Have the new Star Treks lost the progressive edge?

[DaddlerTheDalek]

The fan films have been more progressive - Hidden Frontier and Phase II/New Voyager come to mind as good examples.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard that the Phase II/New Voyager approach was rather ham-fisted.

 

[BillJ]

...why doesn't Star Trek qualify?

It isn't that Star Trek doesn't qualify. It definitely had its moments. But you have a fanbase that has overblown those moments to a comical degree.

The first cross-racial kiss? Not true. NBC being against a woman XO? Not true. Nichols with MLK? Who knows? The story has shifted so much. Roddenberry being lifted to visionary status by the fans.

 

[borgboy]

The fan films have been more progressive - Hidden Frontier and Phase II/New Voyager come to mind as good examples.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard that the Phase II/New Voyager approach was rather ham-fisted.

I've heard that.
I overall enjoyed it. The love scene was a bit long and sexy, but I don't see that as a problem. I do feel like some people's criticism of the episode was influenced by their discomfort of a racy gay male love scene. I've seen plenty of heterosexuality on Trek that was every bit as ham fisted. I think this was judged more harshly because it was gay - both by haters and by some who may be gay supportive or even gay, and were holding the story up to high expectations that wouldn't have been applied to a heterosexual love story.
The relationship arc was pretty fast, but they only had two episodes to tell that story. Their production doesn't allow for long seasons to tell a slow story.
So I can only speak for myself, but I enjoyed the story.

 

[Amaris]

I get annoyed by "The Outcast" because it's about conforming to peer pressure rather than rising above it; that "she" was fixed", and was now content with that.

But the episode takes the side of Riker and the peer pressuring government is portrayed as the closed minded bad guys. It is a strong tragic ending but not one that is meant to side with peer pressure.

I guess it's more of a personal pet peeve for me, then. Which means it's likely irrational.

 

[Oorang]

Off the top of my head, there were shows in that era that dealt with HIV. I can't think of many shows that handled homosexuality all that well at that time.

I wonder sometimes about Full House and My Two Dads, both of which ran at the same time as TNG. Both shows went to lengths to emphasize that the men raising the kids together were not gay. But, looking at it in hindsight, I wonder if they were actually shows about same sex couples adopting that couldn't come right out and say that is what they were about. They did get society ready for the idea of same sex parents raising kids together. Full House was even set in San Francisco... Maybe that was actually a clever way to go about it. If the goal is to get people who aren't comfortable with homosexuality comfortable with it, maybe that's the right way to do it- first get them used to the idea that same sex relationships can be loving, that they can raise kids, and whatnot, and then leave delving into the sexual aspect until last.

I don't actually remember the shows well at all, so maybe that is totally off base though...

 

[CorporalClegg]

FWIW Saget has a long-running bit about Danny being gay.

 

[borgboy]

Off the top of my head, there were shows in that era that dealt with HIV. I can't think of many shows that handled homosexuality all that well at that time.

I wonder sometimes about Full House and My Two Dads, both of which ran at the same time as TNG. Both shows went to lengths to emphasize that the men raising the kids together were not gay. But, looking at it in hindsight, I wonder if they were actually shows about same sex couples adopting that couldn't come right out and say that is what they were about. They did get society ready for the idea of same sex parents raising kids together. Full House was even set in San Francisco... Maybe that was actually a clever way to go about it. If the goal is to get people who aren't comfortable with homosexuality comfortable with it, maybe that's the right way to do it- first get them used to the idea that same sex relationships can be loving, that they can raise kids, and whatnot, and then leave delving into the sexual aspect until last.

I don't actually remember the shows well at all, so maybe that is totally off base though...

I could see that being a valid interpretation. At the very least they presented images of same sex parenting, even if there was no actual homosexuality. My niece loves Full House - I wouldn't watch it on my own no matter how cute John Stamos is - so I know that later on the show Uncle Jessie got married and had babies, so there is a definite heterosexual presence on the show later. I don't know that I really think there was an intentional gay subtext being told, but I can see where you could see it if you want to.

My Two Dads does have a fairly scandalous premise anyways, that the two guys were both sleeping with the same woman so they didn't know who fathered her child. For an 80s sitcom that was pretty racy.

I'd add Kate and Allie to that list too. I remember a little of that show, and I do vaguely remember there was an episode where they were mistaken for a lesbian couple. Possibly they faced some kind of homophobia because of the misconception, and I think they gave a message that the characters weren't offended personally by being percieved as gay. I'm calling on some old fuzzy memories though so I may be remembering it wrong.

