies, Russel (T), Cornell, Paul, Gatiss, Mark.

 

[jaime]

Apparently it originates from the BLM movement. There are a couple of linguistic papers that mention it (Whitaker 2017 for example - the full chapter is available on Google - I can provide a link if anyone’s interested but it’s only a very brief mention of the origin of “woke”). I’ve not been able to find any specific dating evidence of its first recorded usage though. “Woke” used as an adjective like this is apparently in the Oxford English Dictionary though - I might have a nosy and see if I can figure out its etymology. Linguistics ftw.

I think it’s always useful as part of a construction in some of the modern use ‘my mind awoke to the possibility that...’ etc, but it’s use as a singular word to encapsulate a pretty wide meaning? That meaning itself having a layer tied into a certain ideology or belief (that there is a system working behind the scenes against you) makes me think that like the ‘red pill’ jingo, it’s gonna be the matrix. The timing fits, the ideology kind of fits, the imagery fits.
I am with Blur on most of this stuff though....

 

[Boomstick]

See Moore, Ronald D., Logan, John, and cross reference with Moffat, Steven, Davies, Russel (T), Cornell, Paul, Gatiss, Mark.

That doesn't negate the point though, these are exceptions. These people may all have been fans of works that they then contributed to, but they are all talented screenwriters, a lot of whom had worked on popular series prior to Trek/Who. Their fandom is secondary to their writing chops, and not the other way around.

We all make big and absolute statements on these boards but what percentage of us could even sit down and start a screenplay? Never mind finish one and it be entertaining to others.
How many completely unusable Trek scripts do you think were submitted during the height of it's run?

 

[Jayson1]

Even if Woke was created with some deeper meaning I think we all know the meaning is going to be erased like many of the new slogans that have been invented. I just recently as in 1 hour ago watched "Mr Robot" season 3 opening episode because I am jut now getting to the season. In his street rant one of things Elliot talks about is how their descent had been monoploized. Then you see things like the F-Society masks being sold in a store and NBC doing a show about it. "Woke" is just going to be another corporate slogan used to appeal to people. In fact I think it already started. I saw that photo about "Discovery" being the most woke Trek ever. So it's already gone from a word about people becoming aware of the problems of society to just another tv add.


Jason

 

[Lord Garth]

We all make big and absolute statements on these boards but what percentage of us could even sit down and start a screenplay? Never mind finish one and it be entertaining to others.
How many completely unusable Trek scripts do you think were submitted during the height of it's run?

Here's a 90-second trailer of an independent film I wrote (30-page screenplay), directed, and produced. Enjoy!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I wouldn't touch Star Trek with a 10-foot pole, though. If I ever make it, I want nothing to do with franchises. Other than as a paycheck. I prefer creating my own material entirely from scratch.

 

[jaime]

That doesn't negate the point though, these are exceptions. These people may all have been fans of works that they then contributed to, but they are all talented screenwriters, a lot of whom had worked on popular series prior to Trek/Who. Their fandom is secondary to their writing chops, and not the other way around.

We all make big and absolute statements on these boards but what percentage of us could even sit down and start a screenplay? Never mind finish one and it be entertaining to others.
How many completely unusable Trek scripts do you think were submitted during the height of it's run?

There’s an argument that suggests to write a given set up well, you have to experience that life...now, no one can truly experience the ‘life’ of a Star fleet officer, so it wouldn’t have applied back in the day, but now...fans will have the closest thing to an experience of that existence. To go to Doctor Who, the modern writing is a lot more ‘about’ the Doctor, because there’s a larger pool of people who are familiar with that setting than once there was. So, the real question is, is it easier to train a writer to know the world? Or easier to get someone who knows the world and they then learn to write?
All of which is an aside, because there are probably plenty of fans who could indeed write a screenplay, and a good one, but since we don’t have Trek slush piles anymore, it’s not gonna happen. Because the one in a hundred fans who could write is now narrowed down to the one in a million who could write, have written before, have an agent and contacts etc. Mind you, the slush piles were always limited anyway...not exactly a wide segment of the U.S , let alone the world.
You underrate the amount of fan knowledge needed to really get a franchise, and over estimate the amount of skill it takes to get a draft done. I think the ideal is in the middle, except for those few times we get a Moffat or Moore.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

See Moore, Ronald D., Logan, John, and cross reference with Moffat, Steven, Davies, Russel (T), Cornell, Paul, Gatiss, Mark.

There’s an argument that suggests to write a given set up well, you have to experience that life...now, no one can truly experience the ‘life’ of a Star fleet officer, so it wouldn’t have applied back in the day, but now...fans will have the closest thing to an experience of that existence. To go to Doctor Who, the modern writing is a lot more ‘about’ the Doctor, because there’s a larger pool of people who are familiar with that setting than once there was. So, the real question is, is it easier to train a writer to know the world? Or easier to get someone who knows the world and they then learn to write?
All of which is an aside, because there are probably plenty of fans who could indeed write a screenplay, and a good one, but since we don’t have Trek slush piles anymore, it’s not gonna happen. Because the one in a hundred fans who could write is now narrowed down to the one in a million who could write, have written before, have an agent and contacts etc. Mind you, the slush piles were always limited anyway...not exactly a wide segment of the U.S , let alone the world.
You underrate the amount of fan knowledge needed to really get a franchise, and over estimate the amount of skill it takes to get a draft done. I think the ideal is in the middle, except for those few times we get a Moffat or Moore.

I'm really confused here. Are you using John Logan as proof that fans are better writers or are you using Ron Moore as proof that they aren't? Because neither possibility makes any sense.

In any case, the point is not that fans can't write, its that fandom is completely irrelevant. There are just as many great stories from non-fans as there are from fans.