News Discovery New Character Breakdowns

[Brainsucker]

Star Trek is fiction written for people in the present and meant to be seen through a modern lens, it is not a depiction of the actual future. People use wheelchairs today, so they have fictional future people use fictional future wheelchairs in the fictional future.

This isn’t hard people.

Actually, Exoskeleton technology is also a present medical technology. They're still new, and maybe only the one who can pay a lot can access them. But for a future that everything free like in Star Trek, how can somebody has no access to this newer and better technology (for disability people)?

But maybe you're right. Maybe there is a new disease ( in the future) that Exoskeleton can't handle, and the patient has to rely on a wheel-chair. I hope that the writer will create a creative disease that is believe-able that a wheel-chair is a must, and newer technologies like Exoskeleton can't help him / her.

 

[fireproof78]

Actually, Exoskeleton technology is also a present medical technology. They're still new, and maybe only the one who can pay a lot can access them. But for a future that everything free like in Star Trek, how can somebody has no access to this newer and better technology (for disability people)?

But maybe you're right. Maybe there is a new disease ( in the future) that Exoskeleton can't handle, and the patient has to rely on a wheel-chair. I hope that the writer will create a creative disease that is believe-able that a wheel-chair is a must, and newer technologies like Exoskeleton can't help him / her.

It could be as simple as using the exoskeleton is painful to a certain point, and the wheelchair is a reprieve. I know its a little known fact, but even Geordi reports the VISOR caused him pain at times.

 

[Tuskin38]

Maybe the character is allergic to something in the treatment, maybe the damage is a certain way that most solutions wouldn’t work.

 

[Jayson1]

Well we know Geordi had to deal with constant headaches because of his visor so whatever tech they use should most likely be conceived as to have some limits to it. Which means that the character is going to have to face some limits to what she can do because she is disabled and then show the audience how she is able to overcome them in order to contribute. Which is common thing in Trek that goes beyond being diisabled or not. On "TNG" you would sometimes have a planet or whatnot effect all the humans and only Data could function in that enviroment but then you have a episode like "The Enemy" where Data couldn't beam down to the planet because it would fry his circuits. One cool thing they can do though is show ways Starfleet vessels are designed in order to help people who are disabled. IN "Melora" one of the problems was that it was a Carddissian space station and little thought was put into these issues when it was constructed. It would be interesting to see how things differ on a Federation Starship.

Jason

 

[starsuperion]

Maybe this is a handicap representation play, so people in those chairs can be represented..

 

[Nyotarules]

It's rather ironic that a franchise that had representation and inclusion as a core element and having that is one of the reasons it is remembered, celebrated and still ongoing to this day because of it has fans who are dead against representation and inclusion of minorities.

The irony is Star Trek has always represented a minority group, unless fans believe the majority of humanity are mainly physically fit white males...

 

[Nyotarules]

The one does not have to exclude the other. People that are working for medicine to move on and improve are NOT the enemy that needs to be stopped to change "gods perfect world" where we just have to accept that some people have to suffer and others not.

The notion that we can't actually change or improve in the future, and just have to accept the world as it is and be grateful for it, is a more than reactionary one. And one that is usually detriment to what is depicted in Star Trek.

Agreed, folks accept that race relations have improved in the future, however the idea that there is a possibility there might be treatments on offer for people who want them but cannot get them now in the 21st century and folks are clutching their social pearls. Whoever the disabled actor is, a line about 'I never did the operation for X cos I did not see the need for it' and be accepted as no big deal.

The other problem with 'cures' in speculative fiction is that they are not available in reality. They reduce the experience of lifelong disability to that of having a passing illness, and make disabled people even more invisible. In TV land, if you break your back, odds are you will miraculously walk again by season's end. Imagine what that is like to someone to whom their wheelchair is with them for life.

If the story is based on a scifi futuristic show then why would it be an issue? In Star Trek people like myself are treated as political, cultural and social equal human beings, in fact humanity are one of the top dogs, if not The top dog. IRL people like myself cannot catch a cab when the sun goes down, does this mean the Star Trek franchise should reflect the present reality of human race relations? No one expects them to.
Anyway starships have turbolifts it should be easier to get around on Federation Earth then it is today, whether physically immobile or not.
IRL technology has surpassed Star Trek, so the franchise needs to stop presenting itself as a futuristic present day Earth when the present day is more advanced in some medical matters.

