Discovery tackles current political divide

[Tomalak]

Attitudes like this is why I want to keep politics out of my TV now. There is no discussion between right/left anymore. If you aren't on the left you are labeled a Nazi and discussion is shut down. I don't need another TV show telling me I am horrible and evil because I have viewpoints that don't match those in Hollywood. I can get that by tuning into CNN or reading the Washington Post. I would like an hour or so of TV with some nice fantasy escapism.

If you are going to throw some allegory at me then at least make it thought provoking and different. Not just more bashing those on the right.

Already if the Klingons are bad guys and Klingons = America then I don't see much hope this show will appeal to me. I actually hope I am wrong but Hollywood is prone to let me down.

Oh come on. Star Trek's been around fifty years, we all know what to expect. It's got a certain outlook and has always engaged with issues to some extent.

Sometimes issues objectively only have one acceptable side. Starfleet crews are unlikely to engage with a culture which enslaves another and conclude that actually maybe they were stupid or lazy or inferior and deserved to be enslaved after all. No one needed to offer the other side of the ecology argument in Star Trek IV. The Ferengi's chauvinism was always regarded as offensive and laughable. We never needed a character to say "Gee, maybe these guys have a point". No one ever pretended it was a neutral issue with equal value on both sides of the argument.

 

[M'Sharak]

I'm sick to death of politics and social commentary in media. Yea it's Star Trek which is full of it in the past so I guess they feel obliged to do it now. But back in the day it was unique for Star Trek to do it ...

Well, no. Social commentary in popular entertainment was never at any point unique to Star Trek, nor did it originate with Star Trek.

Can't I just take an hour or so a day to watch a fun show without thinking about it some more?

Sure. Pick any fun show you like, but Star Trek may not be it. That's always been the deal.

 

[Kor]

No matter what kind of commentary they try to do, somebody will take offense.

By some accounts, there was some negative response to "Plato's Stepchildren" among certain circles.

And I remember some outrage over the ENT episode "Desert Crossing" for supposedly portraying terrorists in a positive light.

Kor

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Attitudes like this is why I want to keep politics out of my TV now.

Politics and social commentary is the bread and butter of Star Trek and has been from the beginning. It may not always be well executed or subtle (I'm looking at you TOS: Let That Be Your Last Battlefield and TNG: Symbiosis) but it's always present and probably always will be. I'm not sure what you're expecting out of Star Trek: Discovery given the franchise's history, but it's surely not going to be apolitical. You're either going to have to learn to deal with that or find another show.

There is no discussion between right/left anymore. If you aren't on the left you are labeled a Nazi and discussion is shut down.

Oh, nonsense. The people who are literally calling themselves neo-Nazis and white supremacists get labeled Nazis. You act as if the Nazi moniker just recently popped up again out of the vapor without reason and it had nothing to do with the hundreds of guys marching while carrying Nazi and Confederate flags and torches and assault rifles.

If one is not a Nazi, then they've got nothing to worry about. Just condemn them and move on. It's the easiest thing in the world. Nazis have been the default bad guys in just about everything for the past seventy years. We've been conditioned to condemn Nazis since childhood. Indiana Jones showed us the path.

I don't need another TV show telling me I am horrible and evil because I have viewpoints that don't match those in Hollywood. I can get that by tuning into CNN or reading the Washington Post. I would like an hour or so of TV with some nice fantasy escapism.

You realize Donald Trump is Hollywood too, right? He was a reality TV star who made cameos as himself in movies. He ran beauty pageants and was a constant self-promoting guest on radio and TV talk shows. The two are intertwined now. You can't complain about Hollywood getting involved in politics while electing the most Hollywood president since Reagan (and at least Reagan put some political experience in between his time in Hollywood and running for office).

If you are going to throw some allegory at me then at least make it thought provoking and different. Not just more bashing those on the right.

When has Trek ever specifically singled out American right wing political figures for criticism to any major degree? That's not how it works. Trek is definitely progressive-leaning, but it deals in ideas and allegories and metaphors rather than "bashing" specific right wing parties (except the Nazi Party, because again, it's an easy lay-up, although TOS certainly didn't have many nice things to say about the commies on the opposite end of the spectrum, either).

The crew of the Discovery are not going to pause mid-battle with the Klingons to remark on how much this reminds them of Donald Trump's presidency or anything like that, but they may deal with related but peripheral subjects like how to deal with an influx of war refugees, the choice between nationalism and isolationism and reaching out to make partnerships with your former adversaries, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and gunboat diplomacy.

