Internal Culture War?
- Thread starter HotRod
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, no. The characters of DIS and SNW are proud and happy to be serving on their ships. I have no idea what shows you watched, but that's what I saw.
Been that way for 30 years, or how long I've been interacting with fans. Some fans just enjoy that argument and see that as discussion, or are not use to the idea of debate.
Who cares?
Heck, I did that last year. While Discovery didn't not impress me too much on the first go-round, I felt that perhaps I didn't give it a fair chance, given that I had given up on it halfway through the first season. But last year I revisited it and watched the 3 seasons that were available, and while it still wasn't a favourite of mine, I started to concede that it wasn't nearly as bad as I originally felt. But I at least know it's not 'my Trek' and gave it a fair shake.
This isn't about them being the focus of the story. It's about representation. White, straight males exist. In the 90's there was blowback because they put a black man or a white woman in charge of a ship. They just existed and did their jobs and had stories about all facets of their lives.
Now the gay characters are getting to exist in Star Trek. Like they do in real life. And that people are unhappy that they're just existing is saying a lot about the people unhappy about it.
Although I will agree that TV being far less restrictive nowadays is making many allegorical stories obsolete. But I think that's a good thing. If something in Discovery makes you uncomfortable, ask yourself why.
TOS presented a forward-looking, though troubled reality, where social ills such as racism (Boma to Spock in "The Galileo Seven", Stiles to Spock in "Balance of Terror", the obvious issues seen in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", Spock's not-so-rare condemnation of humans in a way that read as distaste for a race, etc.) were alive and well, enough for Kirk to call Stiles out for what specifically motivated the latter's constant verbal attacks against Spock.
Indeed. Often, TNG characters blathered on about how "evolved" they were, sounding like they lived in a dreamland populated by people with no life experience, hence their pampered belief that everything/one should follow the model they adopted.
Exactly. LGBTQ people aren’t an issue that needs to be addressed, they’re people who shouldn’t be excluded from Trek because it makes certain people uncomfortable. The way Stamets, Culber, Adira, Seven and Raffi are handled is light years beyond anything Berman era Trek did. I hope they’re just the start of a bright future for LGBTQ representation in Trek.
I am going to ask a controversial question, and offer some equally controversial opinions in regards to my favourite character Seven of Nine who I have loved since childhood as a role model, hence my username. 
What *actually* made the writers of Picard decide to make Seven a Gay character? I have a theory… I think that in the Picard writers room, they discussed how Seven was overly sexualised and used as a ‘sex symbol’ during the Berman era back in the 90’s in order to attract higher viewing figures amongst the male demographic audience on UPN, the show was after all used as a run up to the wrestling and Jeri *was* cast to pull the ratings in! Seven *did* wear tightly fitted, body hugging cat suits which did not leave much to the imagination, often augmenting Jeri Ryan’s already more than ample buzzoms in ways that the even Borg would see as being ‘perfection’. Seven, however, was never a sex symbol to me… I never objectified her in such a way… I valued the character through Jeri Ryan’s intelligent portrayal and the *actual* writing which transcended how she was eventually visualised and dressed by the wardrobe department/makeup teams of the time at the whim of UPN. The Picard writers probably thought how could the 1990’s sexualisation and objectification of Seven be atoned for and modernised by nu-Trek as a form of ‘retribution’; so Seven was ‘reverse’ objectified, but at the same time sadly dumbed down as a character in to a generic action heroine by the same writers who thought that they were doing the character justice.
There was no evidence in the Voyager series run that Seven was anything but heterosexual, she only had male lovers such as Chakotay and Axum, unless we include Janeway and something happened off screen between the pair? Perhaps this is why she and Janeway stopped talking, leading to Seven joining the Fenris Ranger Pirates upon arrival back in the Alpha Quadrant instead of joining Starfleet as a scientist/astrometrics expert? Seven of Nine was an explorer and scientist, with an almost child like inquisitiveness as a newly born ‘adult’, resulting from her life as a Borg drone after being assimilated at such a young age … Seven is *not* just a sassy soldier as depicted in Picard, ‘a lot can change in 20 years’ can not be used as excuse by the writers.