Deafness and autism aren’t diseases.

Losing a leg is not a disease either, but some people use prosthetics, that is their choice. If, a big if, in the future, medical advances stated they had a cure for deafness (I believe it exists already to some degree) or for autism. If people choose to take it, then they should be free to do so and not made to feel less so than for doing so.

The future isn’t perfect because we’ve purged humanity of physical defects, it’s perfect because we celebrate each other’s differences and delight in the wide diversity of life and cultures throughout the galaxy. Prejudice and bigotry are gone, as are hunger and suffering while humanity looks down on our era as a dark age for the species.

I like the attitude that GR allegedly said when questioned if baldness is not cured in the future. In the future 'no one will care whether a man is bald or not.' I would have added no one will care if a man or woman is bald, chooses to wear a toupee/wig or has their scalp injected with hair growth hormones.

 

[Nyotarules]

As an alternative why not turn that idea on it's head and have a character wheelchair bound who struggles at first, who finds herself in an environment which is familiar but no longer welcomes her by passively assuming an able bodied norm. Why not show the crew around her finding it difficult at first to know how to adapt their own working practises?

I prefer the way Geordi was presented, no one had to adapt to Geordi's blindness, he did his job, and was one of the senior officers on the bridge. If the show was set in ENT times then yeah it would make sense, human being new to exploring space on their own, having to adapt to a lot of things. By the 23rd century Starfleet personnel on the bridge or on the ship should be as normal as seeing Uhura on the bridge in 1966 in TOS, no one asked her if she was the maid or a lost nanny.

Real people don't have that option, it doesn't reflect their experience or honour the way so many strive to find a place in the world despite their disability.

In 1987 when TNG aired real blind people did not have Geordi's options

 

[Spot261]

I prefer the way Geordi was presented no one had to adapt to Geordi blindness, he did his job, and was one of the senrio offiers on the bridge. If the show was set in ENT times then yeah it would make sense human being new to exploring space on their own having to adapt to a lot of things. By the 23rd century Starfleet personnel on the bridge or on the ship should be as normal as seeing Uhura on the bridge in 1966 in TOS, no one asked her if she was the maid or a lost nanny.

Which is a shame, because the portrayal could have made that accommodation an option, precisely because it is such an important part of the experience both of disabled people and those surrounding them.

He did, however, suffer in several ways for his disability away from the narrow definition of performing his duties and that should not be dismissed. There were limitations to Geordie's capabilities and though you are right they did not affect his ability to function in most instances one could very reasonably argue appreciation of beauty is a major part of one's psychological function and Geordie was in fact limited there by his blindness. In addition he was on many occasions shown to suffer discomfort and pain as a result of the VISOR, pain which on occasion debilitated him. The disability was mediated by the technology yes, but it wasn't brushed aside as an inconvenience or as inconsistent with the setting.

In 1987 when TNG aired real blind people did not have Geordi's options

No they didn't, which is one of the reasons no one has really claimed that portrayal is perfect or complete. It does show room for improvement in terms of how it represents disabled people and that is why we shouldn't shy away from building on the good work. It was, however, a pretty significant starting point and avoided the trap of putting in show technological consistency ahead of meaningful representation.

 

[jaime]

Which is a shame, because the portrayal could have made that accommodation an option, precisely because it is such an important part of the experience both of disabled people and those surrounding them.

He did, however, suffer in several ways for his disability away from the narrow definition of performing his duties and that should not be dismissed. There were limitations to Geordie's capabilities and though you are right they did not affect his ability to function in most instances one could very reasonably argue appreciation of beauty is a major part of one's psychological function and Geordie was in fact limited there by his blindness. In addition he was on many occasions shown to suffer discomfort and pain as a result of the VISOR, pain which on occasion debilitated him. The disability was mediated by the technology yes, but it wasn't brushed aside as an inconvenience or as inconsistent with the setting.



