Bryan Fuller: Diversity is key

Do you mean you feel the alien character gets to reveal insights about Federation diversity or that they (the alien) encapsulates diversity in their own depiction?

Star Trek is good at having an outsider, say Data or Seven of Nine, ready to pass little words of wisdom about the human condition.

 

What number Warehouse will they have in the 23rd Century, and where will it be hidden?

.... Warehouse 31?

 

That's pretty funny!

We may have had to suffer through "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," but at least we also got "Far Beyond the Stars."

 

I want a dolphin captain. A gentle bear as a science officer. And a cross-eyed lion as security chief.

 

No, what I'm saying is that Star Trek, while having a diverse looking cast in each of the series, mostly relegates the true depiction of diversity through the alien characters, and I think that is a missed opportunity...and is generally why I don't like the fanwanky "It would be teh awesomez to have an Organian Chief Engineer" thoughts that get thrown around.

I'd much rather the show focus on HUMAN diversity. The alien characters, sprinkled throughout, are great for giving us "mirrors to our humanity," and provide a cool universe-building element...but Trek has relied on them to really be the "different ones" in terms of culture and thinking. I'd love to see someone(s) represented from a different Earth culture who isn't just saying "eet vas inwented een Russia" or whatever. I think that's a huge opportunity space for DSC or any Trek.

 

The main 'philosophy' that GR seemed to expouse in Star Trek was "Humans are all the same (yes, some minor cultural quirks here and there but generally we're one species that all want the same things..." <--- So, given that, the ONLY type of character that could comment on 'Hummanity' was someone outside of it - IE an 'Alien'.
^^^
That's been Star Trek's core since 1964 (Yes, I'm including "The Cage").

A character like Chekov doing the whole: "eet's a Russian inwention" bit was a personality quirk.

 

Yep.

 

I agree, Star Trek has a certain point of view about the nature of humanity and an allegorical style that should be the bedrock of the franchise. We can complain about the design of the ships and uniforms but it doesn't stop being Star Trek until the showrunners change that original conception of humanity. Then it doesn't matter if the uniforms look like TOS or not, it's not Star Trek.

If you want a show about direct (non allegorical) human diversity, why set it in outer space in the future?

 

Because ray guns. And green aliens.

 

Others have already kicked your ass about claiming that poorly-written minorities characters proves those characters shouldn't be minorities. (As though that were a function of anything other than the mostly-white, mostly-male writing staff having trouble writing three-dimensional characters who don't share their skin color and gender.)

But I'm gonna have to point out a major, glaring flaw in your logic no one else has.

To wit:


Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Voyager, and Star Trek: Enterprise are not modern shows!!

TNG is older today than TOS was when TNG started! VOY began during Bill Clinton's first term! A child born the day ENT premiered is old enough to drive a car!

These shows are old! They are not modern. The only modern Star Trek TV show left is DSC.

Characters that exist only to fulfill a pre-determined plot requirement are often cardboard cut-outs and such stories are often flat and uncompelling.

TNG had two black guys, and one of them was cast to play an alien. ENT had a black guy and an Asian girl. Everyone else was white. But do go one about how they had to fill "quotas" without any evidence.

Please. TOS was a TV version of Forbidden Planet and The Lensmen.

You have yet to demonstrate why not acting like "white male" is the default setting for the human race equals bad writing.

And, once again, it's like you're trapped in the 90s. ENT was two presidents ago! VOY three! TNG began when frickin' Reagan was in office!

 

So much nonsense, so little time...

Diversity is key. Because audiences are diverse and creators are diverse.

 

So something that is inherent and always present is key. Got it.

 

It boggles my mind how someone can claim to be a fan of Star Trek, yet somehow have a problem with diversity. Did they not watch the original? A black woman, Asian helmsman, Russian navigator, an alien, a Scottish engineer. Two of the actors were Jewish.

 

Selective reality. Humans are very good at it.

 

Why not?

Most people prefer to watch TV shows about people. There may be a minority of Trek fans who are uncomfortable with human behavior and specifically with the way writers portray human beings (which is, by its nature, at best something of an abstraction).

You know, if you can't or won't tell stories about people, just go into another line of work.

 

Diversity among creators I think is something that has been neglected for far too long, and I'm glad we're seeing more strides there now. Diversity in cast is good but it's almost pointless if all the writing is done by white dudes anyway. The examples from Star Trek cited above proves the point.

 

The idea that "you shouldn't portray human diversity in allegorical science fiction BECAUSE STAR TREK!" is just unmitigated evasive bullshit, by the way.