Do you think modern day issue's will be addressed on "Discovery?"

[RAMA]

It's no longer a question of disguising it, it's simply analogy as in holding a mirror to the modern world. Where it becomes relevant is that since it is scifi and still holds reputation for being "escapism" or childish, it may slip some ideas into minds that are not looking for any and not expecting it.


RAMA

Trek very rarely does social issues well enough to be anything other than a minor embarrassment.

TOS was able to sometimes do it well because American TV was so devoid of controversial material that allegorical treatment of issues demanded and came across as somewhat clever.

The Trek approach of "let's disguise this" just looks clumsy and cowardly in the current environment. Hell, even a superficial popcorn show like Supergirl just goes for it: the writers want to say that rounding up and deporting undocumented immigrants is evil, they do an episode where evil people round up and try to eject some aliens.

 

[Awesome Possum]

It will probably be those guys who are black on one side and white on the other who hate the guys with the black side on the opposite side. Now they'll be rounding them up for crossing a random line they drew on a map.

 

[Mudd]

...it may slip some ideas into minds that are not looking for any and not expecting it.

Ah yes, the assumption that the audience is dull-witted.

The writers got something to say let them just say it. This "allegorical storytelling" thing has become nothing but a come-on for older Trekkies to congratulate themselves for getting it.

Example: every attempt by modern Trek to "symbolically" comment on sexual orientation and discrimination was a complete bomb and, yeah, an embarrassment to the brand.

It will probably be those guys who are black on one side and white on the other who hate the guys with the black side on the opposite side. Now they'll be rounding them up for crossing a random line they drew on a map.

That Manny Coto thought riffing on that with his religious allegory on Enterprise was at all clever gives you a real sense of his mediocrity.

 

[Space Coast]

It will probably be those guys who are black on one side and white on the other who hate the guys with the black side on the opposite side. Now they'll be rounding them up for crossing a random line they drew on a map.

That was a one-off episode and I don't think Starfleet was even aware of the planet's existence before that episode.

 

[Awesome Possum]

That was a one-off episode and I don't think Starfleet was even aware of the planet's existence before that episode.

Who cares? It's all fiction anyway.

 

[Kemaiku]

That Manny Coto thought riffing on that with his religious allegory on Enterprise was at all clever gives you a real sense of his mediocrity.

After a recent rewatch late last year, is that the painfully badly done season 3 episode about suicide bombing?

Someone patted themselves on the back for writing that? I thought it was a filler episode they gave an intern $20 to write to give themselves an afternoon off.

 

[Awesome Possum]

That Manny Coto thought riffing on that with his religious allegory on Enterprise was at all clever gives you a real sense of his mediocrity.

I thought it was a step up from Suliban/Taliban.

 

[Tenacity]

Avoiding the Picard level of "preachyness" would be good.

Fairly looking at both (or more) sides of a given issue being examined, instead of just having the heroes pile on to one side, would also be good. Seeing the grey areas.

Having the heroes be split in their opinions on various issues would be one way of creating a discussion inside of the show.

Different characters being compassionate, or pragmatic, or by the book, or etc..

 

[Mudd]

 

[suarezguy]

If the show has Ferengi or Klingons the writers will see it as a big opportunity to comment on contemporary issues and they probably wouldn't do so in a balanced or nuanced way. I half-suspect they will try to do a story that claims some people or group (because they disagree with the Federation or one of its regulations) is anti-science.

 

[CorporalClegg]

And in a shocking twist, it turns out the character we assumed to be the hero and named the titular planet, is actually the split personality of an egocentric dweeb who's been driven half-insane by toxic masculinity.

A dweeb that, in turn, is revealed as the unknowing creation of a homosexual Creator using his playthings to mock the true evils of society. Not consumerism or any governing power, but simple knee-jerk idiots, with shoulder-chips about being held to higher standards than a wild animal.



Actually, that could be pretty good. Pity it's been done.

I'd watch.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Avoiding the Picard level of "preachyness" would be good.

Fairly looking at both (or more) sides of a given issue being examined, instead of just having the heroes pile on to one side, would also be good. Seeing the grey areas.

Having the heroes be split in their opinions on various issues would be one way of creating a discussion inside of the show.

Different characters being compassionate, or pragmatic, or by the book, or etc..

Writers are going to have a point of view. They're not obligated to be "fair".

 

[Awesome Possum]

Writers are going to have a point of view. They're not obligated to be "fair".

Exactly, it's a show not a debate.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Ah yes, the assumption that the audience is dull-witted.

The writers got something to say let them just say it. This "allegorical storytelling" thing has become nothing but a come-on for older Trekkies to congratulate themselves for getting it.

Example: every attempt by modern Trek to "symbolically" comment on sexual orientation and discrimination was a complete bomb and, yeah, an embarrassment to the brand.

Exactly.

I know i sometimes sound like a broken record when mocking the "Gene's vision" nonsense. But this is why. I think part of the problem is, when I was younger, I actually bought into that nonsense.

I think the perfect example of what you're talking about--not just sexual orientation, but Trek metaphor in general--is "Rejoined."

DS9 people still celebrate it as some beacon of mid-90s progressiveism, but it really isn't. Of course the first thing anyone ever mentions is the kiss. And at the time I thought it was amazing, but that was probably because I was 14. Not that I'm older and actually know one or two things, it just feels cheap.

And after that, everyone celebrates how great the metaphor is in the true "spirit of Star Trek" or whatever. And, hey, I'm all for sluggo love. But here's the thing: when you really break it down, the conclusion or "message" comes off as extremely regressive, even by 1995 standards. It basically tells LGBT people to capitulate because society isn't ready for them. Jesus Christ.

 

[Mudd]

Yep.

Also, Hot Chicks Kissing was always a popular idea with the all-male DS9 writing staff. One of the main "social messages" of their Mirror Universe episodes seemed to be sexually aggressive women = Evul.

 

[Awesome Possum]

There's that episode The Outcast where they confused sexual identity with gender identity, then they brainwash the character in the end.

 

[Tenacity]

Writers are going to have a point of view. They're not obligated to be "fair".

Something that could use a change.

The show certainly shouldn't be a propaganda outlet for the writer's particular views.

Exactly, it's a show not a debate.

But there have been debates and opposing opinions featured on the show in the past. Kirk, Spock and McCoy's best scenes are when they all disagreed and discussed a solution to a problem from different directions.

One of the most interesting things (imo) about the character of Ro was she didn't think like everyone else, she possessed a independent point of view.

Pen Pal and I Borg had the main characters not being in completely agreement as to the ethics to the episode problem, they talked it out.

The movie Insurrection, and the episodes Dear Doctor and Tuvix are examples that the correct path isn't alway obvious.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Something that could use a change.

Why? It they want a debate they can write it that way. If they want to hammer a point home with sledge they can do that. It's art and it is up to the artist to decide.

But there have been debates and opposing opinions featured on the show in the past. Kirk, Spock and McCoy's best scenes are when they all disagreed and discussed a solution to a problem from different directions

Be there is usually a view point the writers actually want though. The "other side" is mostly just to go through the motions

 

[Tenacity]

That Manny Coto thought riffing on that with his religious allegory on Enterprise was at all clever gives you a real sense of his mediocrity.

The AIDS allegory (Coto's?) was so obscure that someone had to point out to me that that's what it was.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The AIDS allegory (Coto's?) was so obscure that someone had to point out to me that that's what it was.

Was Coto involved in Season Three?