And if you consider allegories about respecting the rights and choices and the very existence of people who are different than you to be anti-your political party, then you should probably ask yourself why that is and not worry about the TV show so much. I'm not saying you believe that, but it's something that has come up frequently in these discussions about DSC before.

Already if the Klingons are bad guys and Klingons = America then I don't see much hope this show will appeal to me. I actually hope I am wrong but Hollywood is prone to let me down.

I think you're taking this whole thing way too seriously.

 

[BillJ]

Politics and social commentary is the bread and butter of Star Trek and has been from the beginning. It may not always be well executed or subtle (I'm looking at you TOS: Let That Be Your Last Battlefield and TNG: Symbiosis) but it's always present and probably always will be. I'm not sure what you're expecting out of Star Trek: Discovery given the franchise's history, but it's surely not going to be apolitical. You're either going to have to learn to deal with that or find another show.


Oh, nonsense. The people who are literally calling themselves neo-Nazis and white supremacists get labeled Nazis. You act as if the Nazi moniker just recently popped up again out of the vapor without reason and it had nothing to do with the hundreds of guys marching while carrying Nazi and Confederate flags and torches and assault rifles.

If one is not a Nazi, then they've got nothing to worry about. Just condemn them and move on. It's the easiest thing in the world. Nazis have been the default bad guys in just about everything for the past seventy years. We've been conditioned to condemn Nazis since childhood. Indiana Jones showed us the path.


You realize Donald Trump is Hollywood too, right? He was a reality TV star who made cameos as himself in movies. He ran beauty pageants and was a constant self-promoting guest on radio and TV talk shows. The two are intertwined now. You can't complain about Hollywood getting involved in politics while electing the most Hollywood president since Reagan (and at least Reagan put some political experience in between his time in Hollywood and running for office).


When has Trek ever specifically singled out American right wing political figures for criticism to any major degree? That's not how it works. Trek is definitely progressive-leaning, but it deals in ideas and allegories and metaphors rather than "bashing" specific right wing parties (except the Nazi Party, because again, it's an easy lay-up, although TOS certainly didn't have many nice things to say about the commies on the opposite end of the spectrum, either).

The crew of the Discovery are not going to pause mid-battle with the Klingons to remark on how much this reminds them of Donald Trump's presidency or anything like that, but they may deal with related but peripheral subjects like how to deal with an influx of war refugees, the choice between nationalism and isolationism and reaching out to make partnerships with your former adversaries, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and gunboat diplomacy.

And if you consider allegories about respecting the rights and choices and the very existence of people who are different than you to be anti-your political party, then you should probably ask yourself why that is and not worry about the TV show so much. I'm not saying you believe that, but it's something that has come up frequently in these discussions about DSC before.


I think you're taking this whole thing way too seriously.

If the writers have put as much thought into things as you have, we could have a winner on our hands.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Not likely. Even when Star Trek has been tried political or philosophical, it usually comes off as aloof and sophomoric. People love to call it 'intelligent,' but it has really ever presented ideas beyond what one should expect from a good high school education.

Nothing would make me happier then to see Discovery really dig its heals into something and present actual intelligent and insightful dialog.

 

[Jayson1]

I don't think the idea is so much that the Klingons are outright "bad guys." It's more that they are a sovereign political power trying to resist what they perceive as the threat of Federation expansionism. Apparently it's one of the Starfleet protagonists who does the wrong thing and sets off a war of some kind. Since the same Klingons will be regular characters, we can expect lots of exploration of their side of the whole issue.

Kor

Which is kind of interesting because we know the Klingons like to invade and conquer worlds as well. We also know the war can't be won because they are still the bad guys when TOS happens. Also the idea of making the Federation almost like the bad guys makes me think back to Eddington's speech to Sisko over subspace after he basically betrayed them about how the Federation is almost as bad as the Borg because they sort of assimilate planets and they don't even know it.

I wonder though the Klingons are really the best villians to explore this issue. The problems with the Federation are almost the reverse from anything you see from the alt right. They actually want to bring people into the fold but they also want to convert them to how they think. The Romulans actually seem to fit the mold better. They seem to go long stretches of having no contact with the Federation at all. They are known for their ability ot manipulate situations behind the scene's and yet they must have some kind of form of "Democracy" since they have a senate.

Jason

 

[Refuge]

Attitudes like this is why I want to keep politics out of my TV now. There is no discussion between right/left anymore. If you aren't on the left you are labeled a Nazi and discussion is shut down. I don't need another TV show telling me I am horrible and evil because I have viewpoints that don't match those in Hollywood. I can get that by tuning into CNN or reading the Washington Post. I would like an hour or so of TV with some nice fantasy escapism.