I believe that Seven has been badly written from a romantic perspective by both the Voyager writers *and* the Picard writers. Seven would *not* identify her sexuality with a conforming label as both shows have showed from opposite polar perspectives. Seven of Nines love is pure, innocent and real, a bit like that of Jazia Dax on DS9. Jadzi probably did not not have the same innocence, though hehe.
Seven *definitely* has fluidity in her ideas of sexuality and love, and I believe that the new spin-off can explore this. I cannot wait for the Metron/Gorn/Seven wedding episode.
What *actually* made the writers of Picard decide to make Seven a Gay character? I have a theory… I think that in the Picard writers room, they discussed how Seven was overly sexualised and used as a ‘sex symbol’ during the Berman era back in the 90’s in order to attract higher viewing figures amongst the male demographic audience on UPN, the show was after all used as a run up to the wrestling and Jeri *was* cast to pull the ratings in! Seven *did* wear tightly fitted, body hugging cat suits which did not leave much to the imagination, often augmenting Jeri Ryan’s already more than ample buzzoms in ways that the even Borg would see as being ‘perfection’. Seven, however, was never a sex symbol to me… I never objectified her in such a way… I valued the character through Jeri Ryan’s intelligent portrayal and the *actual* writing which transcended how she was eventually visualised and dressed by the wardrobe department/makeup teams of the time at the whim of UPN. The Picard writers probably thought how could the 1990’s sexualisation and objectification of Seven be atoned for and modernised by nu-Trek as a form of ‘retribution’; so Seven was ‘reverse’ objectified, but at the same time sadly dumbed down as a character in to a generic action heroine by the same writers who thought that they were doing the character justice.
There was no evidence in the Voyager series run that Seven was anything but heterosexual, she only had male lovers such as Chakotay and Axum, unless we include Janeway and something happened off screen between the pair? Perhaps this is why she and Janeway stopped talking, leading to Seven joining the Fenris Ranger Pirates upon arrival back in the Alpha Quadrant instead of joining Starfleet as a scientist/astrometrics expert? Seven of Nine was an explorer and scientist, with an almost child like inquisitiveness as a newly born ‘adult’, resulting from her life as a Borg drone after being assimilated at such a young age … Seven is *not* just a sassy soldier as depicted in Picard, ‘a lot can change in 20 years’ can not be used as excuse by the writers.
I believe that Seven has been badly written from a romantic perspective by both the Voyager writers *and* the Picard writers. Seven would *not* identify her sexuality with a conforming label as both shows have showed from opposite polar perspectives. Seven of Nines love is pure, innocent and real, a bit like that of Jazia Dax on DS9. Jadzi probably did not not have the same innocence, though hehe.
Seven *definitely* has fluidity in her ideas of sexuality and love, and I believe that the new spin-off can explore this. I cannot wait for the Metron/Gorn/Seven wedding episode.
I always have seen elements of Star Trek's aspirational nature in something like Aaron Sorkin's work, especially in something like The West Wing.
The West Wing (and its spiritual predecessor, The American President) presents a version of American politics that is unlike anything that has existed over the past 30 years, especially now in the MAGA-Trump era. Both proceed from an idealistic, Capraesque vision of American politics that believes in the positive aspects of government and more importantly the positive aspects of people in government.
In Sorkin's universe, most of those in government are good public servants who are trying to do their best to make a difference. Those with principles are victorious over those who spread half-truths and distortions. And all that is necessary for the best policy to carry the day, no matter how controversial it might be, is the guts to say what you mean and mean what you say. It can sometimes slide into being preachy, and not everyone liked what was on-screen, but for a lot of people it was preachy in an entertaining way while presenting a version of reality they wished could be true.
Everything he said about The West Wing applies to the aspirational/preachy elements of Star Trek, especially when you want to boil it down to "Gene's vision."
