Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 2x01 - "The Broken Circle"

[valden]

You can fuck right off with your dog whistling. You're talking to Trek fans some of whom in my case have been watching it for decades.

Trek fans have argued over Trek for years. It's IDIC. It's what we do. But you you don't get in 2023 to come in and shut down opinions you don't like by playing misogyny and racism cards. You don't.

This fandom is better than that.

Nah, it has nothing to do with a black guy or a woman and I say this as a person who has some series issues with how this show has chosen to handle some of their POCs.

Seven of Nine kicked ass. Uhura even in her older years like the search for spock kicked ass.

Data's twin daughters from Star Trek Picard,(cannot remember her name) kicked a lot of ass. She is of Asian decent, which on paper should get more hate than a white girl (chapel) however i don't remember her getting hate.

Book from Discovery knows how to kick ass as well. He is a black man.

its not because they are black or a woman in SNW, it is because they don't suit the role. between the legacy characters. i think the creators of this series feel TOS Chapel was such a bad and terrible female character that they are now trying to over compensate for that in SNW. So the series has set her up as the ultimate action it gir that now, even spock is in love with her even if he barely cared about her in tos and also she is been set up to be some kind of alpha female because she now has some of the skills of other past female characters on the show that Majel never displayed in TOS.

 

[Citiprime]

You seem to think it’s something approved by Starfleet and the Federation and is in common use.

I'm not the one justifying this story decision as Federation rationed "uppers” that people could see handed out to Starfleet personnel. But some here are.

What made me uncomfortable was that 2 protagonists who we're supposed to be positively invested in felt that keeping what is obviously a dangerous and illegal steroid around and then using it--look, if we had a scene earlier on where M'Benga and Chapel were training in the gym, then later on at the planet M'Benga says, "OK ready to put that special training to use?" and they went beating up Klingons, I would've been the first to be cheering.

That brings up another issue with this. If we ultimately find out this is some sort of illegal drug that M’Benga and Chapel have, it opens the door to new issues. How widespread is this sort of thing in the Federation? Does this mean there’s a black market and drug dealers for people that want to be stronger or feel good (e.g., Picard opened that door with Raffi, but I don’t think that ever went over really well). Humans are people that like to excel and feel good. If we’ve been told there’s no crime on Earth, but illegal drugs are a thing in the Federation, how do those two story elements fit together?

And all of a sudden we’re getting really close to a plot detail Roddenberry explicitly did not want when he took out Harlan Ellison’s idea that there were drug dealers on the Enterprise for “City on the Edge of Forever.” If you put elements like this in, then Star Trek and the Federation are no longer a vision of a future human society exploring space after they got their shit together and moved beyond their problems. It then becomes just 21st century humans, with all of the same issues and problems, transplanted to the 23rd century while serving in a space navy.

 

[ananta]

I’m trying to imagine what the infamous fight scene would have been like if it had been Majel Barrett’s Chapel. Now THAT I would love to see.

 

[HotRod]

Chapal, a nurse should not be doing action scene

Says fuckng who?

 

[Mudd]

And all of a sudden we’re getting really close to a plot detail Roddenberry explicitly did not want when he took out Harlan Ellison’s idea that there were drug dealers on the Enterprise for “City on the Edge of Forever.”

So what? Roddenberry was wrong about a lot. (And had good judgment about a lot, as well.)

If you put elements like this in, then Star Trek and the Federation are no longer a vision of a future human society exploring space after they got their shit together and moved beyond their problems. It then becomes just 21st century humans, with all of the same issues and problems, transplanted to the 23rd century while serving in a space navy.

TOS wasn't Utopian crap. The future was a better and hopeful place. It wasn't a Nirvana of flawless people living perfect lives in a safe world. That latter kind of story is best enjoyed by small children comforted by reassurance, not interested in either adventure or any insight into life as we live it in a world of human beings.

Fuck Utopia. Fix things.

And Trek was never hard sf, not for a single episode. It was and is, as Greg suggests, pulp space opera with a little smarts, which is why it's fun and still somewhat popular.

 

[Citiprime]

I’m trying to imagine what the infamous fight scene would have been like if it had been Majel Barrett’s Chapel. Now THAT I would love to see.

I’m trying to imagine a TNG episode where the climax hinges on nurse Ogawa juicing up and kicking a bunch of people’s ass.