No they didn't, which is one of the reasons no one has really claimed that portrayal is perfect or complete. It does show room for improvement in terms of how it represents disabled people and that is why we shouldn't shy away from building on the good work. It was, however, a pretty significant starting point and avoided the trap of putting in show technological consistency ahead of meaningful representation.

Except it was technologically consistent in the show wasn’t it? It’s in line with tricorders and sensors etc, as well as with human/tech interfaces within the confines trek sets for itself (I.e it’s essentially against transhumanism in certain forms.) as part of its narrative. George Takei is on record as saying Sulu represents more than just the Japanese diaspora (when asked for his blessing over John Cho’s casting) and it’s known that Geordi was there to cover more than blind people. I don’t think we should do down Treks intent with these characters, nor lose sight (no pun intended) of how this all works. I would love to see another disabled character on Trek, but it needs to be part of Treks narrative fiction, and not a token applied with a shoehorn. We don’t even see wheels on trolleys in Trek, so why a wheelchair? So we go to an antigravity chair, and suddenly the effects budget shoots up if that’s a regular character. So from a narrative and production standpoint, we need to look at portions that work in narrative, in production, and in representation.

 

[Spot261]

Except it was technologically consistent in the show wasn’t it?

No one said it wasn't?

The point is the representation is light years more important than the internal consistency and there really shouldn't be a situation where the two are seen in terms of some equivalence to be weighed against each other. If we can have both, great, but there will be instances where one is at the detriment of the other and Geordie's portrayal was an important step but it wasn't perfect. It was a foundation to build on going forward and it would be not much short of criminal to prioritise the setting over the purpose that setting is supposed to serve.

Antigrav units on a wheelchair? Fine provided the portrayal actually still meaningfully represents the experience of being a disabled person, still allows them to look at someone on the screen who represents their own unique perspective without simply being a tokenistic nod which brushes their reality aside in favour of false technological hope within a fictional setting. An exo skeleton which effectively renders them disabled in name alone could not achieve that, and having the consequences reduced to side effects of the tech is exactly where we were with Geordie, a step which was important and groundbreaking thirty years ago but we should have progressed from in the meantime.

I can't emphasise enough really how little importance I would personally attach to consistency of the in universe technology. Entirely apart from the fact we have had little if any such consistency across the franchise anyway that technology and that setting are there to serve a purpose, a social awareness and responsibility which have always defined the show's importance. The moment the details start to overshadow that purpose (which has happened on occasion) something is very wrong.

 

[Jayson1]

I agree that special effects will be a issue in whatever wheelchair or tech is used. Their was a reason why we had little Wieghtlessness flight in Trek or why those anti_grav units never worked because of some tech reason. It's also why the Melora type of character wasn't rejected as being a serious regular on DS9 when they were first creating that show.

Jason

 

[jaime]

No one said it wasn't?

The point is the representation is light years more important than the internal consistency and there really shouldn't be a situation where the two are seen in terms of some equivalence to be weighed against each other. If we can have both, great, but there will be instances where one is at the detriment of the other and Geordie's portrayal was an important step but it wasn't perfect. It was a foundation to build on going forward and it would be not much short of criminal to prioritise the setting over the purpose that setting is supposed to serve.

Antigrav units on a wheelchair? Fine provided the portrayal actually still meaningfully represents the experience of being a disabled person, still allows them to look at someone on the screen who represents their own unique perspective without simply being a tokenistic nod which brushes their reality aside in favour of false technological hope within a fictional setting. An exo skeleton which effectively renders them disabled in name alone could not achieve that, and having the consequences reduced to side effects of the tech is exactly where we were with Geordie, a step which was important and groundbreaking thirty years ago but we should have progressed from in the meantime.

I can't emphasise enough really how little importance I would personally attach to consistency of the in universe technology. Entirely apart from the fact we have had little if any such consistency across the franchise anyway that technology and that setting are there to serve a purpose, a social awareness and responsibility which have always defined the show's importance. The moment the details start to overshadow that purpose (which has happened on occasion) something is very wrong.

