Internal Culture War?

[Imaus]

Traditional Star Trek is something that *everyone* can watch no matter their background or beliefs, something that can be watched for pure entertainment without the viewer being offended… yet at the same time being *intelligently* written so as not to ‘dumb down’ highly emotive topics and social commentaries.

The nature of the entertainment industry has changed. Movies and TV shows are *not* about pushing an American centric agenda anymore. American centric productions can *appear* to be diverse due to the nature of the demographic representation of present day America. This demographic, however diverse, still does *not* represent the world.
Then the writers should have been more subtle, such as in the original case of Kirk and Spock.

What's the quote... "Try to please everyone and you'll please nobody"?

Star Trek absolutely ruffled people's feathers back when it showed. Gene had a agenda and he tried as much as he could to show it. As soon as they could they showed allegories for homosexuality and so on, because that was always on their minds to do so. And it got pushback then, but Trek still continued with it.

Star Trek will gain nothing from kowtowing to regressive, anti-humanistic regimes or cultures.

It's not solely America-centric, in-so-much as Gene was in America and, like it or not, America was, back then (1966-1969), for all its faults and sins, still one of the freer places on the planet, undergoing numerous social revolutions (Feminism, Civil Rights, Gay Liberation, Chicano and Latino rights, Native American issues, et al). And, it still is today, even if slipping, and that means pushing the envelope on LGBT rights, keeping up the maintenance and push for civil rights, actual stances. And if the state of America today or then concerns you, as I say it should, well congrats - and consider that most of the world is still worse than it, and some states better, and this shows we have a long way to go as a planet, species, culture.

And the idealists of this world have again and again tried and push for better.

Let it be remembered that nearly every nation is a signatory of the UN, nearly every nation signed the UDHR, and its their decision, straying away from it, that puts them at fault, like that Cairo declaration bloc, not the ideals.

Nor will they or us ever evolve or grow without challenge and at least remembering that a higher set of ideals was laid forth both in media and idealistic law, set down decades to centuries ago, exists and is to be strived towards. That is what Trek was built on: a humanistic, futuristic ideal state of humanity. It's not everyone's cup of tea and there are numerous points of debates in it; but that is what Trek has as a core element.

 

[HotRod]

but what about decades old fans of Star Trek who may be from countries where LBTQ issues may be more controversial or even illegal, meaning that in some cases they may actually be risking their lives watching the show?

So... we should shove LGBTQ+ inclusion to the side, so we can appeal to... homophobic assholes from around the world?

Yeah, that's gonna be a solid *No* from me.

 

[Ovation]

This is absolutely acceptable for a liberal American audience, but what about decades old fans of Star Trek who may be from countries where LBTQ issues may be more controversial or even illegal, meaning that in some cases they may actually be risking their lives watching the show? Love between characters of the same sex does *not* need to be sexualised ‘on screen’ in order to give such intimacy a romantic contextualisation… sexualisation of love is in my opinion one of the problems with society at the moment. We physically find attraction in something and see this attraction and desire as being love… though love more than likely transcends this physical sexual urge even though we use this as a point of reference for our ‘desires’ and relationships.

Star Trek should simplify this though through… allegory.

Yawning…intensifying.

 

[Lord Garth]

In these backwards countries, they'd just censor the series on their own if they really want to show it. No need to take any stupid thing they'd do into account at all.

I'm grateful that French New Wave filmmakers didn't have to worry about the Hays Code in America.

I'm glad Harriet Beecher Stowe didn't think about how Uncle Tom's Cabin would offend the South.

I'm glad Gene Roddenberry didn't care about how Spock's appearance might offend the Bible Belt.

And I'm really glad DSC -- yes, D S C -- doesn't care about how it offends homophobes.

 

[Timofnine]

Well, no one complained when they made the episode Rejoined. I think that was a perfect example of Star Trek dealing with the subject of love in a sensitive and thoughtful way - by actually *not* making such a big issue out of it - Dax/Jadzia’s love for Kahn was normalized and shown to be far deeper than being ‘skin deep’ so to speak. The same goes for the TNG episode The Outcast with Riker becoming increasingly attracted to the genderless Soren. From what I remember, Enterprises Cogenitor was also a good example of an LGBTQ themed allegory, with the species in this episode having a third gender who were treated as an underclass. Trip helped to educate one of the ‘third gender’ in this episode after becoming friends with them, which consequently resulted in an unsuccessful first contact when the species found out. I also think that this particular episode had a sad ending, though.

We also had the skants in Encounter at Farpoint.

