Is the utopistic Trek gone with this movie?

[T'Girl]

I like the fact that their has yet to be a token gay character

Why not, Star Trek has had "token" characters before. Uhura and Sulu were placed on the bridge to be respectively the black and the Asian characters. To make a point about not everyone being simultaneously male and white.

nothing annoys me more then a character like the will and grace type

Assuming you're talking about the character of Jack McFarland. You'd be hard pressed to find a gay man or woman who really doesn't like Jack.

see my bright pink shirt and capri pants, and my bejeweled phaser...ick it is demeaning to gay people, not supportive.

Given your resent posting else where on the board ...

(Gay characters on SUPERNATURAL? And some thoughts on the show post)

... don't know why but seeing two men kiss weirds me out, lesbians are cool but two guys press my buttons in a bad way.

... being demeaning and non-supportive to gays, wouldn't seem to be the reason you don't want to see them on a starship crew. Pardon me if I misunderstood.

...purposely extra flaming as if to say, look at me i'm gay, I like a penis in me,

And just so we're clear, I resemble that description from time to time.

 

[Ninjacore]

I like the fact that their has yet to be a token gay character

Why not, Star Trek has had "token" characters before. Uhura and Sulu were placed on the bridge to be respectively the black and the Asian characters. To make a point about not everyone being simultaneously male and white.

nothing annoys me more then a character like the will and grace type

Assuming you're talking about the character of Jack McFarland. You'd be hard pressed to find a gay man or woman who really doesn't like Jack.

Given your resent posting else where on the board ...

(Gay characters on SUPERNATURAL? And some thoughts on the show post)

... don't know why but seeing two men kiss weirds me out, lesbians are cool but two guys press my buttons in a bad way.

... being demeaning and non-supportive to gays, wouldn't seem to be the reason you don't want to see them on a starship crew. Pardon me if I misunderstood.

...purposely extra flaming as if to say, look at me i'm gay, I like a penis in me,

And just so we're clear, I resemble that description from time to time.

I never claimed to be a champion of gay rights, I don't hate them or treat them with any form of bias, I can't explain it, just seeing two men kiss does weirds me out, to me the male body was designed to be a tool, unlike the female body, which is like a work of art, art can be tasteful, tools are not so much, but I stand by what i said, a token, feminine acting gay man (we both know thats how the character would end up being written) would not be supportive of gay people, a character like that is more akin to the blackface actors of vaudeville, an insult not a compliment.

 

[T'Girl]

but I stand by what i said, a token, feminine acting gay man (we both know that's how the character would end up being written) would not be supportive of gay people, a character like that is more akin to the blackface actors of vaudeville, an insult not a compliment.

But a professional Starfleet officer no more has to be Jack McFarland, than that same officer is required to be Zap Branigan. An effeminate sashaying individual is not going to be the way a gay main character "would end up being written." It's not a requirement, an archetype gay adult male is simply going to be attracted to someone of the same gender, that's all. His "gayness" would manifest itself in no other aspect of his personality or behavior.

The ongoing insult is the obvious marginalizing of gays in the fictional universe depicted in Star Trek. This isn't an accident, it's the result of a series of deliberate decisions on the part of "TPTB," the end result of those decisions is that "in-universe" in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries gays are not seen or heard. We in effect don't exist in the future. The decisions made by the producers and others define the Star Trek universe and what that future contains.

It doesn't contain gays.

As I posted elsewhere, in the utopian Star Trek future, acceptance of gays isn't a given, non-acceptance could very well be the reason (one of the reasons) that gays are not apparent. If gays are a ostracized segment of the overall Federation society, it's unlikely we would be seeing them in Starfleet, certainly not openly.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Plus it wasn't very progressive when it came to women.

Why?

Kirk trying to sleep with every female alien. Each female in the Original Trek was attractive. They wore skirts on the Enterprise. Just look at his attitude towards Janice Rand. Women got the short end of the stick. It's just the archetype they used was very 1960s housewife. Not a lot of strong women, not a lot of women in leadership positions. Uhura was on the bridge, but she wasn't the one coming up with a plan to get the Enterprise out of danger. She took orders. The rest of the women were yomans (sp?), and served Kirk and crew. Scotty called them lassies. They had to be protected. TNG changed a lot of this, but too often Trek over-compensated in the 90s by making them characters that could compete in a man's world, making them into men instead of writing characters that could be feminine, bring unique and different qualities to leadership, and still stand toe-to-toe with the boys. The face of feminism has changed.