Star Trek is a depiction of socially "evolved," but not perfect, people in the future. It is a celebration of the power of institutions, and the people within those institutions to do good through public service in Starfleet. All of them could probably profit like a Ferengi off of their talents and knowledge far more than they ever can in a moneyless society like the Federation. But, instead, they choose to traverse the galaxy, not conquering, but learning and helping.
And just like The West Wing, Star Trek presents a reality where facts and truth matter. A reality where being scientifically right can carry the argument over demagogues. It's a reality where the system, more or less, works.
The West Wing (and its spiritual predecessor, The American President) presents a version of American politics that is unlike anything that has existed over the past 30 years, especially now in the MAGA-Trump era. Both proceed from an idealistic, Capraesque vision of American politics that believes in the positive aspects of government and more importantly the positive aspects of people in government.
In Sorkin's universe, most of those in government are good public servants who are trying to do their best to make a difference. Those with principles are victorious over those who spread half-truths and distortions. And all that is necessary for the best policy to carry the day, no matter how controversial it might be, is the guts to say what you mean and mean what you say. It can sometimes slide into being preachy, and not everyone liked what was on-screen, but for a lot of people it was preachy in an entertaining way while presenting a version of reality they wished could be true.
AARON SORKIN: "Our leaders, government people are [usually] portrayed either as dolts or as Machiavellian somehow. The characters in this show are neither. They are flawed, to be sure, because you need characters in drama to have flaws. But they, all of them, have set aside probably more lucrative lives for public service. They are dedicated not just to this president, but to doing good, rather than doing well. The show is kind of a valentine to public service. It celebrates our institutions. It celebrates education often. These characters are very well educated, and while sometimes playfully snobby about it, there is, in all of them, a love of learning and appreciation of education."
Everything he said about The West Wing applies to the aspirational/preachy elements of Star Trek, especially when you want to boil it down to "Gene's vision."
Star Trek is a depiction of socially "evolved," but not perfect, people in the future. It is a celebration of the power of institutions, and the people within those institutions to do good through public service in Starfleet. All of them could probably profit like a Ferengi off of their talents and knowledge far more than they ever can in a moneyless society like the Federation. But, instead, they choose to traverse the galaxy, not conquering, but learning and helping.
And just like The West Wing, Star Trek presents a reality where facts and truth matter. A reality where being scientifically right can carry the argument over demagogues. It's a reality where the system, more or less, works.
It wasn't a decision the writers made. While filming the episode Stardust Rag City, Jeri Ryan and the actress who played Bijayzal made the decision themselves to interpret the relationship the two of them are said to have had in the past as a romantic one and played it that way. Likewise, while filming the finale, Jeri Ryan and Michelle Hurd decided to play that scene as though there was an attraction and potential romance developing between Seven and Raffi, which the season 2 writers picked up on and wrote the characters accordingly in that and the third season.
I like the bit around the 1:20 part of that video where they show a Star Trek internet forum. Which totally isn't similar to any that might actually exist.
oh that’s great - it literally has real posts shown!
It was a change Roddenberry decided to make as he got older. Suddenly, humanity was perfect. All conflict had to come from outside the crew. It was a utopia, dammit, and humans had no real flaws anymore. Thus the emphasis on Picard defending how far humanity had come to Q.
After Roddenberry died, that's when the writers started to deconstruct the idea of humanity's newfound "utopia". Like Sisko said, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise." But it was more like Roddenberry listened to all the fans talking about Trek as being a hopeful view of humanity's future, and really let that go to his head.
I guess what's different now is that there is so much Star Trek that there can be a section of the fanbase that just doesn't feel they have to engage with anything that gives the whiff of "Well, I just know this is going to suck." (I'm not saying that everyone who hates Discovery has never seen it. Lots of people have. And there are people who hate SNW who have seen the show and they will simply have to live with their wrongness.)
To the original topic, though, I don't recall a time when it was "TOS vs. TNG" or "Niners vs. everybody". There was never an Us vs. Them mentality among the fanbases that I recall.