Hmm. I guess it’s a dichotomy about what Star Trek is ultimately for, and to which degree. I would suggest it’s an SF show a few notches towards hard SF, that uses that setting to tell stories which include a large dose of allegory or social polemic. I think it leans towards maintaining its setting in order to continue using it in this manner...by acting as a sort o Trojan horse. We watch for the space thrills and spills, and somewhere under that, we learn something. If we take the social aspect as it’s prime motivator, then it will lose that power, because it’s talking only to people who already have those views in place. There’s no-one who can watch Let That Be Your Last Battlefield and go ‘huh...I guess hating someone for something as trivial as skin colour is stupid’ because those people won’t be interested in watching it in the first place.
I also do t think Trek should ever be ‘just’ another SF show. The franchise has a responsibility to at least discuss things, even if it doesn’t come up with an answer, or takes a tack that leads to more questions. Sometimes, it’s best to leave it at questions even...many of the more heavy handed shows often don’t go down well with fans in various directions.
So you choose not to maintain believability of the setting over the message. I would suggest that the setting is what allows the delivery of the message. Giving Rejoined stick for not going far enough, and using aliens, for example (which I have seen) misses the point about the message being delivered, but most importantly who it was being delivered to. (Not to mention doesn’t take into account time and place.)
It’s a tough one. Would I like my extremely disabled nephew to see something of himself I. trek? Sure. But if he’s then just seeing one person like him, and in this wondrous future, their lives haven’t been improved directly by all this magic tech...is that really gonna leave him with a good feeling?
I think it could go either way.

 

[Jayson1]

No one said it wasn't?

The point is the representation is light years more important than the internal consistency and there really shouldn't be a situation where the two are seen in terms of some equivalence to be weighed against each other. If we can have both, great, but there will be instances where one is at the detriment of the other and Geordie's portrayal was an important step but it wasn't perfect. It was a foundation to build on going forward and it would be not much short of criminal to prioritise the setting over the purpose that setting is supposed to serve.

Antigrav units on a wheelchair? Fine provided the portrayal actually still meaningfully represents the experience of being a disabled person, still allows them to look at someone on the screen who represents their own unique perspective without simply being a tokenistic nod which brushes their reality aside in favour of false technological hope within a fictional setting. An exo skeleton which effectively renders them disabled in name alone could not achieve that, and having the consequences reduced to side effects of the tech is exactly where we were with Geordie, a step which was important and groundbreaking thirty years ago but we should have progressed from in the meantime.

I can't emphasise enough really how little importance I would personally attach to consistency of the in universe technology. Entirely apart from the fact we have had little if any such consistency across the franchise anyway that technology and that setting are there to serve a purpose, a social awareness and responsibility which have always defined the show's importance. The moment the details start to overshadow that purpose (which has happened on occasion) something is very wrong.

How do we know that people with disabilities all want the same thing though in this issue? Like I said above the whole issue isn't really about representation because the character and I assume characters will be shown. It's all about whether people want Trek to be the modern metaphor or the Roddenberry vision where tech and science has removed most disease and found ways to help people in futuristic ways. so they don't really have any disability at all. It really comes down to what kind of Trek fan they might be and what sparks their imagination the most. I mean I can think of creative ways to have it both ways. One person with the super advance tech and one who has to use a wheelchair for some tech reason. See the reality and the dream so to speak, side to side. I also find it odd that this issue might be done and it won't involve Pike who we know ends up in a wheelchair. I think PIke has more weight than just some new character who might be only in a couple of episodes. What if we saw Pike get injured and he remains in command. Even though we know his condition will worsen to where you get to the one blink says yes and two says no but maybe that something that doesn't happen instantly.

Jason

 

[eschaton]

The point is the representation is light years more important than the internal consistency and there really shouldn't be a situation where the two are seen in terms of some equivalence to be weighed against each other. If we can have both, great, but there will be instances where one is at the detriment of the other and Geordie's portrayal was an important step but it wasn't perfect. It was a foundation to build on going forward and it would be not much short of criminal to prioritise the setting over the purpose that setting is supposed to serve.

