I'll readily agree that it was playing to a stereotype. I don't think that necessarily makes it racist, per se. Nothing I've read about Gene Coon suggests anything like that about him. Keep in mind also that when he was writing "Errand of Mercy" there was no defined look for the Klingons, and he was trying to offer a quick visual suggestion to the makeup designer as a starting point to work from.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
I like TOS. I think it was ahead of its time in matters of anti-bigotry. Whoopi Goldberg thought as much and that's why she asked to be included in TNG, even as a secondary role. I am just sorry they let things like that sneak their way into the show though it could have been worse.
The Gorn was not manipulated when they slaughtered the entire colony of Cestus 3.
Finney was not an exaggeration. He faked his death to ruin his career and then moved to destroy an entire ship to exact revenge of Kirk.
Hmmm...I seem to recall mentioning the creators intent. That's weird, isn't it, since it fits the definition of "Word of God" and yet why would that be objectionable when I said it at the beginning?
I seriously don't get this...
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think lawman meant Finnegan, not Finney. I think he just got the names mixed up.
I suspected it as well, but I wanted to explain so that the differences would make sense.
I love all thse absolute assertions that a Star Trek series that replicates the look of The Original Series would be a guaranteed failure. While I do not know how a studio backed Star Trek show would perform today, I really don't see any evidence that justifies that kind of conclusion. I mean, look at the evidence.
TNG's relics had Scotty revisit the TOS bridge and it wasn't played as a joke or even an homage. It was a nice emotional moment for Scotty. It even included a nice conversation with Picard about how no matter how much better things get, there will always be some part of you that would want to revisit the past, no matter how problematic it used to be. Did anyone complain about the sets looking cheap?
Trials and Tribble-actions may be a joke for many, but it was no joke in the making. It's still one of the most technologically complex Star Trek episodes that the franchise had ever shot. Replacing actors, recreating sets, copying camera movements, making CGI models of the original Enterprise, Klingon Cruiser and the Station ect. This was an episode that was handled with care because everyone respected the series so much.
Enterprise's Mirror episodes is still regarded as one of the Enterprise's best episodes and it had nothing to do with the core series! The re-appearence of the Tholians, a Gorn, expanded classic sets that we never got to see in TOS that felt like they would belong in the TOS. Majel Barrett as the computer's voice.
And what about other shows that are not Star Trek?
The Orville, despite looking like a series that could take place in the TNG era, was successful enough to be renewed for a second season. It may not be Star Trek, but the love for Star Trek is undeniably present.
Black Mirror's Star Trek homage was a pitch perfect play that used the classic look more than just as an homage or a joke. It complimented the story it was trying to tell. And for a set that looked like TOS, it had a lot of modern stuff going on that would totally sell the idea that it took place during the TOS era or before.
Conclusion: The look of the original Star Trek series is iconic. It's what helped give the series it's own sense identity amongst the other shows at the time, and the other Star Trek shows respected that. If you take what was unique and change it to look like your own modern show, you're taking away some of that identity that helped make Star Trek what it is. I myself prefer show runners who respect what's come before, not change it up and justify it with statements like 'modern audiences would hate it.' Well, they can do whatever they want. I just don't agree with it.
TNG's relics had Scotty revisit the TOS bridge and it wasn't played as a joke or even an homage. It was a nice emotional moment for Scotty. It even included a nice conversation with Picard about how no matter how much better things get, there will always be some part of you that would want to revisit the past, no matter how problematic it used to be. Did anyone complain about the sets looking cheap?
Trials and Tribble-actions may be a joke for many, but it was no joke in the making. It's still one of the most technologically complex Star Trek episodes that the franchise had ever shot. Replacing actors, recreating sets, copying camera movements, making CGI models of the original Enterprise, Klingon Cruiser and the Station ect. This was an episode that was handled with care because everyone respected the series so much.
Enterprise's Mirror episodes is still regarded as one of the Enterprise's best episodes and it had nothing to do with the core series! The re-appearence of the Tholians, a Gorn, expanded classic sets that we never got to see in TOS that felt like they would belong in the TOS. Majel Barrett as the computer's voice.
And what about other shows that are not Star Trek?
The Orville, despite looking like a series that could take place in the TNG era, was successful enough to be renewed for a second season. It may not be Star Trek, but the love for Star Trek is undeniably present.
Black Mirror's Star Trek homage was a pitch perfect play that used the classic look more than just as an homage or a joke. It complimented the story it was trying to tell. And for a set that looked like TOS, it had a lot of modern stuff going on that would totally sell the idea that it took place during the TOS era or before.
