Better series lead. Ed Mercer from "Orville" vs Burnham from "Discovery?"

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't even remember the Compton joke, but you hit the nail on the head with why Lamar in particular is a problematic character.

So you don't even remember what the poster is talking about, but you think they hit the nail on the head with it. Okay....

I was cringing at the episode where he insulted the alien culture and was about to be executed for it.

That was a completely different episode. The one when LaMarr offended the culture dominated by social media was S1E7 "Majority Rule." The Compton joke was in S1E2 "Command Performance."

 

[Phoenix219]

Stereotypes aren't a terrible thing in a vacuum. They are based on what can be perceived as a large % group - not necessarily a majority, but one that does exist and has roots in reality. Subverting the stereotype, you are a genius (very intelligent) and have not met your true potential, you just have to work hard and not care what people think.... is not a bad lesson to teach anyone that may be going through that situation or something like it.

 

[DarKush]

So you don't even remember what the poster is talking about, but you think they hit the nail on the head with it. Okay....


That was a completely different episode. The one when LaMarr offended the culture dominated by social media was S1E7 "Majority Rule." The Compton joke was in S1E2 "Command Performance."

Yes, because the Compton joke/bit could be an example of the larger overall issues that I have with the Lamar character.

When it comes to the idea of Lamar and diversity, or many characters and diversity, for me it's a question now of diversity for whose sake? Certainly the optics of seeing Lamar and Johnson-Jerald's character, as well as other diverse actors in the cast photos and on the bridge, or show in general, are 'good', however the important issue is how these characters are depicted. It does little good and will not increase the shows broader appeal (if that is in fact a goal of the show) to have a character like Lamar, in particular, on there who arguably presents a regressive, stereotypical view of black people. So, in a way, it's like a paper diversity, there for optics and cosmetics.

 

[DarKush]

Stereotypes aren't a terrible thing in a vacuum. They are based on what can be perceived as a large % group - not necessarily a majority, but one that does exist and has roots in reality. Subverting the stereotype, you are a genius (very intelligent) and have not met your true potential, you just have to work hard and not care what people think.... is not a bad lesson to teach anyone that may be going through that situation or something like it.

The idea that black people just don't 'work hard enough' is not a positive idea, or a subversion of any stereotype. It's just reinforcing a very post-Reconstruction stereotype of black people to justify anti-black laws and customs.

Let me also add that I disagree with your belief that stereotypes have a basis in reality, especially when it comes to the history of blacks in America. Stereotypes shifted to reinforce the prevailing racial order's needs. Antebellum blacks were depicted as childlike, in need of the guidance and civilizing influence of slavery, but post-Civil War, blacks-especially black males-then became dangerous and in need of the suppressing hand of white vigilantism, Jim Crow laws, and other discriminatory measures. And there is a long history of blacks who have combated these stereotypes, going back to the dawn of cinema at least.

To me, sticking the 'genius' label on LaMarr was McFarlane's way of trying to justify or get around any potential criticism of the character when it came to race. It still goes into the idea that black people, especially black males, just don't work hard enough. There are no real barriers, it's all self-inflicted, or self-limiting, or self-defeating. This backstory was not given to a white character, where then it is not so tied to a history of suspect depictions, and perhaps could be explored with more nuance. It is instead given to the only black male, identifiable, on the show, which conforms to other depictions of black men throughout the history of entertainment.

Even though ENT's Mayweather wasn't fleshed out much, he was handled far better even though he was mostly wall-paper to say ENT was a 'diverse' show.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The idea that black people just don't 'work hard enough' is not a positive idea, or a subversion of any stereotype. It's just reinforcing a very post-Reconstruction stereotype of black people to justify anti-black laws and customs.

Yeah, I'm going to assert that the idea that a black person has superior mental faculties to the majority of white people, which is one of the consequences of asserting that LaMarr is a genius, is no kind of post-Reconstruction stereotype of black people.

 

[DarKush]

Yeah, I'm going to assert that the idea that a black person has superior mental faculties to the majority of white people, which is one of the consequences of asserting that LaMarr is a genius, is no kind of post-Reconstruction stereotype of black people.

