• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Bryan Fuller: Diversity is key

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Decent" is one of those operative words. One person's "decent" is another's "indecent." People who have a habit of moralizing are obsessed with what's decent.

At the end of this season of Major Crimes:
Flynn proposed to Sharon, and now they're engaged.

That's loving and lasting, right?
Yes, it is, actually.

What's "indecent" about that?
Well, they'd been "living in sin"/"living out of wedlock" before, and they still are, for that matter. Oh, and Sharon's adoptive son is gay.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Spoiler:
They're all decent.
 
"Decent" is one of those operative words. One person's "decent" is another's "indecent." People who have a habit of moralizing are obsessed with what's decent.

At the end of this season of Major Crimes:
Flynn proposed to Sharon, and now they're engaged.

That's loving and lasting, right?
Yes, it is, actually.

What's "indecent" about that?
Well, they'd been "living in sin"/"living out of wedlock" before, and they still are, for that matter. Oh, and Sharon's adoptive son is gay.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Spoiler:
They're all decent.
Fair enough, I didn't specifically mean in the decent/indecent context, I just meant that most had the odds stacked against them being represented as a happy and/or lasting couple. And yes, luckily things aren't as bad as they used to be.
 
Speaking as someone who's a disabled wheelchair user, I've gone back and forth on this. And while I'd definitely like to see more representation on TV in general, I'm not sure about Star Trek.

Personally, I'd like to think that by the time the 23rd/24th century comes around, medicine has advanced sufficiently that disabilities are done with, or at least people have extremely viable options. Geordi's ocular implants are a great example. Today, we're probably just a few decades away from 3D-printing all sorts of internal human organs. Technology for bionic limbs has come a long way for amputees, too. By the 23rd century, in a society such as the Federation supplemented by alien tech, there should be fully-functional limb replacements and all sorts of viable gene therapies and medicines. Think about it....300 years. The difference between bloodletting and the medicine we enjoy today. So why not have the 2200's/2300's be a future in which we have a tremendous medical advantage?

There should be therapies that repair neurological abnormalities like cerebral palsy AT BIRTH. Autoimmune disorders like ankylosing spondylitis (which I have, in addition to cerebral palsy) or things like fibromyalgia that limit mobility? Gone, because immune therapies have gotten to a point where they can pinpoint where things start to go wrong in someone's body and zap it. And why should ALS still exist 300 years from now?

As cool as it would be to see someone in a Professor X-style hovering chair...again, what would be the point, especially if someone serves in Starfleet? At some point, doctors should have this stuff figured out, especially after working with and cross-referencing the medical databases of hundreds of alien worlds. Maybe Federation civilians can have "hovering chairs" but could you really serve on a starship like that? I guess you could...but to me, it would make more sense to have someone with advanced bionic limbs.

In a society like this, if disability is confronted, it could be on a certain alien world that doesn't have access to the same technology, or -- I guess -- to showcase some new disease or condition that has evolved through the years as a response to all the new therapies and gene manipulation that has occurred...or something like that.

I get that it could be empowering to see it on TV, but I've had a long time to think about this. Being disabled sucks. Personally, I'd like to imagine a future where it's gone. Cool alien gene therapies or nanites in the blood that go around repairing stuff that goes wrong in the body.
Really interesting perspective, thanks for that.
 
Certainly dramawise that's fair, but a lot of sitcoms are still about lasting, or finding a lasting relationship. Plus lack of interracial lasting relationships goes back a long long time.

Well, lack of lasting relationships in Trek goes back a long time tbh. It's been shit about this which is why I was inspired to make this thread. We've had so many Trek shows and the only real lasting relationship was O'Brien's.
So the only lasting relationship in Star Trek is actually interracial.


ETA: In fact most relationships that are shown are interracial in-universe. Deanna and Worf/Riker, T'Pol and Trip, Tom and B'Elanna, Jadzia and Worf, Kira and Odo.
 
We've had so many Trek shows and the only real lasting relationship was O'Brien's.
So the only lasting relationship in Star Trek is actually interracial.


ETA: In fact most relationships that are shown are interracial in-universe. Deanna and Worf/Riker, T'Pol and Trip, Tom and B'Elanna, Jadzia and Worf, Kira and Odo.
Not to mention, the prototype: Sarek and Amanda.
 
I would, and Worf/Jadzia. If Terry Farrell hadn't wanted out I think we can safely assume that would have lasted through to the end.
 
Well, lack of lasting relationships in Trek goes back a long time tbh. It's been shit about this which is why I was inspired to make this thread. We've had so many Trek shows and the only real lasting relationship was O'Brien's.
So the only lasting relationship in Star Trek is actually interracial.