Around this same time Tracy Ullman had a recurring skit on her show about an awkward teenage girl being raised by two gay dads.

 

[Oorang]

After reading CorporalClegg's post, I googled Sagat talking about his character being gay and at least he does seem to be implying that that was the subtext of the show. When he is asked about it in interviews, his take is along the lines of "come on, three guys living together in San Francisco raising kids... You really can't guess what their sexual orientation is?" If that really was the intention, then I have to say, that is pretty damn cool that they were not just already doing it in the late 1980s, but that they were doing it in family tv that targeted middle America. That said, it could also just be Sagat trying to make it seem edgier after the fact.

 

[Set Harth]

Who was clueless that the weapons she brought aboard contain sleeping people and not (you know) a warhead.

They had both!

 

[borgboy]

I don't think there's really any subtext on Full House, but these things are open to interpretation. Living in San Francisco isn't enough though. Heterosexual men as single fathers was a popular theme at the time. Three Men and a baby comes to mind.

 

[Amaris]

After reading CorporalClegg's post, I googled Sagat talking about his character being gay and at least he does seem to be implying that that was the subtext of the show. When he is asked about it in interviews, his take is along the lines of "come on, three guys living together in San Francisco raising kids... You really can't guess what their sexual orientation is?" If that really was the intention, then I have to say, that is pretty damn cool that they were not just already doing it in the late 1980s, but that they were doing it in family tv that targeted middle America. That said, it could also just be Sagat trying to make it seem edgier after the fact.

It's like Andrew Robinson playing Garak as being sexually ambiguous, even gay in some respects. The first episode in which he features is quite clear about this, and he was told to dial that back, which is a shame. So I still see Garak as being sexually open.

 

[borgboy]

It's really a shame too how tptb limited Bashir and Garek's scenes later in the series because of the gay. They had great chemistry together whether tptb wanted to make that overtly gay or just keep them as a complicated friendship with subtext.

 

[Commishsleer]

But they weren't working any taboo issues. The original Star Trek gets more credit than it deserves on this front, but compared to the spinoffs, it was a downright counter-culture production.

Drugs are bad! Mmkay, thanks for the heads up.

The thing is, by the 1980s, the content of TV shows tackled more liberal issues in general, thanks at least partially to the success of TOS was famous for doing so and was such a huge success (after cancellation, I know, but beside the point).
So, I think TNG wasn't any less progressive than TOS, and it did take on issues. The difference is that when TNG launched, all the other shows did so as well.

But TNG did break other taboos, though in a more silent way. There was the "society without money" part at the height of capitalism, and "Ménage à Troi" suggested that Riker and Troi, while not a couple, were actually Friends with Benefits.

There was plenty of messages in TNG episodes. They had biracial relationships, episodes showing the evils of genetic experimentation, heap of episodes showing acceptance of other cultures, the evils of love of money, vegetarianism, the evils of alcohol. Its wrong to say that TNG had no social messages.
As for TOS not being the first to show an interracial kiss on TV. Its certainly the most famous for showing one of the first. Even my Star Trek hating teensknow about it.
No one remembers the Nancy Sinatra kiss on the forehead. Its a different sort ofkiss anyway.

 

[Amaris]

It's really a shame too how tptb limited Bashir and Garek's scenes later in the series because of the gay. They had great chemistry together whether tptb wanted to make that overtly gay or just keep them as a complicated friendship with subtext.

I definitely wanted to see that relationship bear fruit. I think it could have been a fascinating study of not only interspecies relationships, but also same sex interspecies relationships. Remember how Worf/Dax, and Kira/Odo was treated as perfectly normal? Yeah, that, but for same sex couples.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Me too.

Besides, Sid is

 

[borgboy]

Me too.

Besides, Sid is

Oh I know. I got his autograph at a convention about ten years ago, and it was all I could do not to be a gibbering fool when faced with his beauty in person.
He talked about Andrew Robinson playing Garek as gay/attracted to Bashir at the time as well, that Robinson had discussed his acting choices with him and that Robinson was really enthusiastic and excited about playing that aspect in their interactions onscreen.

 

[Franklin]

Well, meaningful is different than groundbreaking, controversial, topical, or unique.

That's true, but I was responding to Ryan who claimed that "TNG didn't rock the boat or tackle topics in any meaningful way, other than superficially". But you're right that these episodes weren't exactly progressive. Meaningful, but not progressive.