So what? Roddenberry was wrong about a lot. (And had good judgment about a lot, as well.) … TOS wasn't Utopian crap. The future was a better and hopeful place. It wasn't a Nirvana of flawless people living perfect lives in a safe world. That latter kind of story is best enjoyed by small children comforted by reassurance, not interested in either adventure or any insight into life as we live it in a world of human beings.

Fuck Utopia. Fix things.

And Trek was never hard sf, not for a single episode. It was and is, as Greg suggests, pulp space opera with a little smarts, which is why it's fun and still somewhat popular.

You see it your way and I see it mine. But I do not think the best moments of this franchise that have allowed it to endure has just been about “pulp space opera.” It’s about the audience connecting with characters and stories that speak to the nobler pursuits of human nature.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

ah, that it is. the excuse. hence the best way to go into bad story telling.

reminds me of star trek into darkness when jj abrams chose to have the enterprise rise from the sea, even if he failed to explain the logical science behind it. However it was visually cool to watch. but made no sense.

Chapal, a nurse should not be doing action scene anymore than Abrams should ever put the enterprise inside the ocean. Also Bush was not all that convincing in it either, maybe it was the obvious body double or her small size or maybe the past star trek standard was too different given Seven of Nine/Uhura/Burnham doing action scenes in the past, both those female characters fitted the role of action heroines, so no excuse there. it works there.

I dont know much about the actors, but when i read their interviews it always feels like they are the ones asking for something or deciding something. which is kind of weird because the jobs of actors is to follow the director and what is written in the script. unless the actor is a producer too like say tom cruise or sarah jessica parker, it is not the job of actos to dictate the direction of a story.

I guess you didn't like the action scenes.

I found them enjoyable, so YMMV.

 

[Jedman67]

Quark killed a Klingon for cryin' out loud.

He was drunk and fell on his own dagger.

I think TNG and DS9 shows that an individual klingon can take and dish out more punishment than the average human. But they're not supersoldiers. In the Way of the Warrior, DS9 staff did manage to hold their own quite admirably.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s about the audience connecting with characters and stories that speak to the nobler pursuits of human nature.

Not sure why still having human vices means nobler pursuits are not pursued anymore.

 

[bdub76]

Let’s talk about a positive. Pelia stole her scenes. She was great calling out Spock.

 

[Citiprime]

Not sure why still having human vices means nobler pursuits are not pursued anymore.

Because I think it fundamentally changes the nature of the franchise.

Instead of being about a socially evolved humanity practicing altruism as they explore the galaxy, it becomes a show where a bunch of hypocrites lecture aliens with speeches about values that either they or their own society doesn't practice.

 

[AntonyF]

its not because they are black or a woman in SNW, it is because they don't suit the role. between the legacy characters. i think the creators of this series feel TOS Chapel was such a bad and terrible female character that they are now trying to over compensate for that in SNW. So the series has set her up as the ultimate action it gir that now, even spock is in love with her even if he barely cared about her in tos and also she is been set up to be some kind of alpha female because she now has some of the skills of other past female characters on the show that Majel never displayed in TOS.

I think you're getting to more of what I'm thinking but I've not explained well, or can't be arsed to explain well.

I mean I wouldn't want her to be as background like the original Chapel while the men take focus, but it's a desire to make Chapel a bit too amazing. As it's not just the smashing up Klingons. She's hot wiring doors, doing her medical stuff, pseudo-counsellor, making the stone man cry, love interest, dead love interest, back to life love interest...

I am always a bit averse to characters that feel like they're do-it-alls as it generally makes other characters feel pointless.

I suspect it's also because softer skills are less 'interesting' story wise. I consider you repairing someone's leg way more impressive than doped-up Kilngon fighting, but it ain't sexy.

 

[fireproof78]

Because I think it fundamentally changes the nature of the franchise.

Instead of being about a socially evolved humanity practicing altruism as they explore the galaxy, it becomes a show where a bunch of hypocrites lecture aliens with speeches about values that either they or their own society doesn't practice.

Except we already had illegal drugs in the TOS era. I don't see what this changes. TOS was not utopian. It was optimistic that humanity would survive nuclear proliferation, and become more united in the future. There was still smuggling, illegal drugs, and less than optimistic aspects of humanity present. It doesn't diminish the franchise that some problems still exist; it shows there is choice.