Oh, I recall it quite vividly. Especially as a huge fan of DS9 during its original run.
I remember the posts, on this board, mocking people who liked Enterprise ("Alien space nazis? A++++++!")
With all the hate Enterprise got back in the day, it's mystifying to me seeing people react with joy when references to it are dropped in present-day Trek. But happily mystifying, nonetheless.
Right now, I feel very disappointed by Discovery. My wife and I were binge-watching seasons 3 and 4, but I had to stop halfway through season 4 because we were too frustrated with the weepy, emotionally-driven stories that just rang hollow. I threw my hands up at Zora saying she's just happy to be seen. But now it's cancelled at season 5, and I feel badly for the people who DO enjoy it (I know they're out there). It might not be my cup of tea, but that doesn't mean it detracts from everything else in the Trek sphere.
I just wish more people had that mindset.
I'm the flip side of you, Star Trek-wise. I don't like ENT, but I'm a huge fan of DSC.
But, where it really counts, we're not on the flip side. I agree with your outlook 100%.
That almost sounds like diversity of opinions.
I don't know how to feel about that
In all seriousness, I agree. I keep wondering why the need to push down things that others obviously enjoy. I enjoy a lot of Trek, and do not enjoy a lot more of Trek. There is no need to make it all one type of thing. It isn't making Trek lesser by having more variety of shows.
And this goes back to the point if you're describing something that doesn't need to be in space why does it need to be in space?
You're describing much what I see a soap opera period piece, which is set in space for the same reason a show might be set in Victorian England whatever.
Like it seems like a soap opera where people want to explore their feelings more than people who have any interest in actual space. It,s there to give the aura of sophistication, when in reality it's closer wormhole extreme.
And you're explaining the mindset perfectly.
It's not exploration as much as it is operatic trope rehashing.
It's why its profoundly frustrating. Like I sit at my desk and day dream about star trek, so I can avoid the immature 22 year and her beer pong adventures.
I'm autistic I watch trek and I go cool world where I don't have to deal with that stuff.
And then I watch STDs and it's been turned up to 11.
Last edited:
It doesn't.
My favorite Trek stories do not need to be in space. Balance of Terror, Errand of Mercy, Where No Man Has Gone Before, The Drumhead, among others.
The human adventure is better, more appealing. Relating to characters what drives me to these stories.
Humanity and space. The setting still helps but if I don't care about the characters all the space exploration will not make up for that deficit.
It's really tone-deaf to call a show with six LGBTQIA characters "STD". Especially when the preferred acronyms are DSC or DIS and no one refers to Voyager as STV or Enterprise as STE. We all know why it's really being called STD. To taunt the show and fans of it. Especially after this many years, when it's clear it's almost exclusively used by people who either dislike or outright hate the series. It makes it even worse when fans of the show have made it clear that they see it as derogatory.
How would you like it if someone called you by something that wasn't your preferred name, and they kept doing it anyway once they knew it bothered you?
I think he's self-projecting what he feels onto the show itself.
Last edited:
The thing with enterprise it's consistent. Like there's a massive part of season 1 and 2 that is absolutely hot dirty diaper garbage.
If you go to a restaurant and get served a dead rat, you don't care how good the rest of the meals are.
I don't feel my experience has changed certain episodes are as bad as they were 20 years ago.
It's just now I can pull up imdb binge and skip the rats.
Enterprise got caught between 90s televison and streaming. It's a serialized great story, with filler that absolutely derails the serialization. The season is about version explorers making their first foot prints on the moon and then you'll get 8th season voyage episode about a holographic village(again)
The thing with nu trek is that it is dominated by soap opera mechanics.
Soap operas are written to make episode count, this makes sense when you're doing daily episodes.
But you should need to drag out dialogue in a 10 episode season.
Reason is simple it's written by people who don't have any knowledge of the genre. They have nothing to add to the genre. They use the genre as means to write what they're actually interested in, dramas.
- Status
Similar threads