**EDIT**
Oh, and how *amazing* was The Serene Squall! I hope that Angel is back in season 2 of SNW, I have not watched it all yet.

 

[F. King Daniel]

This is absolutely acceptable for a liberal American audience, but what about decades old fans of Star Trek who may be from countries where LBTQ issues may be more controversial or even illegal, meaning that in some cases they may actually be risking their lives watching the show? Love between characters of the same sex does *not* need to be sexualised ‘on screen’ in order to give such intimacy a romantic contextualisation… sexualisation of love is in my opinion one of the problems with society at the moment. We physically find attraction in something and see this attraction and desire as being love… though love more than likely transcends this physical sexual urge even though we use this as a point of reference for our ‘desires’ and relationships.

Star Trek should simplify this though through… allegory.

TOS was made during the civil rights movement. Maybe Uhura should have been left in a corn field and replaced with an allegorical alien not to ruffle any feathers of former slave owners in the United States?

 

[Timofnine]

TOS was made during the civil rights movement. Maybe Uhura should have been left in a corn field and replaced with an allegorical alien not to ruffle any feathers of former slave owners in the United States?

No, I do not agree with this suggestion. Sometimes it is good to show things in Star Trek that demonstrate progression within future society which may reflect a parallel within our own. But when done so, it should be in a natural, thoughtful and mindful way if not inserted in to an episode allegorically. Sometimes allegories may even be offensive, using aliens to represent real earth ethnicities could be seen as an example of this.

When I first watched Star Trek, having people of colour and different ethnic backgrounds as a part of the crew was not even something that came to mind, it was just as normal to me as having a bald Captain of the Enterprise. We live in a diverse society and Star Trek should reflect this, as it always has done.

 

[F. King Daniel]

No, I do not agree with this suggestion. Sometimes it is good to show things in Star Trek that demonstrate progression within future society which may reflect a parallel within our own. But when done so, it should be in a natural, thoughtful and mindful way if not inserted in to an episode allegorically. Sometimes allegories may even be offensive, using aliens to represent real earth ethnicities could be seen as an example of this.

When I first watched Star Trek, having people of colour and different ethnic backgrounds as a part of the crew was not even something that came to mind, it was just as normal to me as having a bald Captain of the Enterprise. We live in a diverse society and Star Trek should reflect this, as it always has done.

So what you're saying is, because you grew up with TNG where civil rights wasn't a touchy subject, you're okay with black characters having equality. But because LGBTQI+ is a current thing (just like civil rights during TOS), you're uncomfortable with it. It hasn't been normalised to you, so it feels to you seeing gay and trans people in Discovery like it might in the 60's seeing Uhura on the bridge when you grew up seeing blacks as second class citizens.

 

[Timofnine]

So what you're saying is, because you grew up with TNG where civil rights wasn't a touchy subject, you're okay with black characters having equality. But because LGBTQI+ is a current thing (just like civil rights during TOS), you're uncomfortable with it. It hasn't been normalised to you, so it feels to you seeing gay and trans people in Discovery like it might in the 60's seeing Uhura on the bridge when you grew up seeing blacks as second class citizens.

That is not what I am saying in relation to LGBTQI+ issues in Star Trek. Star Trek, as a whole has dealt with the subject pretty well in the past as I have mentioned above. I think that the problem (if any?) with the LGBTQI+ issues in Discovery in particular are more down to the writing of those representing this community in the show, rather than the ‘normalisation’ of the subject matter or representative characters themselves. Star Trek has produced fantastic allegories about love, gender and sexuality in the past, but I think that the ‘real life’ community representations are not always being written very well in Trek. Perhaps the problem is in the writing these days, not the subject matter itself, but when we critique the writing people are accused of being prejudiced on the subject matter being written about. This is not a problem particular to Star Trek, but representation in general. For example, I went to the cinema to watch a gay film called ‘Bros’, I’m not joking when I say that literally everyone walked out of the cinema within 20 minutes of the film starting - it was such a *badly* written representation of the LGBTQI+ community that is was almost offensive to some in a way that could be perceived as being a ‘weaponisation’ of the subject matter. This does not make those who walked out of the film homophobic, they only walked out because it really was a badly written film. Of course, Star Trek has *never* shown anything ‘extreme’ about the LGBTGI+ community in such a way as this film does. Contrary to this film in Disco, Culber and Stamets are *good* role models within the community, though sometimes the writing in Disco is a bit cringe worthy and this shows on screen. This is the fault of the writers, *not* the subject matter or even the actors themselves - these things should be separated for legitimate critique of each. I also think that SNW has dealt with the subject matter a lot better too, but this may be due to the learning curve from what did not quite work out in the writings of Discovery.

