Ironic that some Trek fans find the idea of a black female Earth President in the 31st century as not aging well. If they lived in 1966 they would have freaked out at the sight of Uhura on the bridge.
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
According to Trek Lore to get to the better future you need a WW3, so we seem to be on the right track...
I'm not sure that's the criticism being made, at least not in this thread. A black and/or female president is something the setting absolutely should portray, and should have included decades ago. Discovery's datedness comes from the casting of a serving real-world politician. It's not the fact that it's Abrams specifically, and the criticisms shouldn't be read as personal disapproval of her; having any other serving politician in the role would have been equally dopey.
It's also perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a full endorsement of Abrams and the Democrat Party. Same as if Condoleezza Rice had inexplicably popped up in the role; people would have read it as an endorsement of the Bush administration (and of Rice's personal record, obviously causing anger over issues such as Iraq). It's inevitably going to put a lot of fans off who aren't aligned with the American Democrats, including those who are substantially to the left of them.
It's like when Hilary Clinton showed up in Broad City and a lot of viewers - including ones who voted for her in the subsequent election - called it out as being absolutely naff in a way that'd surely age terribly.
I'll reiterate that the objection is not to her color or her sex. It's her as an individual.
ok maybe because she is not known in my part of the world, so did not understand the objection.
Yup. Unfortunately, some viewers don't like it when they see themselves reflected in the mirror for what they truly are.
They tried in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, but the matte painting shot never made it into the final cut:
Kirk (pointing at Lincoln): "I met him. Sort of."
Fair enough.
And some Vulcan guy I'd never heard of.
Star Trek has always talked about political and social issues, and it usually (though not always) leaned left.
The thing I find different is that older Trek, meaning basically anything from TOS through Enterprise, went out of its way to avoid directly referencing or including anything contemporary. They did everything through allegory -- though admittedly, some more on the nose than others. But they always kept a safe distance from current society. Even to the point of maintaining that stylized method of speaking that was sort of timeless, not matching up with any one era's style of speech.
I think modern, streaming era Trek has gotten a little too contemporary in a number of ways. I think they can do more good, and persuade more people, by keeping things disconnected from the present and instead delivering messages in more subtle ways.
The thing I find different is that older Trek, meaning basically anything from TOS through Enterprise, went out of its way to avoid directly referencing or including anything contemporary. They did everything through allegory -- though admittedly, some more on the nose than others. But they always kept a safe distance from current society. Even to the point of maintaining that stylized method of speaking that was sort of timeless, not matching up with any one era's style of speech.
I think modern, streaming era Trek has gotten a little too contemporary in a number of ways. I think they can do more good, and persuade more people, by keeping things disconnected from the present and instead delivering messages in more subtle ways.
Meh. TNG did a direct drug PSA that would not be out of place elsewhere for the 80s
Trek bring on the nose doesn't strike me as out of step. If Hawking can be on TNG why not politicians, regardless of one's political affiliation?
Trek bring on the nose doesn't strike me as out of step. If Hawking can be on TNG why not politicians, regardless of one's political affiliation?
Comparing apples and oranges - Stephen Hawking was a noted scientist, not a politician.
If it makes Trek feel contemporary then I feel it's the same thing.
Not remotely the same thing. Hawking’s work in the field of astrophysics carries a worldwide legacy beyond just the 20th century. Same with historical figures like da Vinci, Newton, and Einstein - all of whom have appeared in some form on the show.
I will just disagree because there is a certain degree of contemporary feeling to it, timelessness or not. It draws eyes to the era it was made in.
ETA: Like, to me, Hawking lines up as much with The Rock appearing and do the "People's Eyebrow" in a wrestling presentation as Hawking does showing up with other physicists.
Last edited:
Agreed completely regarding the preamble and the aspirational intent. Shatner's delivery of "They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing!" is brilliant, and it's one of my favorite Kirk lines, period.
Set on a lost Earth colony, "The Omega Glory" might have worked a little better, for me at least. That episode suffers from the same unexplained literalism that "Miri" suffers from, regarding the parallel Earth idea, in the latter case with the planet having exactly same geography as ours. Or, they could have made both less literal and simply more generally similar. How you would do that with a preamble or perhaps a declaration and a flag without getting cheesy, I'm not entirely sure, but it might be doable, if the right balance were struck. I'd certainly strive to strike a better balance than the one struck for "Bread and Circuses", which for me had a setting that was still too literally similar to the real world for anything approaching plausibility.
Sorry, I digressed. The point is, I love Shatner's delivery in "The Omega Glory," but yeah the premise wasn't thought through seriously.
I didn't say anything of the kind. What I said was that those who believe that everyone (which means everyone, everywhere) should live under American law (and especially observe the rights recognized by law in the US, with the same limitations, regardless of whatever freedoms or restrictions there are that are recognized in the jurisdiction where they are) would be American imperialists, by definition. I thought it would be clear from the context that I was referring to the imposition of American standards into foreign jurisdictions and not referring to migrants who are present in the US without legal permission, which wouldn't even qualify as an example involving literally everyone (which necessarily must include all people everywhere).
This is directly on point with respect to the story of "The Omega Glory," since the resolution involves acceptance by Cloud William of the premise that the laws of the Yangs must apply to the Kohms. Kirk's line that we're talking about is a direct reply to the question of whether the Kohms must be subject to the Constitution as well. There is no middle ground of letting the Kohms have their country while the Yangs have theirs and the two peoples get along. The resolution is about bringing the planet together under one rule, and that rule is American.
It sounds great as long as we're just talking about everyone being free. But alas things aren't so simple.
Similar threads
