Was TNG less progressive than TOS?
- Thread starter Orphalesion
- Start date
- Status
"Wagon Train" was a specific reference to the Wagon Train TV show . Letting TBTB know is was going to be a show about a disparate group of people interacting with one another and with people they met on their travels The "frontier" is just a setting. "Exploration" is a reason to be in that setting. I'm willing to bet Wagon Train, like Star Trek had it's fair share of SJWing episodes where injustice, bigotry and intolerance ( to name but a few) were central to the plot. Roddenberry is on record as saying that Star Trek was a way to explore such themes couched in the SF milieu where they could be explored with out the limits placed a drama with a contemporary setting. I think you'll find most Star Trek episodes are about people and not science and exploring space.
SJW (Social Justice Warrior) is a right-wing dog whistle critical of anyone working for equality and fairness. Let’s leave it in TNZ, please.
I think all trek with the possible exception of DS9 portray women as eye candy.
The old TOS they were also portrayed as mentally weak.
I don't think it's fair to catagorize the alien of the week in any way at all. We generally aren't given a lot of information regarding them, their society etc.
however, in The old TOS the alien of the week women appear to be eye candy 99% of the time and often mentally inferior. (Usually both )
As above, I didn't think the show was out to enlighten us to the plight of what people yet to be born might feel.
I thought if the shows as a fun romp around as to what we might encounter if we had been born 400 years later. (Not so much how we feel about things)
The old TOS they were also portrayed as mentally weak.
I don't think it's fair to catagorize the alien of the week in any way at all. We generally aren't given a lot of information regarding them, their society etc.
however, in The old TOS the alien of the week women appear to be eye candy 99% of the time and often mentally inferior. (Usually both )
As above, I didn't think the show was out to enlighten us to the plight of what people yet to be born might feel.
I thought if the shows as a fun romp around as to what we might encounter if we had been born 400 years later. (Not so much how we feel about things)
Really? So you don't think right wingers are working towards equality and *actual* fairness? Assuming there is any racism or dog whistling involved is pretty hypocritical. Definitely prejudcial and stereotyping. GIANT difference between "equality and fairness" and the ways most SJW act/way the proceed and the "getting even" retributional and extremely bigoted and hateful ways they present themselves and proceed. Big difference between TOS and TNG, big difference between civil rights supporter and SJW.
Right wing does NOT equal racist or anti equality in ANY form.
If LaForge is disabled, it's only in the sense that an extremely near sighted person who can still drive a car while wearing their glasses is disabled. Just like with LaForge, it's game over if they lose their glasses.
LaForge's situation is not at all like a truly blind person's for whom corrective means through glasses, etc. is impossible.
So are people who need glassses considered disabled? Or even just the ones who has very bad vision without their glassses but are allowed to drive, are they considered disabled?
Actually, in a sense, all people who need glasses are disabled even if only in a mild way. I guess since near and far sightedness is so common and so easily corrected with the use of glasses or contacts, it's generally not considered a disability as far as I know.
Robert
Whatever. Just don’t bring it here.
In the United States at this moment in history, yes...it pretty much does.
I think people that need glasses are disabled.
If a person is wearing a -5 diopter pair of glasses, believe me, you do not want them driving a car without their glasses. And without glasses they are legally blind.
If a person has vision that cannot be corrected better than I'm going to say the number is either -4 or -5 diopter a they are legally blind, no driving a car, ever for them.
And for people that have presbyopia (old age vision
), if they are trying to thread a needle or read a medicine bottle and don't have their glasses, you'd better believe they too are disabled. In addition, remember all of the people without access to eyeglasses like most of us have.
Very poor eyesight is a disability.
^^^^^^^^. Yes to presbyopia. Started right at 40 and got slowly worse. Cataract surgery made it permanent but easily managed with cheap reading glasses.I think people that need glasses are disabled.
If a person is wearing a -5 diopter pair of glasses, believe me, you do not want them driving a car without their glasses. And without glasses they are legally blind.
If a person has vision that cannot be corrected better than I'm going to say the number is either -4 or -5 diopter a they are legally blind, no driving a car, ever for them.
And for people that have presbyopia (old age vision
In addition, remember all of the people without access to eyeglasses like most of us have.
Very poor eyesight is a disability.
If you go to the far left or the far right, that is where you find all the nuts, but you are talking about a handful of people that are far out represented by the rest of the population. Now, if you are referring to Republicans in general, then that's just plain crazy.