Since you asserted it, well, I guess there's no argument. Of course, we will see how much LaMarr uses his 'genius' as opposed to continuing to crack wise and sip soda while at his station in Season 2.

 

[Refuge]

Yes, because the Compton joke/bit could be an example of the larger overall issues that I have with the Lamar character.

When it comes to the idea of Lamar and diversity, or many characters and diversity, for me it's a question now of diversity for whose sake? Certainly the optics of seeing Lamar and Johnson-Jerald's character, as well as other diverse actors in the cast photos and on the bridge, or show in general, are 'good', however the important issue is how these characters are depicted. It does little good and will not increase the shows broader appeal (if that is in fact a goal of the show) to have a character like Lamar, in particular, on there who arguably presents a regressive, stereotypical view of black people. So, in a way, it's like a paper diversity, there for optics and cosmetics.

I'm curious and if I am out of line please tell me and I will remove the enquiry. Do you have like a personal stake in the characterisation of black characters? Like I'm female and I have a personal interest in how women are portrayed and I don't mean how someone else tells me I should react either. Apparently if you don't embrace the current crop of female leads you are not being feminist enough, which rather keeps the status quo of telling a woman (me) how to think anyway . I would be interested in an example of a characterisation of a black character that is in a the right direction.

I could suggest two types of framing. One whereby the character reflects a positive model that we can relate to in our world and one whereby the character's race or gender is virtually irrelevant. Like for me take Beverly Crusher she is an example of a working mother, an ambitious individual, and an accomplished high ranking Starfleet officer. A positive role model but one that is a positive *female* role model. With Janeway yes of course she is female but we are not supposed to differentiate that positively or negatively because the role of captain is a leveller. Mostly in story it was never a big thing. There was a scene where she decided she didn't want to be addressed as Ma'am (and Tom still did throughout) but her gender was a non-issue. I do have one other type which is the hardest to navigate. It's the character that fits a stereotype but does more. Seven of Nine. Be easy to dismiss her as a cat suit but some of us saw more in her both as a character and actress.

I tend to think Claire of The Orville is supposed to be a bit like Beverly. Michael on Discovery is complicated. Not Vulcan by race yet by orientation, there's a sense of an adoption parallel we could make for today. I think she's messed up and not because of her gender or colour. I mean she's neither cool headed in a crisis enough to be Vulcan or human enough to recognise her weaknesses. And she didn't learn anything in my opinion. Her journey started with threatening mutiny and it ended on the same note.

 

[Jayson1]

Is LaMarr really all that different from Mercer or Gordon? You can see a certain way McFarlande likes to write male characters. It's guys who are chill and cool but not asshole bully types. They are people you want to hangout with. When LaMarr talks about just wanting to relax instead of push himself that is not suppose to be seen as a bad life choice. Some people are fine with just trying to be happy which is a reflection of what the American Dream use to be about before the American Dream became all about making money or becoming famous. Just someone getting paid a fair wage and enjoying ordinary and simple pleasures use to be what it was all about.

He basically write female characters much in the same way with the only difference is they tend to feel the need to be more responsbile at times than the men do. One thing common though is the only person who seems to be super career oriented is Mercer to a degree and even that isn't played to hard.

Jason

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Is LaMarr really all that different from Mercer or Gordon?

I think it would have worked fine for Gordon to have been the one humping the statue in "Majority Decision." I can see Alara or even Kelly getting carried away and having done it.

As a matter of fact, S1E12 "Mad Idolatry" had Kelly behaving in an ill-advised, though well-intended, way that had dramatic consequences on the alien planet.

 

[Jayson1]

I think it would have worked fine for Gordon to have been the one humping the statue in "Majority Decision." I can see Alara or even Kelly getting carried away and having done it.

As a matter of fact, S1E12 "Mad Idolatry" had Kelly behaving in an ill-advised, though well-intended, way that had dramatic consequences on the alien planet.

