Who cares? No one said anything about them being subtle.
You're arguing against a point I didn't make.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds 1x01 - "Strange New Worlds"
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
You're arguing against a point I didn't make.
I may have misquoted, but someone up there played the old "Trek used to be subtle" card. Trek was not always subtle.
And it has no reason to be. I was just pointing out a distinction between the way SNW did it and the way Trek has historically done it, as a counter-point to the claim that Trek has always done this sort of thing. My point is simply that usually Trek makes its real-life points by representing them with fictional counterparts rather than addressing the issue directly.
It makes sense, too, since in Trek's beautiful future all these issues are resolved.
...which, again, has nothing to do with my point.
I don't really care at all about the show going hard left... I'm someone who would say that's where I reside.
I'm not super thrilled about how the Paramount+ series have rewritten the events of the 80s/90s into the early 20th century from what was originally established in TOS and even backed up in TNG though just because they want it to be more like or exactly like 'our world'
Star Trek has rewritten the past time and again.
Trek's always been fine with embracing real history as it own when the need arises. Frankly, the show's better for it when it does.
I can easily see 9/11 and Trumpism following the Eugenics Wars in the Trek timeline. There's nothing contradictory here.
A
Amaris
Guest
I'm fine with it, because people are dense. You can show them an allegory of what might happen should fascism rise, and they will nod their heads, and then read the papers and totally miss what is happening. So sometimes you need to lay it on thick. Trek has rarely been subtle about anything, but I think what it needs right now is a brick of "look, dumbass" while there's still time.
Hell, 9/11 changed damn near everything for the negative in this country. I would put much of the weight from our nationalist fervor squarely on 9/11 and the outcome from it.
I'm real happy about that. It's way overdue.
Eugenics Wars lead to international terrorism outbreaks and violence on the soil of the victorious powers who vanquished Khan and the Augments, which in turns leads to al-Qaeda launching the post-'96 attacks we're all familiar with and all of it begins a domino effect that culminates in the American populist and nationalist uprising known as Trumpism.
Hell, during the 1992 campaign, I once had an idea that the Eugenics Wars of the early nineties led to a rise in theocratic xenophobia resulting in the election of Pat Buchanan in 1996. The divergent timeline that resulted led to crap like Colonel Green's early 21st century genocidal war, World War Three, and the Post Atomic Horror, and the social chaos led to the cultural adoption of certain atavistic social attitudes, accounting for the lingering sexism and fear of computer technology which pervades sixties Star Trek.
I feel safe in mentioning it because no professional writer worth his salt would risk tying Star Trek events directly to an existing public figure. Indirectly, on the other hand . . .
[I was twenty-five at the time, had studied The Handmaids Tale in lit class two years previously, and had immersed myself in Heinlein's Future History series in high school. All that combined with a childhood love of Star Trek led to some interesting speculations I've mostly forgotten.]
With the introduction of Captain Batel as Pike's love interest (girlfriend?) I wonder what brings about the dissolution of their relationship? There is a part of me that fears it will end up being Pike's melting at the end of the series due to delta radiation exposure. In that case did she leave because she didn't want to continue with wheelchair-bound melty-man? Or did Pike break up with her for his own reasons that will be revealed through beeps?
I hope it's the latter. As a person as severely disabled myself and single, the "woman isn't satisfied and needs a fully functional companion" trope does not help matters. It continues a trend of thought that the disabled are somehow less than human and that physically disabled men aren't "real men" anymore.
Of course, all of this wouldn't be answered for years and we may never see her again anyway.
I hope it's the latter. As a person as severely disabled myself and single, the "woman isn't satisfied and needs a fully functional companion" trope does not help matters. It continues a trend of thought that the disabled are somehow less than human and that physically disabled men aren't "real men" anymore.
Of course, all of this wouldn't be answered for years and we may never see her again anyway.
In the first full series trailer that dropped after the character spotlight shorts at the beginning of April there’s a quick shot of Pike in bed with a woman with hair that’s much longer and curlier than Melanie Scrofano’s as Captain Batel.
It could be her just with longer hair, but something about the body language of the woman in the blink-and-you’d-miss-it scene with Pike in bed from the trailer, when she playfully pats/slaps Pike makes me think it’s a different actor playing a different character.
Between that glimpse that seems to show Pike with someone else, and the exchange between Batel and Pike over breakfast, with Pike saying “So give me a call, we'll get together,” makes me think Pike and Batel are a fairly casual relationship, and not necessarily too serious, or exclusive/monogamous.
It could be her just with longer hair, but something about the body language of the woman in the blink-and-you’d-miss-it scene with Pike in bed from the trailer, when she playfully pats/slaps Pike makes me think it’s a different actor playing a different character.
Between that glimpse that seems to show Pike with someone else, and the exchange between Batel and Pike over breakfast, with Pike saying “So give me a call, we'll get together,” makes me think Pike and Batel are a fairly casual relationship, and not necessarily too serious, or exclusive/monogamous.
Last edited:
I actually thought the political message was pretty subtle. They did use Jan 6 footage but I think they also used some from the George Floyd riots. Plus how they described our conflict as a fight over freedoms was like classic perfect Trek. Plus he called it a civil war which of course is what is actually happening in society right now. If I was a Republican I don't think if I watched this episode I would feel like they were doing a strawman argument.
Honestly, nobody's going to really care who Trump is in 20 years, but making the capital riots "the start of the Eugenics Wars" unnecessarily mires the show in today's concerns.
It's a bit like if The City on The Edge of Forever had been about ensuring Watergate happened, because without it, Nixon started nuking places and WW3 kicked off.
Star Trek always has laid down lessons, but without stretching credibility by commenting on *now* and being political with a capital 'P'. I'm neither American nor a Trump fan, but I found the notion that somehow the capital riots kick off WW3 a bit farcical and something that will date very, very quickly, as well as a bit too on-the-nose.
As I recall, hitting people with a brick and telling them they were dumbasses is what got Trump elected in the first place. I believe this episode was all about Pike cautioning the use of ever-bigger sticks, and he was right.
A Private Little War was commentary on the US and Soviet's proxy wars around the world. Patterns of Force, John Gill and entertaining the idea fascism is a good idea if done right. The Doomsday Machine, speaks for itself on the MAD doctrine. Trek has always been very pointed on modern politics.
Capitol Riots to WW3? One thing leads to another... protests over access to Jerusalem led to the Crimean War, a tax protest on tea led to the American Revolution, history's tragedies are born from small and often insignificant moments no one could foresee the consequences in their time.
I loved the use of The Day the Earth Stood Still in this with Pike's variation on Klaatu's speech. No need for the robots, the nukes will take care of the planetary annihilation.
Last edited:
I don't think they're in a committed romantic relationship. They're clearly friends and they clearly care about each other, but she literally says that she hopes he's not on Earth the next time she is, and they make no plans to keep in touch while she's deployed. To me, they seem more like friends who occasionally have sex, not two people in a committed relationship.
Similar threads