Of course they're not. The goal of conservatism is to preserve existing systems of hierarchy and privilege. Conservatives opposed ending slavery, conservatives oppose egalitarian economics, conservatives oppose freedom of movement across international borders, conservatives oppose women's right to control their own bodies, conservatives oppose people's right to enter same-sex marriages and relationships, conservatives oppose transgender equality, conservatives oppose equality for non-Christians, conservatives oppose efforts to protect black people from police, conservatives support the racist War on Drugs, conservatives support a police system that engages in racist enforcement, conservatives support a judicial system that convicts black people at rates disproportionate to white people with the same amount of evidence against them, conservatives support a judicial system that hands down harsher sentences against black people than white people convicted of the same crimes, etc etc etc.
There's not a single area of contention in which conservatives advocate for the more equal or fair position.
Nonsense. Conservatism merely uses the rhetoric of fairness to cover for its hierarchical, anti-egalitarian politics in support of the ruling classes.
The United States is a fundamentally oppressive, white supremacist, cisheteropatriarchical capitalist society. Conservatism, by its support of existing social structures, is therefore an inherently racist and anti-equality ideology.
OK, the politics must stop here or I’ll have to close the thread. This ain’t the place.
I think one measure of how progressive a Trek show is how much willing they are to tackle a subject or if it just pretends it doesn't exist -- because of fear of some type of reaction.
I was even wondering if "progressive" is too strong a word for all of this, but then when you wonder what if nothing changed and all the Trek shows followed the same format as TOS all the way until now, you realize it is the right word.
We know there were things TOS was never going to directly acknowledge or show, so it's natural to want to see some of those things in TNG. Without it, in the end, all you have is a fantasy show that fills diversity quotas, avoids certain themes, and plays it safe. And probably won't be remembered as much .
There were just certain things TNG ignored or never acknowledged that make the show look awkward in hindsight.
Like I posted before, Sisko didn't want to participate in a holodeck program set in the past in a racially oppressive time. Which is a reasonable, realistic issue that could pop up if such things were ever possible. Without that realism, future humans come off as naive, un-opinionated blank slates.
Whereas it was common for Geordi or even Guinan to do it, without a second thought, as the issue was never brought up.
And Uhura is totally disconnected from a potential insult from the past that referred to her as a piece of property.
Counselor Troy could have been a woman with a heavier set figure, but that couldn't happen. She had to have a slim figure and wears outfits with plunging necklines. And they were beautiful, but the stranger thing is no one noticed, like it was everyday dress gear.
So, TNG had a strange mix of progressive ideas like the unisex "skant" uniform and but then also had a history avoiding concepts like human simple LGBT representation.
I mean there's nothing to say a Trek show HAS to show progressive things, but they were ones to boldly put out there in the first place, so why not show progressive things then?
I was even wondering if "progressive" is too strong a word for all of this, but then when you wonder what if nothing changed and all the Trek shows followed the same format as TOS all the way until now, you realize it is the right word.
We know there were things TOS was never going to directly acknowledge or show, so it's natural to want to see some of those things in TNG. Without it, in the end, all you have is a fantasy show that fills diversity quotas, avoids certain themes, and plays it safe. And probably won't be remembered as much .
There were just certain things TNG ignored or never acknowledged that make the show look awkward in hindsight.
Like I posted before, Sisko didn't want to participate in a holodeck program set in the past in a racially oppressive time. Which is a reasonable, realistic issue that could pop up if such things were ever possible. Without that realism, future humans come off as naive, un-opinionated blank slates.
Whereas it was common for Geordi or even Guinan to do it, without a second thought, as the issue was never brought up.
And Uhura is totally disconnected from a potential insult from the past that referred to her as a piece of property.
Counselor Troy could have been a woman with a heavier set figure, but that couldn't happen. She had to have a slim figure and wears outfits with plunging necklines. And they were beautiful, but the stranger thing is no one noticed, like it was everyday dress gear.
So, TNG had a strange mix of progressive ideas like the unisex "skant" uniform and but then also had a history avoiding concepts like human simple LGBT representation.
I mean there's nothing to say a Trek show HAS to show progressive things, but they were ones to boldly put out there in the first place, so why not show progressive things then?
I think one measure of how progressive a Trek show is how much willing they are to tackle a subject or if it just pretends it doesn't exist -- because of fear of some type of reaction.