I also think it would have worked with Gordon. I can see them though choosing LaMar simply because they felt like they weren't giving the character enough to do. Which I also think plays into the idea of making him a genious and chief engineer not to mention being a call back to what happened to Geordi LaForge. In fact I think Gordon and LaMar's friendship is suppose to be something of a mix between Pars/Kim and LaForge and Data.

Jason

 

[DarKush]

I'm curious and if I am out of line please tell me and I will remove the enquiry. Do you have like a personal stake in the characterisation of black characters? Like I'm female and I have a personal interest in how women are portrayed and I don't mean how someone else tells me I should react either. Apparently if you don't embrace the current crop of female leads you are not being feminist enough, which rather keeps the status quo of telling a woman (me) how to think anyway . I would be interested in an example of a characterisation of a black character that is in a the right direction.

I could suggest two types of framing. One whereby the character reflects a positive model that we can relate to in our world and one whereby the character's race or gender is virtually irrelevant. Like for me take Beverly Crusher she is an example of a working mother, an ambitious individual, and an accomplished high ranking Starfleet officer. A positive role model but one that is a positive *female* role model. With Janeway yes of course she is female but we are not supposed to differentiate that positively or negatively because the role of captain is a leveller. Mostly in story it was never a big thing. There was a scene where she decided she didn't want to be addressed as Ma'am (and Tom still did throughout) but her gender was a non-issue. I do have one other type which is the hardest to navigate. It's the character that fits a stereotype but does more. Seven of Nine. Be easy to dismiss her as a cat suit but some of us saw more in her both as a character and actress.

I tend to think Claire of The Orville is supposed to be a bit like Beverly. Michael on Discovery is complicated. Not Vulcan by race yet by orientation, there's a sense of an adoption parallel we could make for today. I think she's messed up and not because of her gender or colour. I mean she's neither cool headed in a crisis enough to be Vulcan or human enough to recognise her weaknesses. And she didn't learn anything in my opinion. Her journey started with threatening mutiny and it ended on the same note.

I don’t think your question is out of line. I do have a personal stake in the depiction of black characters in the sense that I know from history how the negative depiction of fictional black characters has reinforced and/or encouraged mistreatment of black people in real life. I also think media depictions also reflect, to some extent, how the majority view black people as a whole, perhaps at times more welcoming than in the past, but still kept at a distance, so while there are more black characters on TV or in movies (which didn’t come without protest and advocacy, which continues to this day. It was only several years ago that the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag forced Hollywood to at least acknowledge it’s continual diversity issues), but the next step of giving black characters their own interior lives, motivations, goals, or agency that can be different, or even at times opposite, to any show or movies' generally main white characters, is still a bridge too far all too often.

And there’s a personal stake in the sense that I’m a geek who loves space opera, some other sci-fi, horror, and genre works, comics, but often have had to deal with inaccurate and at times offensive and dismissive depictions of black people (i.e. me), and it makes it hard to embrace, or fully embrace, some of those stories that I otherwise enjoy. My enjoyment has to be qualified, sometimes negative things have to be overlooked or minimized. I might have to use the word ‘but’ often.

I don’t believe that race is irrelevant when it comes to characters, not in the US. Just like it isn’t in real life. It might not always be explicitly dealt with or even brought up, but it is there in the subtext.

To answer your request for a ‘right example’ I look to DS9’s Benjamin Sisko. Sisko wasn’t perfect, he was no Gary Stu, he had complexities, and he was a well-rounded character. Sisko was three-dimensional. He had a family, he had friends, he had relationships, we saw him lose, we saw him win, he had hobbies, we saw a range of emotions with him. I’m not going to say I agreed with everything they did with Sisko (which goes for pretty much every other Trek character too), but for the most part I don’t think any genre work has yet created a better black character since Sisko. Burnham has potential to also be a great character, for many of the reasons you pointed out. Burnham is complicated. She’s torn between two cultures and doesn’t quite know how to integrate her emotions into her life (almost like how Data was in Generations after receiving his emotion chip), and I think it will be interesting to see how that progresses. I hope the show does more to flesh her out, give her more of an interior life, as it goes on.