It's the difference between Jadzia Dax in the later seasons and Kira Nerys in the early seasons. Dax was comfortable getting an ale with you as she was piloting a ship or coming up with a plan to save the day. Kira was just mad and hard in every scene. She was in a leadership position but she had to put up with sexism and that made her an angry character. Strong leaders do not need to be angry all the time. They do not need to be tough to prove themselves to the boys now.

This version of Trek treated Uhura much better. She was valued by Kirk for sex, but she didn't fall into his arms. Instead, she was with Spock who valued her as a person. She fought to be on the Enterprise, her career. She was competent and rose to her position because of her unique skills. She was an integral part of the crew. She had more character development than say Chekov who's moment came in the transporter room. Or Scotty who had his success handed to him from the future. I just didn't like that she jumped up every time Spock flinched. That bit was overdone.

 

[HaventGotALife]

TOS was never supposed to be utopian. It showed a future that worked, that was better than today, but people were still struggling and feuding and trying to make a go of it on the final frontier. It was a positive vision of the future, as opposed to all the post-apocalyptic dystopias out there, but people still fought and argued and had their hearts broken . . .

The new movie felt like TOS to me. You have people from different planets and cultures united in a commmon Federation. It's not a post-atomic wasteland, the apes and the killer robots haven't taken over, Big Brother is not watching.

It's a future that works, but not one without problems or disagreement.

Just like the original series.

(But, yeah, the lack of gay characters in TREK has been embarrassing for years. Hell, even sitcoms have gay characters these days, but TREK keeps pussyfooting around the issue.)

I like the fact that their has yet to be a token gay character, nothing annoys me more then a character like the will and grace type, purposely extra flaming as if to say, look at me i'm gay, I like a penis in me, see my bright pink shirt and capri pants, and my bejeweled phaser...ick it is demeaning to gay people, not supportive.

The gay community has different experiences, that is true. But what about just having Sulu talk about his boyfriend with a friend? Or having Chekov's parents of the same sex and he was adopted? Or having a gay character get married? You could do the "Balance of Terror" scenes (Kirk officiating a ceremony before a battle, one of the partners dies in the battle, and Kirk deals with the surving partner's pain) with people of the same sex. It's not something that needs to be the centerpiece of the movie or have "gay" characters, just characters that are normal that happen to be gay.

Star Trek doesn't need to make a big deal out of this. The protests and the boycotts will come by just having a gay character. They don't need to make it a centerpiece of the future because that is demeaning that Star Trek just discovered gays. Too many of the episodes do this with other topics and it feels heavy-handed. They don't need to design a conundrum for Kirk and company to solve that deals with a gay issue. Many of the "racial" episodes that talk about hatred and acceptance of the others apply.

And it's not like Star Trek has yet to tackle this issue. "Rejoined" is beautifully written as just two people in love and facing a taboo. My father, who came out of the closet at 40, loved "Chimera" because it talked about how Odo was never accepted by solids. He didn't embrace his individuality and his friends were not ready for it. He should live his life "out of the closet," so to speak. My father thought that worked as a metaphor, whether that was the intention of the producers and writers or not.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I like the fact that their has yet to be a token gay character

Why not, Star Trek has had "token" characters before. Uhura and Sulu were placed on the bridge to be respectively the black and the Asian characters. To make a point about not everyone being simultaneously male and white.

nothing annoys me more then a character like the will and grace type

Assuming you're talking about the character of Jack McFarland. You'd be hard pressed to find a gay man or woman who really doesn't like Jack.

Given your resent posting else where on the board ...

(Gay characters on SUPERNATURAL? And some thoughts on the show post)

... don't know why but seeing two men kiss weirds me out, lesbians are cool but two guys press my buttons in a bad way.

... being demeaning and non-supportive to gays, wouldn't seem to be the reason you don't want to see them on a starship crew. Pardon me if I misunderstood.

...purposely extra flaming as if to say, look at me i'm gay, I like a penis in me,

And just so we're clear, I resemble that description from time to time.

Don't be too quick to judge. I don't know the poster's opinions, but he may be able to hold both opinions. He may be identifying the prejudice in himself and (hopefully) looking to change it. I have done this on a number of subjects. At least he's honest.