I was even wondering if "progressive" is too strong a word for all of this, but then when you wonder what if nothing changed and all the Trek shows followed the same format as TOS all the way until now, you realize it is the right word.
We know there were things TOS was never going to directly acknowledge or show, so it's natural to want to see some of those things in TNG. Without it, in the end, all you have is a fantasy show that fills diversity quotas, avoids certain themes, and plays it safe. And probably won't be remembered as much .
There were just certain things TNG ignored or never acknowledged that make the show look awkward in hindsight.
Like I posted before, Sisko didn't want to participate in a holodeck program set in the past in a racially oppressive time. Which is a reasonable, realistic issue that could pop up if such things were ever possible. Without that realism, future humans come off as naive, un-opinionated blank slates.
Whereas it was common for Geordi or even Guinan to do it, without a second thought, as the issue was never brought up.
And Uhura is totally disconnected from a potential insult from the past that referred to her as a piece of property.
Counselor Troy could have been a woman with a heavier set figure, but that couldn't happen. She had to have a slim figure and wears outfits with plunging necklines. And they were beautiful, but the stranger thing is no one noticed, like it was everyday dress gear.
So, TNG had a strange mix of progressive ideas like the unisex "skant" uniform and but then also had a history avoiding concepts like human simple LGBT representation.
I mean there's nothing to say a Trek show HAS to show progressive things, but they were ones to boldly put out there in the first place, so why not show progressive things then?
The thing about Guinan and Geordi is interesting...firstly, I am not sure what holds i programs you mean...they only ever went into fictional historical programmes (Holmes, Dixon Hill) but if I squint, the Holmes would sort of apply. But...here’s something worth thinking about...Guinan is an alien. She is not from Earth. She visited it during its questionable past, but for her, it’s not relevant because it’s not her history. Now, Geordi, as a character, is I think supposed to be outright African. It’s a different history depending which part of Africa he is from (ignoring the same problem as Picard...it’s a couple of hundred years in the future. His family may have more history in Basingstoke, and the actor is *not* African) but again, Victorian Britain...fictional world even more twisted through Hollywoodisation.... possibly has no relevance to his family history.
Sisko on the other hand, is explicitly African-American. New Orleans no less. The history for him is very personal.
Now that’s talking about it in character terms, and probably give waaaaay too much credit for the writers, who were more than likely just avoiding too difficult an area for what was in many ways considered a ‘family’ show. (Which is why many many thing in TNG are done with a light touch or innuendoes to a greater or lesser extent) But the short version is that things were made a part of Sisko’s story in a way that they weren’t for the others. To give another example, the Nazi-occupation era French romp in Voyager would have had to have a different nuance had it been Picard or even Bashir in that setting.
Like I said...worth thinking about.
"Progressive" is a political term - period - and any meaningful discussion of whether Trek is progressive includes real politics. Go ahead and close the thread.
One could argue TNG was more progressive in some different ways than TOS, sure...
With 7 years' worth of seasons, TNG did posit a few things...
Remember from season 1 when the Federation person was telling overtly the Delegate like how killing animals for food is barbarism? How was that not Progressive mindset? TOS never did that.
That season 7 episode with the environmental impact of space caused by warp engines, among a few other examples did continue the trend...
And quite a few episodes between the bookend seasons are replete with examples.
TNG was progressive and it was political to an extent. Not direct name calling and usually their allegories knew when to not go so overboard, but it's still the nature of the beast, of which its format changed from time to time.
With 7 years' worth of seasons, TNG did posit a few things...
Remember from season 1 when the Federation person was telling overtly the Delegate like how killing animals for food is barbarism? How was that not Progressive mindset? TOS never did that.
That season 7 episode with the environmental impact of space caused by warp engines, among a few other examples did continue the trend...
And quite a few episodes between the bookend seasons are replete with examples.
TNG was progressive and it was political to an extent. Not direct name calling and usually their allegories knew when to not go so overboard, but it's still the nature of the beast, of which its format changed from time to time.
More a social /culture movement term, which can be discussed here without bringing in politics.
TOS never did because killing and eating meat isn't barbaric, Kirk obviously found eating a meal that consisted of salad to be out of the ordinary.
There you go, nice obvious meat eating conservative Star Trek.
Visitor was stuffed in a catsuit and became the object of a main-cast male's desires.
Farrell was spared the catsuit (sorry, Brannon) but she was chased after by one main-cast male and hooked up with another.
Speaking of Chase...
- Status