If you are going to throw some allegory at me then at least make it thought provoking and different. Not just more bashing those on the right.

Already if the Klingons are bad guys and Klingons = America then I don't see much hope this show will appeal to me. I actually hope I am wrong but Hollywood is prone to let me down.

I agree with you. Though I think there is an aspect that Discovery could delve into that we (now) seem to fail with. Demonising the 'other' side is why we keep the divide. Trek likes to show one ideology winning out over another but when it shines a light onto the failings of the 'good' side it is brave, and it does do that. It's easy seeing what is bad, I would like to think our morals and value for life does that. If current climate is the basis for the politics on Discovery it will show the Klingons in charge. It will show inadequacy in Star fleet within their own ranks and in how they don't always appeal to the populations they presume to know. A disconnect. Then after the truly vile and cruel is defeated it might really be brave and show give and take. Got to say though if our fantasy future is still struggling with this then we need more enlightened fantasies

 

[fireproof78]

Sometimes one side doesn't have a point.

All sides have a point, to one degree or another. Strawmen do not make interesting adversaries.

When has Trek ever specifically singled out American right wing political figures for criticism to any major degree? That's not how it works. Trek is definitely progressive-leaning, but it deals in ideas and allegories and metaphors rather than "bashing" specific right wing parties (except the Nazi Party, because again, it's an easy lay-up, although TOS certainly didn't have many nice things to say about the commies on the opposite end of the spectrum, either).

More of an observation, but Trek actually referred to the Nazi party as being "efficient" as praise from Spock. Not that they didn't criticize the Nazis, since "Patterns of Force" certainly came down on negative side. But, it was interesting, especially given the political climate of the day.

Secondly, again, just an observation, but Colonel West was meant to represent Colonel North in TUC. Not sure if his hawkish efforts, and assassinations efforts would come across as positive commentary either.

Got to say though if our fantasy future is still struggling with this then we need more enlightened fantasies

If humanity struggles with it, fantasy will struggle with it

 

[mos6507]

If you are going to throw some allegory at me then at least make it thought provoking and different. Not just more bashing those on the right.

A good example that comes to mind in covering a topic even-handedly was LA Law. The structure of any episode of LA Law was to swing the audience like a pendulum from one side to the next so that you wound up having trouble deciding where to stand. With some issues there's a very gray area in the middle. That recognition of the gray area has been lost in our era of ideological silos.

Even with Khan, his character-study in Space Seed was much more ambiguous. He "offered the world order" (thump).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There's always a side whether you agree with it or not.

It's better to strive to undestand than to merely demonize and express outrage.

 

[fireproof78]

here's always a side whether you agree with it or not.

It's better to strive to undestand than to merely demonize and express outrage.

Well said. Thank you.

 

[Refuge]

All sides have a point, to one degree or another. Strawmen do not make interesting adversaries.

More of an observation, but Trek actually referred to the Nazi party as being "efficient" as praise from Spock. Not that they didn't criticize the Nazis, since "Patterns of Force" certainly came down on negative side. But, it was interesting, especially given the political climate of the day.

Secondly, again, just an observation, but Colonel West was meant to represent Colonel North in TUC. Not sure if his hawkish efforts, and assassinations efforts would come across as positive commentary either.


If humanity struggles with it, fantasy will struggle with it

Just on the Nazi thing, remember Voyager's 'The Killing Game'? Ultimately the Nazis and the Hirogen Nazi versions were defeated. It was interesting how the Nazi influence was embraced by hunters to the point where one of the Hirogens kills his leader. I seem to recall in the fallout from the holo projector overloading we even see Neelix as a Klingon. Though I think the message (to come later) from these episodes was less about Nazism and becomes more about what happens when the Prime Directive is compromised. Janeway giving away technology to the Hirogens to make their own holoprojections - bad idea.

 

[Nerys Myk]

here's other aspect to the Human condition, the Human adventure, than just politics.

Did someone say politics would be the only angle?

There's a reason there is a divide and taking sides can alienate.

Such is the risk when creating art, even for entertainment.

If they are open and even handed about it, then fine.

Nah, sometimes you just have to expose the badside and have no hesitation about it.

Attitudes like this is why I want to keep politics out of my TV now. There is no discussion between right/left anymore. If you aren't on the left you are labeled a Nazi and discussion is shut down. I don't need another TV show telling me I am horrible and evil because I have viewpoints that don't match those in Hollywood. I can get that by tuning into CNN or reading the Washington Post. I would like an hour or so of TV with some nice fantasy escapism.