Just out of curiosity, do you think this means if you set a show in say Viking era Britain you ought to cast black and Asian actors (and come up with plausible roles for them) even though in real life the chance of someone of either background being in such a setting (versus say Constantinople) was vanishingly small? It seems like that's the logical conclusion of arguing that representation in media is more important than a consistent setting.

 

[Nyotarules]

Just out of curiosity, do you think this means if you set a show in say Viking era Britain you ought to cast black and Asian actors (and come up with plausible roles for them) even though in real life the chance of someone of either background being in such a setting (versus say Constantinople) was vanishingly small? It seems like that's the logical conclusion of arguing that representation in media is more important than a consistent setting.

You ever watch Disney live action Beauty and the beast set in 18th century France?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Just out of curiosity, do you think this means if you set a show in say Viking era Britain you ought to cast black and Asian actors (and come up with plausible roles for them) even though in real life the chance of someone of either background being in such a setting (versus say Constantinople) was vanishingly small? It seems like that's the logical conclusion of arguing that representation in media is more important than a consistent setting.

Have you watched modern TV? A lot of pseudo-historical fantasy shows have done just that. Merlin from a few years back springs to mind.

 

[Mudd]

Just out of curiosity, do you think this means if you set a show in say Viking era Britain you ought to cast black and Asian actors (and come up with plausible roles for them) even though in real life the chance of someone of either background being in such a setting (versus say Constantinople) was vanishingly small? It seems like that's the logical conclusion of arguing that representation in media is more important than a consistent setting.

No reason why not.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Just out of curiosity, do you think this means if you set a show in say Viking era Britain you ought to cast black and Asian actors (and come up with plausible roles for them) even though in real life the chance of someone of either background being in such a setting (versus say Constantinople) was vanishingly small? It seems like that's the logical conclusion of arguing that representation in media is more important than a consistent setting.

You have a pretty poor understanding of history. Different cultures have been interacting, trading and sometimes having wars since we started having cultures. So it's entirely possible that there could be black or Asian characters in Viking era Britain, made even more so if it's a fictional story and not based on an actual historical event where we know every single detail. Even the film Dunkirk, which gets the same "I'm not racist, but there were just white people there" excuses had soldiers from Morocco under the command of French forces.

 

[eschaton]

Have you watched modern TV? A lot of pseudo-historical fantasy shows have done just that. Merlin from a few years back springs to mind.

If something is pseudo-historic, there is a lot less excuse not to have a diverse cast even if it's not "period." Like Game of Thrones, where the books only had black people canonically from the Summer Isles (like Salladhor Saan) but the show had several other characters, like Missandrei, Grey Worm, and Xaro Xhoan Daxos, played by black or mixed actors. I really don't have an issue with this.

Hell, I remember the debate years back, in a different type of media. When the first Dragon Age came out, the setting was based upon Medieval Britain. You had the option to create your own character to be dark skinned, but there really weren't any characters darker than a bit swarthy in the entire game. At the time, I didn't really see the big deal, because issues related to "race" were dealt with other ways (the city elves living in ghettos, the caste system of the dwarves, etc). But there was huge fan outcry, and by the third game, they just had random characters black with French accents and no particular explanation. But really, this is fine. We already make fantasy games not "period appropriate" by showing essentially modern gender relations, with women just as likely to pick up a sword. Why not have strangely "presentist" depiction of race as well?

You have a pretty poor understanding of history. Different cultures have been interacting, trading and sometimes having wars since we started having cultures. So it's entirely possible that there could be black or Asian characters in Viking era Britain, made even more so if it's a fictional story and not based on an actual historical event where we know every single detail. Even the film Dunkirk, which gets the same "I'm not racist, but there were just white people there" excuses had soldiers from Morocco under the command of French forces.

Certainly there are rare people who got around even in the Middle Ages. But most areas were not, and literature from the time suggests people were often stunningly unaware of diversity. The 13th century German story Parzival has a half African character who has mottled black and white skin - because few people had seen biracial individuals at that time. Even as late as the time of Shakespeare, people went to public displays to see dead Indians, and it was commonly thought in Britain that Jews all had curly red hair, because so few people had ever seen Jews.