I don’t see the Orville’s black characters or Discovery’s or any other shows or movies’ black characters as just characters, because there is no such thing as just characters. Hollywood is dominated by whites, particularly white males, and so their view of things is the lens through which these characters are often conceived and that we often see these characters. Sometimes it works well, like with DS9 and Sisko and other times it doesn’t (Finn in the current Star Wars sequels, but that is a whole other story). I would say it works right less times. Even when it comes to Burnham, Bryan Fuller was adamant that the lead be a black female. Without him being adamant about that, who’s to say who the lead of the show would’ve been. And one of the reasons Fuller wanted a black female lead because he saw how inspirational Nichelle Nichols had been to women like Mae Jemison and Whoopi Goldberg. Perhaps Michael Burnham could inspire a new generation. So, from the beginning, IMO, Burnham wasn't conceived solely as a character, but the inspirational aspect was there as well.

In addition to the conception part, once a black actor takes said role, it will mean something to the people who are watching it. And the actor who is in the role. And that might go beyond what the original intention or intent of the character was.

 

[DarKush]

I'm curious and if I am out of line please tell me and I will remove the enquiry. Do you have like a personal stake in the characterisation of black characters? Like I'm female and I have a personal interest in how women are portrayed and I don't mean how someone else tells me I should react either. Apparently if you don't embrace the current crop of female leads you are not being feminist enough, which rather keeps the status quo of telling a woman (me) how to think anyway . I would be interested in an example of a characterisation of a black character that is in a the right direction.

I could suggest two types of framing. One whereby the character reflects a positive model that we can relate to in our world and one whereby the character's race or gender is virtually irrelevant. Like for me take Beverly Crusher she is an example of a working mother, an ambitious individual, and an accomplished high ranking Starfleet officer. A positive role model but one that is a positive *female* role model. With Janeway yes of course she is female but we are not supposed to differentiate that positively or negatively because the role of captain is a leveller. Mostly in story it was never a big thing. There was a scene where she decided she didn't want to be addressed as Ma'am (and Tom still did throughout) but her gender was a non-issue. I do have one other type which is the hardest to navigate. It's the character that fits a stereotype but does more. Seven of Nine. Be easy to dismiss her as a cat suit but some of us saw more in her both as a character and actress.

I tend to think Claire of The Orville is supposed to be a bit like Beverly. Michael on Discovery is complicated. Not Vulcan by race yet by orientation, there's a sense of an adoption parallel we could make for today. I think she's messed up and not because of her gender or colour. I mean she's neither cool headed in a crisis enough to be Vulcan or human enough to recognise her weaknesses. And she didn't learn anything in my opinion. Her journey started with threatening mutiny and it ended on the same note.

Trying to think of some more examples beyond Sisko. This is off the top of my head. Most recently I have enjoyed a lot of the character work in Black Panther and Get Out, Deadshot in Suicide Squad, Luke Cage and Black Lightning. For older stuff, Blade in the Blade trilogy. I liked Teal'c on Stargate, Tyr on Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, Mr. Glass in Unbreakable, Morpheus in the Matrix trilogy, Lando Calrissian in Episodes V and VI (I haven't seen Solo), Sgt. Apone in Aliens, Geordi in TNG, Jake Pentecost in Pacific Rim: Uprising, David Okoye in Rampage, The Operative in the movie Serenity, Shepherd Book on Firefly (but really more because of his origin comic book than what I saw on the show), Firefly's Zoe was okay but I really liked Gina Torres more on Alias and also on Angel. I'm not saying all of these portrayals were a thousand percent great or 'right', and some might have had varying degrees of issues, yet, I did think many of these either were well-developed characters or at least interesting characters, not too offending, or did something that for some reason intrigued me and stood out for special mention. Speaking of special mention, got to put Samuel L. Jackson in there for some of his roles, especially Mace Windu and Nick Fury. I also got to mention Tigh and Boomer from the original Battlestar Galactica. I can't say they were well-developed but they are likely the very first black characters I saw in a space opera and they did get some lines and had some personality. Unfortunately the female pilot Dietra wasn't as well-developed. (I did name one of my fan fiction characters in honor of her though).