Conclusion: The look of the original Star Trek series is iconic. It's what helped give the series it's own sense identity amongst the other shows at the time, and the other Star Trek shows respected that. If you take what was unique and change it to look like your own modern show, you're taking away some of that identity that helped make Star Trek what it is. I myself prefer show runners who respect what's come before, not change it up and justify it with statements like 'modern audiences would hate it.' Well, they can do whatever they want. I just don't agree with it.
Villains can be complex and interesting too (see "Khan"), it's just that half the time they AREN'T. And thank you for using the Jamie Lanister example, because this illustrates this perfectly: one of the first things Jamie Lannister does in GoT is push a ten year old boy out of a window; the second thing he does is try to kill Ned Stark for arresting his brother.
The thing about "villains" is nobody EXPECTS them to be multi-dimensional or dynamic with complex motivations, because villains are supposed to be defeated, not reasoned with, not sympathized with. But film and literary history is FULL of people who are straight up villains who wind up having far more complex motivations in the end but still have to be defeated and destroyed just because they're too big of an asshole to ever see anyone else's point of view. Cersei Lannister falls into this category as well, as does Khan and to some extent General Chang.
In Discovery, the only ones that DON'T fall into this category are Kol and T'Kuvma, and that's mainly because T'Kuvma is a single-minded religious fanatic and Kol is a scheming opportunist; you can't fix crazy, and you can't negotiate with machiavelli. Emperor Georgiou is villainous but not actually THE villain of Discovery since 99% of the time she isn't actually AGAINST Burnham or the Discovery, she's just lawful evil turned (for most part) chaotic.
At any rate, even playing games with words, that means Discovery has had all of three villains in its first season, compared with (according to you) seven on TOS. Considering the smaller number of episodes in Discovery, Star Trek seems pretty consistent in this case.
Yes, villainous characters have been a staple of Star Trek FROM THE BEGINNING. Playing word games about what a "villain" actually is doesn't change this fact, considering the very first pilot episode had Captain Pike squaring off against the Talosian mind-fuck, and the SECOND pilot episode had James T. Kirk having a showdown with the power-mad Gary Mitchel. I legitimately hesitate to call Mitchell a "villain" because he didn't actually START that way and was simply driven mad by his power, but from a writing standpoint that is LITERALLY what he became at the end: an all-powerful supervillain.
Finding it hard to take you seriously after this part...
... and no longer possible after this.
I think some people don't understand the difference between "racist" and "incensitive". I see the term misused out here a lot.
Racist is the belief that other races are inferior.
A makeup scheme can't be "racist". It might be inappropriate in today's environment. It might be insensitive or insulting. It might draw on stereotypes. But it's not racist.
Racist is the belief that other races are inferior.
A makeup scheme can't be "racist". It might be inappropriate in today's environment. It might be insensitive or insulting. It might draw on stereotypes. But it's not racist.
A lot of those moments you cite from past Trek episodes were just one-offs. That's very different from trying to revive a Star Trek series strictly replicating the look of a 1960s set. Where Trek fans would find something like that endearing, many would just find hokey. I'm not slamming TOS when I say that, and if you can't understand that then I'm not sure what else to tell you.
Besides, given that DISCOVERY has been renewed, I'd say CBS ultimately made the correct decision. I don't agree with all the creative choices made, but I'm not running a network or showrunning a 2010s sci-fi television series.
Just because I do not approve of CBS' choices doesn't mean I don't understand why they made them. They wanted Discovery to be theatrical so they made the choice to copy the artistic choices that JJ made in his movies. Lens flares, more emphasis on action, camera shakes, viewing screens are windows, anything not Human are just inferior a-holes just to make Humans look better. It makes a lot of sense that Alex Kurtzman is still a key figure in this show when he was responsible for some of the dumbest decision making from JJ's movies.
But at the end of it all, I just ask myself this one simple question.
Was it worth it?
I don't think it was. Making something super theatrical and modern looking doesn't mean you'll have good characters, stories or even fun moments. Discovery's first season has been a dreary and repugnant experience. One moment a character is trying to make peace with someone, the next they're trying to kill said character. The promise of inclusion of gay characters has lead to the typical 'Bury your gays' resolution that everyone involved with this production is so gosh darn proud of. Characters who think that relationships with the Klingons is possible since Michael fell in love with a Klingon even though he was genetically altered to look and behave human. I think someone forgot an important detail in the writing room.
This series is just a mess and everyone is very proud of it. That's the kind of mentality that kills any hope of this series being good. That and having Akiva Goldsman involved in any capacity.
Nope not a strawman, just a thought and concern prompted by the conversation.