Back to the subject of civil rights, you are correct, I did not grow up with such issues affecting my life, having only seen the positive progression that resulted from positive changes within society. Of course, the world is still far from perfect and some places still have a long way to go in regards to true equality, freedoms and inclusiveness - both in America itself and also the wider world. Of course Star Trek should reflect the modern world and represent diversity, but in ways that are accessible, fair and intelligently written for an international audience of people from all backgrounds and beliefs. The internet and in particular streaming services have made Star Trek much bigger than America, and if Star Trek wants to make money as a franchise it needs to tap in to an international market, just like it did in the 60’s to 90’s in the *really* good old days.

 

[F. King Daniel]

That is not what I am saying in relation to LGBTQI+ issues in Star Trek. Star Trek, as a whole has dealt with the subject pretty well in the past as I have mentioned above. I think that the problem (if any?) with the LGBTQI+ issues in Discovery in particular are more down to the writing of those representing this community in the show, rather than the ‘normalisation’ of the subject matter or representative characters themselves. Star Trek has produced fantastic allegories about love, gender and sexuality in the past, but I think that the ‘real life’ community representations are not always being written very well in Trek. Perhaps the problem is in the writing these days, not the subject matter itself, but when we critique the writing people are accused of being prejudiced on the subject matter being written about. This is not a problem particular to Star Trek, but representation in general. For example, I went to the cinema to watch a gay film called ‘Bros’, I’m not joking when I say that literally everyone walked out of the cinema within 20 minutes of the film starting - it was such a *badly* written representation of the LGBTQI+ community that is was almost offensive to some in a way that could be perceived as being a ‘weaponisation’ of the subject matter. This does not make those who walked out of the film homophobic, they only walked out because it really was a badly written film. Of course, Star Trek has *never* shown anything ‘extreme’ about the LGBTGI+ community in such a way as this film does. Contrary to this film in Disco, Culber and Stamets are *good* role models within the community, though sometimes the writing in Disco is a bit cringe worthy and this shows on screen. This is the fault of the writers, *not* the subject matter or even the actors themselves - these things should be separated for legitimate critique of each. I also think that SNW has dealt with the subject matter a lot better too, but this may be due to the learning curve from what did not quite work out in the writings of Discovery.

Back to the subject of civil rights, you are correct, I did not grow up with such issues affecting my life, having only seen the positive progression that resulted from positive changes within society. Of course, the world is still far from perfect and some places still have a long way to go in regards to true equality, freedoms and inclusiveness - both in America itself and also the wider world. Of course Star Trek should reflect the modern world and represent diversity, but in ways that are accessible, fair and intelligently written for an international audience of people from all backgrounds and beliefs. The internet and in particular streaming services have made Star Trek much bigger than America, and if Star Trek wants to make money as a franchise it needs to tap in to an international market, just like it did in the 60’s to 90’s in the *really* good old days.

LGBTQI+ is not a storyline. Like black people, they just exist. And people being unhappy about that existence being represented do not need to be pandered to in any way, shape or form.

Netflix is huge internationally and they have representation in the vast majority of their shows. It's not the gays keeping Trek from being a bigger international hit.

 

[Timofnine]

LGBTQI+ is not a storyline. Like black people, they just exist. And people being unhappy about that existence being represented do not need to be pandered to in any way, shape or form.

Netflix is huge internationally and they have representation in the vast majority of their shows. It's not the gays keeping Trek from being a bigger international hit.

I was not talking *only* about LGBTQI+ issues, I am talking about any given subject or social issue that Star Trek should choose to represent through its writings and present to an international audience which may prove to be controversial to some. Star Trek should be written in an *enlightening* way which makes people question their beliefs and prejudices. I am not suggesting censorship or pandering to anyone or any group, but about being *mindful* so as not to cause offence even to those within the community or group of people being written about and represented. For example, if there was allegory about refugees, this storyline would have to be written thoughtfully, too, perhaps even involving the writers doing their research and talking to people who have actually experienced this form of enforced migration.

Let me reiterate, criticism of writing and production choices should *not* be confused with prejudice against the characters or subject matter being written about.

 

[HotRod]

Star Trek, as a whole has dealt with the subject pretty well in the past

It really hasn't.

Star Trek has produced fantastic allegories about love, gender and sexuality in the past

Dude, LGBTQ stories shouldn't need to be allegorical, anymore then when Captain Kirk or Commander Riker fall in love with some space babe. LGBTQ people exist in the real world. They are normal people just like anyone else. Their stories don't need to some kinda fucking allegory.