 

[Refuge]

@DarKush I really appreciate and enjoyed your thought provoking responses.

 

[gblews]

Your comment here asserting that this line "shows exactly why a black actor was in the cast" makes literally no sense. Taking your comment literally, it requires us to assume that the joke was created first and then it was decided to make the character black in order to tell the joke. That's ridiculous. If you aren't being so specific, it would seem you would have us believe that MacFarlane decided that he wanted a diverse cast in order to have the opportunity to make certain types of jokes. That, too, is ridiculous.

I'll put it this way then, McFarlane cast a black actor as part of the regular cast realizing that it would afford him the opportunity to write jokes based on 20th and 21st century black culture. Not much difference.

Was it effective in this case? Well, it made me look up Compton, presumably the one in California, and learn something about American history, which only increased my understanding of American culture and human nature. That works for me. Plus, one shouldn't forget that the joke in fact has two parts, first what John says about a comparison to Compton and second what (IIRC) Gordon says in reply about having no idea what that means.

If you mean that you think McFarlane wrote that joke in an attempt to bring some positive recognition to the city of Compton, then I'd say you are very naive. The purpose of the joke simply was to garner a cheap laugh based on a negative stereotype of Compton.

Seth probably thought to himself, if I put that joke in the mouth of one of the white characters it'll come across as blatantly racist. He likely never bothered to dig a little deeper into why the joke was still racist, but in a much less obvious way.

Being unable to relate to specific references in a subculture is part of the reality of race relations in America, and having the characters deal with sub-cultural cluelessness in a positive way is something that I find to be, well, positive.

Yes, and on another note, I assume Seth was aware of just how ridiculous it would have been to have the other characters on the bridge get that joke. I think he realized just how out of place the joke was and the fact that only the audience should get it. Believe me, American audiences knew exactly what Lamarr was talking about.

It was a joke that does not work in-universe, because it was so outside of the context of the show's premise. that's why Seth gave the other helmsman characer the "I don't know what that means" line. It also might have offered Seeth a bit of cover against any complaints that the joke was at least a little bit racist.

But this is a major reason why I think the show comes across as a parody and rather than a dramedy. This is the type of joke you'd hear in "Homeboys in Outer Space".

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If you mean that you think McFarlane wrote that joke in an attempt to bring some positive recognition to the city of Compton, then I'd say you are very naive.

No, that's not in the slightest what I said. What I said was that I found value in the line, and I even specified how and why I found value in it.

The purpose of the joke simply was to garner a cheap laugh based on a negative stereotype of Compton.

Ah, but you have the ability to glean what's going on inside MacFarlane's head....

Yes, and on another note, I assume Seth was aware of just how ridiculous it would have been to have the other characters on the bridge get that joke. I think he realized just how out of place the joke was and the fact that only the audience should get it. Believe me, American audiences knew exactly what Lamarr was talking about.

A few things about that. I didn't know what Compton was specifically; we live in a big country after all, and I'm on the other side of the Mississippi. But I knew the meaning from context, because I'm an American. Gordon gleaned the context too, even though he didn't know the specifics. Maybe that was a part of the point of the whole exchange.

But further, maybe it was also taking a piss on the trope in Star Trek of dropping 20th century references, and on its close cousin of dropping a 20th century reference followed by one or two alien references (e.g.: "the duotronic breakthrough that won him the Nobel and Zee-Magnes prizes ... Did Einstein, Kazanga, or Sitar of Vulcan produce new and revolutionary theories on a regular schedule?"). The only reason Einstein's even mentioned there is because he's an important scientist to Americans of the mid-20th century. The science used in Star Trek is way beyond Einstein's theories. If they're talking human scientists who were truly revolutionary from their perspective, they'd be talking Zefram Cochrane all the way. McCoy should be saying something like, "Einstein? I think I remember reading about him in the academy. Was he the one with the apple, or was that the other one? Anyway, I'm doctor not a historian." But no, the trope is to make a point to connect things to today.

