Ironic that some Trek fans find the idea of a black female Earth President in the 31st century as not aging well. If they lived in 1966 they would have freaked out at the sight of Uhura on the bridge.
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
According to Trek Lore to get to the better future you need a WW3, so we seem to be on the right track...
I'm not sure that's the criticism being made, at least not in this thread. A black and/or female president is something the setting absolutely should portray, and should have included decades ago. Discovery's datedness comes from the casting of a serving real-world politician. It's not the fact that it's Abrams specifically, and the criticisms shouldn't be read as personal disapproval of her; having any other serving politician in the role would have been equally dopey.
It's also perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a full endorsement of Abrams and the Democrat Party. Same as if Condoleezza Rice had inexplicably popped up in the role; people would have read it as an endorsement of the Bush administration (and of Rice's personal record, obviously causing anger over issues such as Iraq). It's inevitably going to put a lot of fans off who aren't aligned with the American Democrats, including those who are substantially to the left of them.
It's like when Hilary Clinton showed up in Broad City and a lot of viewers - including ones who voted for her in the subsequent election - called it out as being absolutely naff in a way that'd surely age terribly.
I'll reiterate that the objection is not to her color or her sex. It's her as an individual.
ok maybe because she is not known in my part of the world, so did not understand the objection.
Yup. Unfortunately, some viewers don't like it when they see themselves reflected in the mirror for what they truly are.
They tried in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, but the matte painting shot never made it into the final cut:
Kirk (pointing at Lincoln): "I met him. Sort of."
Fair enough.
And some Vulcan guy I'd never heard of.
Star Trek has always talked about political and social issues, and it usually (though not always) leaned left.
The thing I find different is that older Trek, meaning basically anything from TOS through Enterprise, went out of its way to avoid directly referencing or including anything contemporary. They did everything through allegory -- though admittedly, some more on the nose than others. But they always kept a safe distance from current society. Even to the point of maintaining that stylized method of speaking that was sort of timeless, not matching up with any one era's style of speech.
I think modern, streaming era Trek has gotten a little too contemporary in a number of ways. I think they can do more good, and persuade more people, by keeping things disconnected from the present and instead delivering messages in more subtle ways.
The thing I find different is that older Trek, meaning basically anything from TOS through Enterprise, went out of its way to avoid directly referencing or including anything contemporary. They did everything through allegory -- though admittedly, some more on the nose than others. But they always kept a safe distance from current society. Even to the point of maintaining that stylized method of speaking that was sort of timeless, not matching up with any one era's style of speech.
I think modern, streaming era Trek has gotten a little too contemporary in a number of ways. I think they can do more good, and persuade more people, by keeping things disconnected from the present and instead delivering messages in more subtle ways.
Meh. TNG did a direct drug PSA that would not be out of place elsewhere for the 80s
Trek bring on the nose doesn't strike me as out of step. If Hawking can be on TNG why not politicians, regardless of one's political affiliation?
Trek bring on the nose doesn't strike me as out of step. If Hawking can be on TNG why not politicians, regardless of one's political affiliation?
Similar threads
