UHURA: But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we've learned not to fear words.
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
It's been the Star Trek ethos since day one, it's only the current American political climate that's trying to paint those things as bad... and sadly the propaganda is working on some.
A TOS example of "trendy politics" would be "A Private Little War," surely, in that it's a hamfisted attempt to take a specific stance on a contemporary issue, which aged like absolute milk within about a year of release, and looks appalling years later.
"Racism is wrong", "war is sanitised to a disaffected public", and "the US constitution, if it's kept, should apply universally" are much more durable themes than "I think the USA must immediately intervene in this ongoing war", or "here is serving Democrat politician Stacy Abrams", or having the villain say "we are going to MakeAmerica The Empire Great Glorious Again."
It's absolutely fair IMO to suggest Discovery is extremely rooted in a specific Western cultural and sociopolitical moment in the late 2010s. I honestly doubt the writers even intended it to stand up to cultural shifts or reappraisals years later; like a lot of streaming shows it's made to be a momentary "event" that drives subscriber spikes and doesn't really have a long tail or lasting cultural footprint.
"Racism is wrong", "war is sanitised to a disaffected public", and "the US constitution, if it's kept, should apply universally" are much more durable themes than "I think the USA must immediately intervene in this ongoing war", or "here is serving Democrat politician Stacy Abrams", or having the villain say "we are going to Make
It's absolutely fair IMO to suggest Discovery is extremely rooted in a specific Western cultural and sociopolitical moment in the late 2010s. I honestly doubt the writers even intended it to stand up to cultural shifts or reappraisals years later; like a lot of streaming shows it's made to be a momentary "event" that drives subscriber spikes and doesn't really have a long tail or lasting cultural footprint.
Last edited:
Not really.
The idea that everyone should live under American laws is the very definition of American imperialism.
And "A Private Little War" has not aged badly. Quite the contrary. It was at the time and remains to this day applicable as an analogy of the status quo on the Korean Peninsula. The resolution was never intended to be palatable or satisfactory.
I meant universal among American citizens, if it must exist indefinitely - I'm not American and obviously don't want the US constitution to apply to me.
We have a statistically significant population now that thinks that everyone who isn't legally American needs to stop living under American laws. So the people who think otherwise would be American Imperialists?
I'm sure it was meant more in the "Hey, you don't have to be American for these ideals to apply to you!" sense. You know, like "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" sense. "They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing!"
Except he's talking about the preamble to the Constitution and it (and he) literally says things like "provide for the common defense". It's shocking to think that The Great Bird might not have thought this all the way through.
This is probably why I have often heard fans over the years confuse the document Kirk is holding with the Declaration of Independence which is a rather more aspirational document. (Would the Omega Declaration ALSO have a treasure map on the back of it?)
Everyone likes to say, as part of the Legend of Star Trek, that it was the only show talking about Vietnam, however allegorically. Most people don't know what conclusion it came to. Which was "Yes, we must engage or the balance of power will overwhelmingly shift."
For that matter I know there are people who take a dim view of Let That Be Your Last Battlefield because it's not one sided enough. There is a lot about the episode that is rather hamfisted but at the same time it aspires to more nuance than one might expect. (Or want.)
excepting possibly "warp", "core", and "breach", in that order
“Trendy politics”? I’d say that’s actually the far right and right of centre, and movements like Maga and right wing political movements across Europe that are on trend and ascendancy at the moment.
I grew up watching TNG and hopeful of a better future and a humanity that can raise itself up and overcome its problems through compassion and cooperation. My sweet, innocent younger self. It’s a harder dream to sell in these times.
I grew up watching TNG and hopeful of a better future and a humanity that can raise itself up and overcome its problems through compassion and cooperation. My sweet, innocent younger self. It’s a harder dream to sell in these times.
I made my point. Not entering into discussion with somebody who adopts a tone like that. Cheers.
I suppose that it could be read in various shades between snarky and just mean. Clearly I disagree with the point but I wasn't intending to have a "tone like that."
The Legend of Star Trek is that Star Trek was hopeful and forward looking during the darkest days of the 20th century that were not WWII. Times are rough, to be sure. And it's probably a more serious argument than when some people (including Patrick Stewart) started making it ten years ago. But Star Trek has been made and has been hopeful during some really dark times in the last 60 years. And during that time I don't think there are any times that were worse than when TOS was on the air.
I find the argument "That was fine back then, but it wasn't like it is NOW. We can't be like that any more" to be letting Star Trek down a bit. (And I am the farthest thing from a Utopian Star Trek fan. OK, Nick Meyer might be the FARTHEST thing, but I'm far.)
Times like now are what Star Trek is FOR.
KIRK: the
's quite right about that.UHURA: CAPTAIN!!!!!!
KIRK: And that's why we populate the rest of the bridge with Vulks, Russkies,
s and s!CHEKOV: Hey!!!!!
(Spock raises eyebrow extra-high)
SULU: You
son of a !!!!SCOTTY:
you, Kirky!LINCOLN: Perhaps that will do for now, Captain.
I think there is a difference between a cameo appearance or referencing a political/historical person and writing an entire episode on a hot button political topic.
I regards the reference to an individual, if the viewer does not recognize the individual, then the political statement is lost. Perhaps a statement is not even intended.
In contrast, a episode that hits the viewer over the head with a political commentary is hard to miss.
You must admit it is an unsophisticated expression.KIRK: the
UHURA: CAPTAIN!!!!!!
KIRK: And that's why we populate the rest of the bridge with Vulks, Russkies,
CHEKOV: Hey!!!!!
(Spock raises eyebrow extra-high)
SULU: You
SCOTTY:
LINCOLN: Perhaps that will do for now, Captain.
Indeed, yes. We have access to information that makes things seem more dier, or activate our fight/flight response but there is much more to be hopeful than when Star Trek first aired.
I appreciate you clarifying both your intent and line of thinking. I actually agree with the gist of what you’re saying. Maybe what I said came across overly black and white. But times have changed greatly from when I was a kid and optimism does not come as easily as it did then. Part of that is perhaps just the process of growing up too. But…I’m not even going to go into what’s happening in the world.
For context, I think I was pretty close to dying from pneumonia this week, am still lying coughing up nasty goo and was just looking for a little distraction online. I made a comment which was from my heart but possibly coloured by how I’m feeling. With your response I rightly or wrongly felt like I was being baited into an argument. But I don’t want to argue. I just wanted to contribute a comment and let it go and let others share their views, as you’ve now done and I’m good with that.
Neither are remotely true.
Then they are too late, Trek has been woke since it aired
Hell, even the two TOS Pilots were "woke" by 1960s TV standards.
Similar threads