 

[fireproof78]

past female characters on the show that Majel never displayed in TOS.

So because she was never given the opportunity to showcase any other skills the character is locked in to one role?

That's absurd and unrealistic.

 

[bdub76]

Because I think it fundamentally changes the nature of the franchise.

Instead of being about a socially evolved humanity practicing altruism as they explore the galaxy, it becomes a show where a bunch of hypocrites lecture aliens with speeches about values that either they or their own society doesn't practice.

It’s when the changes make the show feel less like Star Trek. The problem with 90s Trek is that it went overboard with how good humanity had become. (It might have been the off gassing with all the carpet in space.) And this was dialed back after Roddenberry died. A near perfect society doesn’t present many opportunities to tell interesting stories.

What makes it Star Trek for you?

 

[Sci]

You can fuck right off with your dog whistling.

1) Nope. White and male characters have had unrealistic action scenes for decades without complaint, and then suddenly fandom makes a big fuss about this one? And it just happens to feature a black guy and a woman? I don't buy that that's not a factor for at least some of those fans.

2) You are using the term "dog-whistling" incorrectly. The term "dog-whistling" refers to the use of other elements in place of the speaker's real motivation for purposes of plausible deniability. An example would be someone who doesn't want to allow black students to be integrated into a white school but doesn't want to be called out for racism; so instead he "dog-whistles" about "forced bussing."

I was not dog-whistling anything -- I was being quite clear and explicit that I think some folks are uncomfortable seeing a black man and a woman kick ass.

You're talking to Trek fans some of whom in my case have been watching it for decades.

That's cool. I've been a Trekkie for 28 years. I've seen a lot of casual racism and misogyny, and I've seen a lot of Trekkies who were being racist and misogynistic without even consciously realizing it. Being a Trekkie does not make you immune to these things.

Trek fans have argued over Trek for years. It's IDIC. It's what we do. But you you don't get in 2023 to come in and shut down opinions

Pointing out that ridiculous illogical arguments about a previously uncontroversial element of the franchise must have another motivation for at least some of those people after almost a week is not "shutting down opinions." No one's shutting down opinions. I just think at least a couple posters here are themselves dog-whistling.

ah, that it is. the excuse. hence the best way to go into bad story telling.

Because Star Trek would never contrive an excuse to utilize its actors' skills! It would never, say, feature a musical sequence...

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

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

... or feature equestrianism in a longstanding character who had previously never indicated a love of horses...

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

Etc etc etc.

Chapal, a nurse should not be doing action scene

Nonsense.

I dont know much about the actors, but when i read their interviews it always feels like they are the ones asking for something or deciding something. which is kind of weird because the jobs of actors is to follow the director and what is written in the script.

Excuse me? How can you say this after Star Trek's long history of incorporating actor requests and suggestions into their stories? I mean half of Spock's character, from the Vulcan salute to the nerve pinch, came straight from Leonard Nimoy!

Data's twin daughters from Star Trek Picard,(cannot remember her name) kicked a lot of ass. She is of Asian decent, which on paper should get more hate than a white girl (chapel) however i don't remember her getting hate.

She got plenty of hate.

i think the creators of this series feel TOS Chapel was such a bad and terrible female character that they are now trying to over compensate for that in SNW. So the series has set her up as the ultimate action it gir that now, even spock is in love with her even if he barely cared about her in tos and also she is been set up to be some kind of alpha female because she now has some of the skills of other past female characters on the show that Majel never displayed in TOS.

"Some kind of alpha female?" She's a medical professional with combat experience and expertise in genetic manipulation. And she was defeated by the bad guys in this episode even after taking the serum. You're badly exaggerating the producers' decision to give her the same level of competence as every other character in the show.

That brings up another issue with this. If we ultimately find out this is some sort of illegal drug that M’Benga and Chapel have, it opens the door to new issues. How widespread is this sort of thing in the Federation? Does this mean there’s a black market and drug dealers for people that want to be stronger or feel good (e.g., Picard opened that door with Raffi, but I don’t think that ever went over really well). Humans are people that like to excel and feel good. If we’ve been told there’s no crime on Earth, but illegal drugs are a thing in the Federation, how do those two story elements fit together?