Jesus Fucking Christ! The fact we even need to have this conversation in 2023 is fucking stupid.

 

[Timofnine]

It really hasn't.



Dude, LGBTQ stories shouldn't need to be allegorical, anymore then when Captain Kirk or Commander Riker fall in love with some space babe. LGBTQ people exist in the real world. They are normal people just like anyone else. Their stories don't need to some kinda fucking allegory.

Jesus Fucking Christ! The fact we even need to have this conversation in 2023 is fucking stupid.

But prejudice against LGBTQI+ does not exist in Star Treks idealic Federation, so how can this subject of discrimination and prejudice *truly* be explored intelligently without allegory? Why not include characters from this community so that the *real* issues can be explored, not just ‘ticking boxes’ so to speak.

Here are some ideas… a gay Klingon quite literally looking for Par’Mach in all the wrong places, dishonoured by his house and punished with Discommendation by the High Council? A Queer/questioning Vulcan’s fight to the death during Kal-if-fee turning in to a hot and sweaty passionate tussle in the desert as the Vulcan tries to justify the logic of their love in a battle within their own mind contrary to Surak’s teachings? How about a Trans Ferengi talking about recently having an operation to reduce the size of their lobes? Oh actually, skip that idea as DS9 have already done it, the other two ideas are free though if anyone fancies using them.

I would love to discuss this all day, but this weekend is actually Pride weekend in my home city…. So guess where I am going to go party now with my friends.

Happy Pride everyone!

Laters!

 

[James Cole]

The Culture War, in its current form, has been going on since 2015, and it spilled over into Star Trek the day a new series was announced in November of that year. But you're talking about another Culture War, so on that...

Star Trek wise, I'd argue it started with ST09... and the real argument is reboot vs continuation.

I really hate the mentality of "Real Star Trek" being strictly something from 1966 to 2005. And when they say "1966 to 2005", they really mean "1989 to 2005". Yes, 1989, not 1987. TNG's third season to the end of ENT, plus "The Measure of a Man" and "Q Who".

What is meant by "real Star Trek" though? The 2260's were already well established with TOS. The TOS film era (albeit under Bennett and Meyer) did the 2280s(ish). TNG / DS9 / VGR did the 2360s/2370s. If you try and set something near these ostensible periods, and it doesn't seem to fit, questions get raised about how they should fit in universe, and maybe the explanation is outside the established continuity in an alternate timeline.

Setting something in the actual TOS era, complete with in continuity tone and esthetics might not be commercially viable, but would make for a great mini series. But with SNW, that ship has likely sailed.

But as far as Matalas himself, I can't think of any instance where he's bad mouthed another Trek production or undercut their attempts to market. From everything I've seen on his Twitter and Instagram feed, he does everything to support the entire franchise.

He's really tried to square the circle on this one, arguing that some recent Star Trek productions might not have offered the flavors of Star Trek a portion of the fanbase wanted. Which does make sense, streaming era Star Trek just isn't going after the audience 1990s Star Trek did. Instead they seem to hyperfragment it, which is questionable considering the costs per episode.

Moreover, if there's a culture war on this, it seems to be a problem of some thinking that "the wrong people" are liking Picard season 3. I've gotten the feeling that some of those who are very "concerned" about a possible Star Trek: Legacy are threatened by its popularity and what that might mean for their favorite version of Star Trek in the future, and the implications for the decisions that have been made on the other shows than just enjoying a TV show for being a TV show.

Over the target... if both Legacy and SNW can get sustainable ratings, why not have both? A continuation to the 65% of Star Trek already produced, and a quasi-reboot of Star Trek's first series that under the hood is a do-over of ST09?

Something I noticed in comments at various sites was that I think there are fans of what NuTrek has done with Discovery and Strange New Worlds who were very careful in their praise of Picard season 3 and Matalas, especially when those that have been vocal critics of Discovery and NuTrek were singing Picard's praises vociferously, since they felt some of the praise was a way to tacitly validate the criticisms of NuTrek, given that season 3 was framed as a "correction" in a lot of ways. And since the "wrong" people were liking Picard season 3 and pushing for Legacy, and Matalas was making a concerted effort to court those fans who didn't like the decisions made in the past by Kurtzman and others, that the praise and excitement for Picard becomes part of an argument about the direction that Trek chooses to go in the future.

Especially in an era of limited resources, it becomes more zero sum.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but there's a very real DSC/SNW split. Rivalries within fandom, even there, exist and aren't going away. My preference would be that we don't have that kind of split, but it exists, nonetheless. You know how there are fans of PIC Season 3 who trash PIC Season 1? That's the equivalent with parts of fandom in SNW and DSC respectively.