It was a joke that does not work in-universe, because it was so outside of the context of the show's premise. that's why Seth gave the other helmsman characer the "I don't know what that means" line. It also might have offered Seeth a bit of cover against any complaints that the joke was at least a little bit racist.

But this is a major reason why I think the show somes across as a parody and rather than a dramedy. This is the type of joke you'd hear in "Homeboys in Outer Space".

Something can critique and deconstruct something else without being a parody of it.

Did all of MacFarlane's humor work? No. I laughed at some of it though. I felt uncomfortable at some of it. Some of the reasons I was uncomfortable were because it was heavy-handed, other times it was hitting a little too close to home. There were many moments throughout the series where I thought it was nailing it; oftentimes those moments were not the moments intended to be funny, but sometimes they were. YMMV.

 

[JD]

I'll put it this way then, McFarlane cast a black actor as part of the regular cast realizing that it would afford him the opportunity to write jokes based on 20th and 21st century black culture. Not much difference.

If you mean that you think McFarlane wrote that joke in an attempt to bring some positive recognition to the city of Compton, then I'd say you are very naive. The purpose of the joke simply was to garner a cheap laugh based on a negative stereotype of Compton.

Seth probably thought to himself, if I put that joke in the mouth of one of the white characters it'll come across as blatantly racist. He likely never bothered to dig a little deeper into why the joke was still racist, but in a much less obvious way.

Yes, and on another note, I assume Seth was aware of just how ridiculous it would have been to have the other characters on the bridge get that joke. I think he realized just how out of place the joke was and the fact that only the audience should get it. Believe me, American audiences knew exactly what Lamarr was talking about.

It was a joke that does not work in-universe, because it was so outside of the context of the show's premise. that's why Seth gave the other helmsman characer the "I don't know what that means" line. It also might have offered Seeth a bit of cover against any complaints that the joke was at least a little bit racist.

But this is a major reason why I think the show comes across as a parody and rather than a dramedy. This is the type of joke you'd hear in "Homeboys in Outer Space".

I know this came up before, but I can't remember if you were part of that conversation. The Orville is not a parody, for it to be parody, at least as I understand it, it has to be mocking specific elements from what ever it is based around, and the is nothing aimed at elements of Star Trek the way Galaxy Quest's jokes were or the way Spaceballs aimed at Star Wars. The Orville is very similar to Star Trek, and it does have jokes, but it is not a parody of Star Trek.

 

[Owain Taggart]

@DarKush I really appreciate and enjoyed your thought provoking responses.

Yeah, agreed and I appreciate how civil we've been in this thread. Fascinating reading and insightful.

 

[Mudd]

I know this came up before, but I can't remember if you were part of that conversation. The Orville is not a parody, for it to be parody, at least as I understand it, it has to be mocking specific elements from what ever it is based around, and the is nothing aimed at elements of Star Trek the way Galaxy Quest's jokes were or the way Spaceballs aimed at Star Wars. The Orville is very similar to Star Trek, and it does have jokes, but it is not a parody of Star Trek.

Yeah, the Orville humor is just basic situational humor, almost never joking about the elements or cliches of the space opera genre. I think the closest they've come is with the Manilow gag, and maybe the space zoo/reality TV payoff.

 

[Jayson1]

Yeah, the Orville humor is just basic situational humor, almost never joking about the elements or cliches of the space opera genre. I think the closest they've come is with the Manilow gag, and maybe the space zoo/reality TV payoff.

Well I can think of a few but your right in that it's not a big deal with them. You also had the fire suppresion computer catch on fire on the bridge. You also had the guy put a stain on his shirt on the damage report after the ship I think had been attacked. I also think the weed brownie is more of a joke about some of the stuff you would have never seen in a millions years be replicated on TNG.

Jason

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I thought using the redwood tree to destroy the enemy war cruiser in the first episode was pretty hilarious, complete with Arbor Day joke.

Also, what happened to Gordon's leg in S1E5 "Pria." OMG, I LOLed out loud. It was horrifying but hilarious at the same time. It was pure sci-fi humor, too. I can't imagine it working in any other context.