Then, as others have pointed out, Star Trek might not be the franchise for you. If you're supporting veiwpoints that Star Trek has and will speak out against ( either outright or through allegory) then maybe Star Trek isn't the franchise for you. Star Trek isn't just fantasy escapism. It was created to say something. Sure sometimes it does it a clumsy in your face fashion with all the subtlety of an anvil to the head, but it tries. Yes, it has aliens, spaceships and ray guns. And that's pretty fun. I love that stuff. But the stories aren't about that. They're about ideas. Right and wrong. Being better. Doing the right thing or even the cost of doing the right thing even when its hurts.
If you want discussion you might want to try not labeling with such a broad brush. Are you open to hearing what the left says? Or is discussion shut down with accusations of being "socialists", SJWs or what ever the label du jour is for the left that week?

 

[LJones41]

Great. Not like I don't get enough of the current political divide from the real world.

Wasn't one of the premises of the original "STAR TREK" was to examine the current social and political scene via a science-fiction television show?

And to disgruntled Trump supporters, if you don't find Discovery to be your liking, HBO is making an alt reality show about a world where the Confederacy won. Maybe that will suit you better.

Considering that two of the showrunners are African-Americans (a married couple), I suspect that Trump supporters might not like what the show has to say.

Though I think the message (to come later) from these episodes was less about Nazism and becomes more about what happens when the Prime Directive is compromised. Janeway giving away technology to the Hirogens to make their own holoprojections - bad idea.

What else could Janeway have done? Continued the fight for Voyager? It was going no where. Yes, the Hirogen did misuse the hologram technology. Whatever happened later was on them. And besides . . . Voyager did use Hirogen technology to contact Starfleet in the Alpha Quadrant.

 

[Tomalak]

More of an observation, but Trek actually referred to the Nazi party as being "efficient" as praise from Spock. Not that they didn't criticize the Nazis, since "Patterns of Force" certainly came down on negative side. But, it was interesting, especially given the political climate of the day.

Not really, it's a standard trope of fifties and sixties WW2 films to present the Nazis as a ruthlessly efficient military force of near-mythical status. All the better when our heroes ultimately defeat them.

Modern historians tend to view that differently now. Far from being efficient, the Nazi state was hugely wasteful of resources, and was not an effective government.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Secondly, again, just an observation, but Colonel West was meant to represent Colonel North in TUC. Not sure if his hawkish efforts, and assassinations efforts would come across as positive commentary either.

Giving him a cutesy play on Oliver North's name and rank and a Scooby Doo ending is not a specific criticism of Oliver North by name like I was talking about, it's consistent with dealing in allegory and parody and metaphor as Trek usually does. The poster was complaining about the show potentially bashing the current right wing parties in power, and I was saying that while they might deal in broadly defined vague issues like immigration, gunboat diplomacy etc., they won't likely single out people or parties or events by name, like Trump or Brexit or Republicans. If he considers expressing a pro-immigrant/refugee position (for one example) to be "bashing" Republicans, then this might not be the show for him.

 

[Noname Given]

Not really, it's a standard trope of fifties and sixties WW2 films to present the Nazis as a ruthlessly efficient military force of near-mythical status. All the better when our heroes ultimately defeat them.

Modern historians tend to view that differently now. Far from being efficient, the Nazi state was hugely wasteful of resources, and was not an effective government.

There were films like that, sure. But there were also films like "The Longest Day" (1962) and "Patton" (1970) IMP close enough as it was released in 1970, but took a couple years to make - so it's still a 60ies was film which showed both sides fairly evenly. You saw mistakes and misuse of resources by both sides - as well as victories, etc.

 

[cultcross]

Not likely. Even when Star Trek has been tried political or philosophical, it usually comes off as aloof and sophomoric. People love to call it 'intelligent,' but it has really ever presented ideas beyond what one should expect from a good high school education.

Nothing would make me happier then to see Discovery really dig its heals into something and present actual intelligent and insightful dialog.

A good high school education level is intelligent compared with a lot that's on TV, sadly. The presumed educational level of most procedurals, for example, seems to be painfully low.

I agree that Trek doesn't present much in the way of difficult or deep ideas - I learnt more philosophy doing a science degree than Trek ever managed to cover. However, I always saw Trek more as a morality play than a philosophical treatise (although it clearly sees itself as the latter on occasion). And in that mindset, Trek really does do things that are either unique, or pretty rare on TV. For example, Trek is willing to blur the line between good guy and bad guy in TOS and TNG, and occasionally later on, in a way that is quite unusual; they take the idea that your enemy is just like you and actually have the characters act as though that were true. Not the standard war film approach of one of the characters seeing a dead enemy soldier "who is just a boy really", sadface sadface, and that having no further impact on the plot whatsoever. Trek went out of its way to do "the enemy are just like us, really" plots, along with "they did it first isn't an excuse to lower ourselves to their level", "morality shouldn't be set aside when it is inconvenient" and so on. They're by no means deeply ground moving ideas, but they are lessons we clearly haven't learnt, so I'm glad when Trek tackles them. And just occasionally, they're brave enough to include the other argument too (this is why I, Borg remains a favourite of mine, and I loved Lily's perspective in First Contact after Picard conveniently forgot the lesson he learnt in that earlier episode). I hope Discovery continues this tradition - I'm not expecting particularly difficult concepts, but I am at least expecting the crew to be faced with moral dilemmas.