ETA: In fact most relationships that are shown are interracial in-universe. Deanna and Worf/Riker, T'Pol and Trip, Tom and B'Elanna, Jadzia and Worf, Kira and Odo.

Tom and Bells was pretty lasting. The show ended at its midpoint. I would watch the hell out of a fifties style sitcom with them. Moral bringing her first
 
Fuller was instrumental in casting before he left:

“We were very adamant early on about that cast, not just in terms of race but also in terms of gender,” Fuller explained. “Janeway (of “Star Trek: Voyager”) carved a nice path as did Majel Barrett (Nurse Christine Chapel in the original “Star Trek” series) in 1966, in the original pilot. So it was important for ethnic inclusivity and gender inclusivity (to be upheld in casting). I was very excited to cast Michelle Yeoh before I left. I was pushing very hard for Sonequa Martin-Green to be cast before I left. So I feel like there’s a lot of wonderful diversity represented in the show, and I’m excited to see how it turns out.”


http://www.cbr.com/bryan-fuller-sta...al-Distribution&utm_campaign=CBR-TW&view=list

This annoys me. Fuller is patting himself on the shoulder for being "gender inclusive" during casting. The problem is, that the reality doesn't reflect this at all. DIS male/female character ratio is just as bad as it always was in Star Trek series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Discovery#Cast_and_characters

18 characters overall
12 male characters
6 female characters

Having a cast with only 1/3 female characters is not praise worthy at all in regards to proper gender representation.
 
This annoys me. Fuller is patting himself on the shoulder for being "gender inclusive" during casting. The problem is, that the reality doesn't reflect this at all. DIS male/female character ratio is just as bad as it always was in Star Trek series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Discovery#Cast_and_characters

18 characters overall
12 male characters
6 female characters

Having a cast with only 1/3 female characters is not praise worthy at all in regards to proper gender representation.

VOY was almost fifty/fifty characterwise if you discount the doctor on the grounds of him being a hologram. Once you throw in expanded cast, the only two recurring crew I can think of are female (Naomi and seska...then you get almost total parity...wildman and gori....I give up. Typing on this site on an iPad just does no the work, I don't even know if these words are gonna go in.
 
This annoys me. Fuller is patting himself on the shoulder for being "gender inclusive" during casting. The problem is, that the reality doesn't reflect this at all. DIS male/female character ratio is just as bad as it always was in Star Trek series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Discovery#Cast_and_characters

18 characters overall
12 male characters
6 female characters

Having a cast with only 1/3 female characters is not praise worthy at all in regards to proper gender representation.

As much as this isn't diverse as it could/should be, the more annoying fact is that 1/3 is probably still better than other shows.
 
As much as this isn't diverse as it could/should be, the more annoying fact is that 1/3 is probably still better than other shows.

I looked around a bit for some statistics and found these a bit out of date information:

https://wmc.3cdn.net/6dd3de8ca65852dbd4_fjm6yck9o.pdf

Page 37:
Female characters with speaking parts peaked at 43 percent

Women snared 43 percent of speaking and major roles in 2012-13 primetime entertainment television shows, a historical high equal to that reached in 2007-08, according to San Diego State’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film. In 2010-11, the figure stood at 41 percent.

At 51 percent, the CW network had the most female characters. Fox and ABC each had 44 percent; NBC, 41 percent; and CBS, 39 percent.

Women were 48 percent of reality show casts; 43 percent of the cast in comedies; and 40 percent in dramas.

So it looks like DIS is even worse in regards to gender parity than the average of primetime shows on broadcast channels 4-5 years ago.
 
The lead is a female, and at least two or three of the other cast members are likely recurring rather than regular, although its very probable the whole show is going to be ensemble similar to Atlantis.
So 1/3 isn't bad, it could be worse.
It could be better too.
 
Women are roughly 51% of the population (I think). Every single show and movie should reflect that.

But do they always make up 51% (or whatever) of any given group, whatever unifies said group? Will they do so in the 23rd century? On average, maybe. In practice, everywhere you go? And not because of discrimination but just because that's how it worked out?
 
"Women snared 43 percent" - Not sure if whoever wrote this thinks women which have had to hunt them down, or have taken something they shouldn't have...
"speaking and major roles" - a speaking part can be one line, so that's a pretty big range to lump together.
 
Including a movie about a college football team? Or a television show set in the armed forces during World War II? Strive for balance where you can, but some things are just going to be predominantly male or female.
I recently rewatched Band of Brothers, and there's hardly any female characters, and while I won't specificly fault it for that, I love how We Were Soldiers... focused on the wives and families back home as much as the soldiers themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top