'Racism' defies such easy definition, especially in modern usage. It is used to refer to wide cultural and systemic practices which are based on or enforce the idea of racial prejudice. Describing your villains by using a racial term and then making them white guys with dark skin makeup and Fu Manchu moustaches is an example of such a practice. The term 'racism' is appropriate. It is not to say that Star Trek TOS as a whole is racist or even that this example is unusual for its time, but it is appropriate to be honest about issues like that when they are identified.
I just want to point out that those weren't CGI. They made brand new physical models just for that episode.
Last edited:
I think one of the whole points of "Arena" is that neither the Gorn nor the Federation were villainous; they were just defending competing interests.
And yeah, whoops, I was thinking of Finnegan, not Finney. Understandable mistake, I hope. Finney wasn't a villain either, though; he was a guy with an untreated mental health problem, and (frankly) mostly just an offscreen plot device to put Kirk's career in jeopardy.
I didn't mean to suggest anything was objectionable about it. I just honestly don't remember ever reading about any of the show's creators (Roddenberry or otherwise) saying the changed look was explained by "multiple species of Klingons." This was a commonplace fanon explanation, but nothing more, AFAIK. So if you're aware of something official, I'm genuinely curious as to when, where, and how this was stated.
And yet, it's clear from the show (or book series) as a whole that Jaime is not a villain; he's a complex character in his own rights, wrestling with conflicting motivations, on what appears to be a personal redemption arc.
Yeah... even allowing for some occasional nods at giving them "complex motivations" (sadly too often just a tissue-thin veneer, at least in Hollywood product), this is a pretty solid definition of fictional villains. And it's why they're generally boring and disappointing, and a sign of lazy writing. (Not to mention teaching counter-productive moral lessons about real-world conflicts.) Someone who can only be defeated and destroyed, not talked to or reasoned with, is much less interesting than the alternative.
(I will allow for occasional outlier exceptions here. IMHO Star Wars was much more interesting when Darth Vader was a completely black-hat villain, and got deadly boring when Lucas designed to turn the whole saga into a redemption arc for the character. But I think one of the reasons for this is that from the start, the SW reality has been a simplistic fantasyverse full of moral absolutes, not a place suitable for exploring any kind of sophisticated ethical conflicts.)
I'm not trying to play "games with words" here; no sophistry intended. This whole sub-discussion started when Serveaux opined that the DSC Klingons were [emph. added]
"one-dimensional... here the treacherous power-hunfry villain, there the speechifying religious fanatic. No subtlety, no imagination, no depth of motivation or plausible cultural context,"
and fireproof78 responded,"So, Star Trek vilians, with slightly different clothes. Got it."
I replied with the objection that this was unfair to Trek, which overall has seldom resorted to that kind of clichéd villain, and usually tries to tell stories involving more sophisticated motivations and challenges.I'll stand by this. I can't claim that Trek has never resorted to using villains with "no subtlety, no imagination, no depth of motivation," the kind that by your words "have to be defeated and destroyed just because they're too big of an asshole to ever see anyone else's point of view." But it's disappointing when it does happen, precisely because that's never been a central focus of the show, and at its best it has always aspired to more sophisticated storytelling.
(And no, the Keeper and Trelane and Kor and so forth don't qualify as this kind of simplistic villains, either. Nor do the Talosians or Gary Mitchell.)
Again, a straw man. This is not what anyone has been suggesting. There is a vast range of alternatives between this, and the approach that DSC has taken so far.
Yeah, you really kinda are. Never mind any attempts to recapture the look or feel of TOS within a contemporary TV paradigm; there are people out there, even some who consider themselves fans, who think of the original show itself as "hokey," as inherently campy and cheesy. Fuck 'em, they're wrong.
Last edited:
I just want to point out that those weren't CGI. They made brand new physical models just for that episode.
Damn sexy
However, the discrepancy was fixed down the road. DSC's, so far has not and goes against a basic tradition of the franchise: the past is re-created accurately.
One segment of the past.
Curious if wholesale slaughter of a colony falls under a "Mulligan" category?
As for Finney, he moved from "unstable guy" to "chaotic villain" when he decided to destroy an entire starship, including flag officers, to take down Kirk.
This is what I found:
So if the characters were better then the changes would be ok?
Last edited:
First, that's great knowing they made models for the episode. Second, they're all clearly unhappy about it.I just want to point out that those weren't CGI. They made brand new physical models just for that episode.
You can see the dissatisfied look on their faces knowing that they're dealing with a model that doesn't look like any other ship on their show if you look hard enough... like really hard. Past all the joy, pride and that sense of accomplishment at being part of something epic. Totally dissatisfied.
Similar threads