PS1 and PS3 are... different. Far more different than TNG season 1 vs TNG season 7 different.

From what I have observed it’s not just SNW vs PIC, it’s starting to become SNW vs TOS. That one involves a crazy amount of recency bias though.

The more successful SNW is, the more likely an official TOS remake happens.

 

[Mudd]

The more successful SNW is, the more likely an official TOS remake happens.

I and a lot of other fans certainly hope so.

 

[Lord Garth]

It feels like whiplash to go from talking about Civil Rights, Equality, and challenging Social Norms... to talking about Canon.

But this is TrekBBS, so here we go. Hold on to your seats while I take this sharp U-Turn.

Star Trek wise, I'd argue it started with ST09... and the real argument is reboot vs continuation.

Hmmm... I can go with that as being the Defining Star Trek Argument of the last 15 years. The old "TOS vs. TNG" Argument has just been swept along for the ride throughout. In this case: going Pre-TOS and rebooting it, or going Post-TNG and continuing it.

What is meant by "real Star Trek" though? The 2260's were already well established with TOS. The TOS film era (albeit under Bennett and Meyer) did the 2280s(ish). TNG / DS9 / VGR did the 2360s/2370s. If you try and set something near these ostensible periods, and it doesn't seem to fit, questions get raised about how they should fit in universe, and maybe the explanation is outside the established continuity in an alternate timeline.

Setting something in the actual TOS era, complete with in continuity tone and esthetics might not be commercially viable, but would make for a great mini series. But with SNW, that ship has likely sailed.

Real Star Trek is the series and films they've put out. And the end of the day, it's all Show Business and Show Business is Big Business. I've hinted at my thoughts about Big Business in general upthread, beyond just Star Trek.

PS1 and PS3 are... different. Far more different than TNG season 1 vs TNG season 7 different.

I'm a child of the '80s. I'm not familiar enough with Playstation to be able to say how PS1 and PS3 are different.

But in all seriousness, I'm finishing up re-watching Season 1 today (already did a re-watch of Season 2 as you know), and S3 is coming out on Blu-Ray in less than two weeks, so the S1 vs. S3 comparison will be very fresh in my mind.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Setting something in the actual TOS era, complete with in continuity tone and esthetics might not be commercially viable, but would make for a great mini series. But with SNW, that ship has likely sailed.

Back when Short Treks was a thing, I was hoping they'd do a Discovery/Pike short on their TOS set tour sets (which James Cawley was asked permission to film on years ago but nothing came of it) with the old uniforms and old skool effects. It would have been fun.

 

[James Cole]

It feels like whiplash to go from talking about Civil Rights, Equality, and challenging Social Norms... to talking about Canon.

Haha well Star Trek stuff is a safe distraction from doom scrolling about what's happening where in Ukraine (spent several months there, know many people...). Can talk real life politics in real life.

I'm a child of the '80s. I'm not familiar enough with Playstation to be able to say how PS1 and PS3 are different.

Each PICARD season is so different, they each need their own acronym. Better than STP though?

But in all seriousness, I'm finishing up re-watching Season 1 today (already did a re-watch of Season 2 as you know), and S3 is coming out on Blu-Ray in less than two weeks, so the S1 vs. S3 comparison will be very fresh in my mind.

Ah when I'm back in one place again for at least I week, I want to try watching the series again, but in a shuffled order. Like, 101, 201, 301, 102, 202, 302 etc. See if any unexpected similarities or differences emerge.

 

[Lord Garth]

I had a thought pertaining to this:

I can go with that as being the Defining Star Trek Argument of the last 15 years. The old "TOS vs. TNG" Argument has just been swept along for the ride throughout. In this case: going Pre-TOS and rebooting it, or going Post-TNG and continuing it.

DSC is the one series that's equally offensive to both of those sides (those who want rebooted TOS and those who want a continuation from TNG). DSC when it was originally set: "You call that TOS Era?!?!!" DSC after it jumped into The Future: "They tore everything down with The Burn!" Discovery's an equal-opportunity offender.

That's part of why I gravitate towards it.

 

[Lord Garth]

Haha well Star Trek stuff is a safe distraction from doom scrolling about what's happening where in Ukraine (spent several months there, know many people...). Ah when I'm back in one place again for at least I week, I want to try watching the series again, but in a shuffled order. Like, 101, 201, 301, 102, 202, 302 etc. See if any unexpected similarities or differences emerge.

That would be an interesting way to re-watch PIC. Something I might try myself at one point, since it's such a short series.