My prediction is that Lorca and Burnham will end up in conflict over this issue; Georgiou seems more in the Picard school of ethics, and has presumably passed some of this onto Burnham. But perhaps at first she is frustrated with it, seeing a 'need' to be more aggressive with the Klingons, inadvertantly starting the war. My guess will be that early on, Burnham will be glad of a Captain who is more gung ho, fight fire with fire, willing to bend the rules in war, and gradually we'll see her have more of an issue with it and realise that Georgiou's wisdom shouldn't be dismissed so easily.

Alternatively, pew pew, EXPLOSIONS, yay!

 

[Refuge]

What else could Janeway have done? Continued the fight for Voyager? It was going no where. Yes, the Hirogen did misuse the hologram technology. Whatever happened later was on them. And besides . . . Voyager did use Hirogen technology to contact Starfleet in the Alpha Quadrant.

Janeway was always under more pressure than other star fleet captains but giving holo technology to a hunter race that had just used it on Voyager crew and could manipulate it without protocols, was giving them more credit than they deserved. So it backfired on the Hirogen but it was messed up and that is what we are supposed to learn as to why there is a Prime Directive. I don't know what an alternative could have been but she needed to have come up with one.

 

[Jayson1]

A good high school education level is intelligent compared with a lot that's on TV, sadly. The presumed educational level of most procedurals, for example, seems to be painfully low.

I agree that Trek doesn't present much in the way of difficult or deep ideas - I learnt more philosophy doing a science degree than Trek ever managed to cover. However, I always saw Trek more as a morality play than a philosophical treatise (although it clearly sees itself as the latter on occasion). And in that mindset, Trek really does do things that are either unique, or pretty rare on TV. For example, Trek is willing to blur the line between good guy and bad guy in TOS and TNG, and occasionally later on, in a way that is quite unusual; they take the idea that your enemy is just like you and actually have the characters act as though that were true. Not the standard war film approach of one of the characters seeing a dead enemy soldier "who is just a boy really", sadface sadface, and that having no further impact on the plot whatsoever. Trek went out of its way to do "the enemy are just like us, really" plots, along with "they did it first isn't an excuse to lower ourselves to their level", "morality shouldn't be set aside when it is inconvenient" and so on. They're by no means deeply ground moving ideas, but they are lessons we clearly haven't learnt, so I'm glad when Trek tackles them. And just occasionally, they're brave enough to include the other argument too (this is why I, Borg remains a favourite of mine, and I loved Lily's perspective in First Contact after Picard conveniently forgot the lesson he learnt in that earlier episode). I hope Discovery continues this tradition - I'm not expecting particularly difficult concepts, but I am at least expecting the crew to be faced with moral dilemmas.

My prediction is that Lorca and Burnham will end up in conflict over this issue; Georgiou seems more in the Picard school of ethics, and has presumably passed some of this onto Burnham. But perhaps at first she is frustrated with it, seeing a 'need' to be more aggressive with the Klingons, inadvertantly starting the war. My guess will be that early on, Burnham will be glad of a Captain who is more gung ho, fight fire with fire, willing to bend the rules in war, and gradually we'll see her have more of an issue with it and realise that Georgiou's wisdom shouldn't be dismissed so easily.

Alternatively, pew pew, EXPLOSIONS, yay!

I see it playing out the same as well and isn't that part of the problem? If we can predict how things play out then won't that hurt the quality of the show? I want the show to be unpredictable and that is something that I gets lost sometimes when a show is trying to send a message. I like it when a show trusts the audience to already know the issue's and simply tries to use it for drama instead of trying to teach people something they most likely already know. I also love it when they surprise you so maybe in this show the character that is sort of like Donald Trump ends up being the hero or maybe you flip the switch and Georgiou becomes more hawkish and Lorca starts to see armed conflict as a bad idea. Heck I wouldn't even mind if the klingons kill everyone except for Burnham and season 2 is her living with the Klingons or who knows what they could do if they are willing to take chances and really try new things.

Jason