Hold on. Who said drugs are illegal? Why should drugs be illegal in a post-scarcity world where there is no crime and cures for addiction exist? You're starting from a premise that some drugs are just inherently "bad" and must be illegal without supporting that premise.

If you put elements like this in, then Star Trek and the Federation are no longer a vision of a future human society exploring space after they got their shit together and moved beyond their problems. It then becomes just 21st century humans, with all of the same issues and problems, transplanted to the 23rd century while serving in a space navy.

That sounds like an argument starting from some very puritanical a priori assumptions about the legitimacy of drug use in a society where addiction is a thing of the past.

Because I think it fundamentally changes the nature of the franchise.

Instead of being about a socially evolved humanity practicing altruism as they explore the galaxy, it becomes a show where a bunch of hypocrites lecture aliens with speeches about values that either they or their own society doesn't practice.

The Federation has always been a flawed society. This is nothing new.

I think you're getting to more of what I'm thinking but I've not explained well, or can't be arsed to explain well.

I mean I wouldn't want her to be as background like the original Chapel while the men take focus, but it's a desire to make Chapel a bit too amazing. As it's not just the smashing up Klingons. She's hot wiring doors, doing her medical stuff, pseudo-counsellor, making the stone man cry, love interest, dead love interest, back to life love interest...

... hot-wiring a door to open, about the most basic trick in the book, is supposed to be some amazing skill? "Pseudo-counselor?" What? She's never been a pseudo-counselor, and her talks with Spock over T'Pring have always been laced with a combination of both a genuine desire to help and a subtext of self-interest stemming from her own feelings for him. Those last four are just repetitions of the same complaint ("Spock is in love with her.") You as well are severely exaggerating the extent to which the narrative frames her as "amazing." It frames her as a person who's cool, but it frames everyone as cool.

 

[Pindar]

I like Strange New Worlds but I could only give this a 6.

The combat drugs and lengthy hand to hand combat scenes really knocked my score down. None of that felt Like Star Trek to me.

If they had hypo's with a knockout drug I would have been happier. Hopefully there is more Pike and less punching in episode 2.

I can't read 50 pages to catch up. Having to watch over the weekends always leaves me way behind the discussions so I rarely bother trying to join in these days.

 

[Yistaan]

Kirk: "Temporal Nexus? Reminds me of that time I went back to early 21st century Toronto with that La'an woman."

Scotty: "Sir???"

Chekov: "Keptin?!?"

Kirk: "Never mind."

Kirk: What happened to La'an anyway? She should be a captain or Admiral by now.

Chekov: Oh, I know the answer to this one. Khan kept shouting about it after he put a Ceti eel in me. La'an and Number One were dumped onto Ceti Alpha 5 by Starfleet after they decided to follow your example using it as an Augment dumping ground. They got killed by Ceti eels I believe before the Reliant arrived.

 

[Mudd]

I’m trying to imagine a TNG episode where the climax hinges on nurse Ogawa juicing up and kicking a bunch of people’s ass.

I'm sure there weren't. Who cares? TNG is not the epitome of great Star Trek, and certainly not of good storytelling.

That SNW will do things that Roddenberry/Berman era Trek wouldn't is a virtue, not a shortcoming.

But I do not think the best moments of this franchise that have allowed it to endure has just been about “pulp space opera.” It’s about the audience connecting with characters and stories

There's no contradiction.

 

[Farscape One]

Hold on. Who said drugs are illegal? Why should drugs be illegal in a post-scarcity world where there is no crime and cures for addiction exist? You're starting from a premise that some drugs are just inherently "bad" and must be illegal without supporting that premise.



That sounds like an argument starting from some very puritanical a priori assumptions about the legitimacy of drug use in a society where addiction is a thing of the past.

Certain drugs should be illegal. Meth and heroin, for example in today's world, are highly addictive and very little positive things can be said about them. More addictive and worse drugs almost certainly would be created in a couple centuries, so it's not far-fetched to say there would, and should, be laws against those substances.

And drug addiction is definitely not a thing of the past in STAR TREK. We've seen drug dealers in VOYAGER ("FAIR TRADE") and TNG ("Symbiosis"). Tasha Yar came from a colony that had drug addictions. T'Pol became addicted to trellium.

Raffi is also an addict, who struggled with that throughout PICARD. And she was on Earth.

Drug addiction is definitely not a thing of the past, even by the 25th century.