My point is witch hunting, the value of a person (in a 1980s TV show), and the meaning of an individual's life are common themes in TV shows. They were done well in those TNG episodes, but they weren't anything that stands out in the greater context of 1980s TV.

Too many shows were tackling serious and topical issues without hiding behind all the general metaphors by then, too.

Can you give an example of a show from that time that did stand out in your opinion? I suppose the problem that I'm having in this debate is that I'm not sure what I'm arguing against. What is your criteria for a socially relevant show and why doesn't Star Trek qualify?

Very fair question. I'm talking about shows that did push an envelope by taking chances in either subject matter, the nature of storytelling, casting, or a combination of all three.

In the time from the run of TOS to the run of TNG, I think these would include (knowing I'll leave some out):
-- Soap
-- Barney Miller
-- All in the Family
-- The Cosby Show
-- Murphy Brown
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
-- Hill Street Blues
-- The Simpsons
-- Northern Exposure
-- Maude
-- The Jeffersons
-- Twin Peaks
-- Chico and the Man
-- The Twilight Zone
-- Roseanne

TOS was in a group of intelligent TV shows of its day, but as I've posted here before, shows like Gunsmoke hid behind the façade of the Old West to make occasional somewhat oblique and hard to argue against comments about race relations or religion or such, just as TOS hid behind the façade of the future. I'd say the shows in the list above were far more open about social commentary and far more open in exploring issues like sexuality. Many had leading or recurring gay characters.

TOS was a damn fine show for the most part. It was intelligent. It just didn't take the chances it could've to receive as high of accolades as it gets.

By the way, the lack of major Latino characters on Trek series is as glaring omission to creating an all-inclusive future as not having a gay character is.

So, I'm really not arguing TOS or the Trek that came after it was bad or dull-witted. TOS road a wave of growing liberalism of values on TV in the 1960s, but it hopped on, it didn't create it, and in my opinion, it didn't make the most of it (we even learn in the very last episode of the series that in the 23rd century, women can't be captains of starships). TNG and its off-spring were far down the list in pushing any kinds of envelopes or breaking any new ground in TV in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

[borgboy]

B'Elanna Torres was Latina as well as being half Klingon.

 

[Amaris]

B'Elanna Torres was Latina as well as being half Klingon.

B'Elanna.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Yep. To an extent, I think the idea that the story just had a theme is sometimes being taken as it tackled an issue. The messages, when they exist, are seldom unique, or that profound or cutting edge.

I really think you're underestimating the effect that Star Trek had on society. Take this interview with Nichell Nichols for example.

"One of the promoters came up and said someone wanted to meet me. He said he's my greatest fan," says Nichols, 78. "I thought it was some Trekker, some kid. I turned in my seat and there was Dr. Martin Luther King with a big smile on his face. He said, 'I am a Trekker, I am your biggest fan.'"

At that point, Nichols thought of herself as just a cast member on the show and hadn't fully grasped the racial implications of her part. She'd dealt with race all her life, of course, even on the set at Paramount, where a security guard hurled insults at her, but she hadn't grasped the importance of an African-American woman having a position of respect on TV.

Nichols thanked King, and told him she was leaving the show.

"He was telling me why I could not [resign]," she recalls. "He said I had the first nonstereotypical role, I had a role with honor, dignity and intelligence. He said, 'You simply cannot abdicate, this is an important role. This is why we are marching. We never thought we'd see this on TV.'"

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/star-trek-actress-nichelle-nichols-martin-luther-king-jr-impacted-decision-stay-enterprise-article-1.154674

As often as that story has changed over the years, I'm not sure how much weight I'd give it. YMMV.

But at the end of the day, it wasn't Roddenberry that drove racial diversity on Star Trek... it was advertisers and NBC. They were the ones to realize that minorities had money to spend. All one has to do is compare the lily-white "The Cage" to later episodes. If Nichols had left the series, I have no doubt she would've been replaced with another minority character.

The original Star Trek was an incredible TV series. But it also benefits from being in the right place at the right time.

It sounds like the same mindset that had studios wanting to make knockoffs of "Sweet SweetBack's Baaadasss Song" and "Shaft" after those movies made a profit. Especially since they - studio heads - realized that 'minorities' - specifically black people - were bankable for that time. (Hence, the name blaxploitation).

It was a marketing decision.