I don't want a token character. I want an interesting story that fits into the Trek universe that accepts gay people where they are at. Token means that there's no other reason for that character than to have them represent their cause. That's bad writing. I want a competent officer in the fray of an attack.

 

[Ninjacore]

I like the fact that their has yet to be a token gay character

Why not, Star Trek has had "token" characters before. Uhura and Sulu were placed on the bridge to be respectively the black and the Asian characters. To make a point about not everyone being simultaneously male and white.

Assuming you're talking about the character of Jack McFarland. You'd be hard pressed to find a gay man or woman who really doesn't like Jack.

Given your resent posting else where on the board ...

... being demeaning and non-supportive to gays, wouldn't seem to be the reason you don't want to see them on a starship crew. Pardon me if I misunderstood.

...purposely extra flaming as if to say, look at me i'm gay, I like a penis in me,

And just so we're clear, I resemble that description from time to time.

Don't be too quick to judge. I don't know the poster's opinions, but he may be able to hold both opinions. He may be identifying the prejudice in himself and (hopefully) looking to change it. I have done this on a number of subjects. At least he's honest.

I don't want a token character. I want an interesting story that fits into the Trek universe that accepts gay people where they are at. Token means that there's no other reason for that character than to have them represent their cause. That's bad writing. I want a competent officer in the fray of an attack.

She...not he...but thks for trying to read what I wrote without assumptions.

 

[Ninjacore]

but I stand by what i said, a token, feminine acting gay man (we both know that's how the character would end up being written) would not be supportive of gay people, a character like that is more akin to the blackface actors of vaudeville, an insult not a compliment.

But a professional Starfleet officer no more has to be Jack McFarland, than that same officer is required to be Zap Branigan. An effeminate sashaying individual is not going to be the way a gay main character "would end up being written." It's not a requirement, an archetype gay adult male is simply going to be attracted to someone of the same gender, that's all. His "gayness" would manifest itself in no other aspect of his personality or behavior.

The ongoing insult is the obvious marginalizing of gays in the fictional universe depicted in Star Trek. This isn't an accident, it's the result of a series of deliberate decisions on the part of "TPTB," the end result of those decisions is that "in-universe" in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries gays are not seen or heard. We in effect don't exist in the future. The decisions made by the producers and others define the Star Trek universe and what that future contains.

It doesn't contain gays.

As I posted elsewhere, in the utopian Star Trek future, acceptance of gays isn't a given, non-acceptance could very well be the reason (one of the reasons) that gays are not apparent. If gays are a ostracized segment of the overall Federation society, it's unlikely we would be seeing them in Starfleet, certainly not openly.

Even if the character isn't a Jack Mcfarlarnd type, would you be happy with a torchwood type, the bisexual man who sleeps with literally anyone or anything, which is also quite insulting I feel, as I am bisexual...I just feel star trek doesn't need to make a character or episode for everything, as long as their is no hatred for gays and bisexuals, then let it be I say.

 

[sonak]

but I stand by what i said, a token, feminine acting gay man (we both know that's how the character would end up being written) would not be supportive of gay people, a character like that is more akin to the blackface actors of vaudeville, an insult not a compliment.

But a professional Starfleet officer no more has to be Jack McFarland, than that same officer is required to be Zap Branigan. An effeminate sashaying individual is not going to be the way a gay main character "would end up being written." It's not a requirement, an archetype gay adult male is simply going to be attracted to someone of the same gender, that's all. His "gayness" would manifest itself in no other aspect of his personality or behavior.

The ongoing insult is the obvious marginalizing of gays in the fictional universe depicted in Star Trek. This isn't an accident, it's the result of a series of deliberate decisions on the part of "TPTB," the end result of those decisions is that "in-universe" in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries gays are not seen or heard. We in effect don't exist in the future. The decisions made by the producers and others define the Star Trek universe and what that future contains.

It doesn't contain gays.

As I posted elsewhere, in the utopian Star Trek future, acceptance of gays isn't a given, non-acceptance could very well be the reason (one of the reasons) that gays are not apparent. If gays are a ostracized segment of the overall Federation society, it's unlikely we would be seeing them in Starfleet, certainly not openly.

Even if the character isn't a Jack Mcfarlarnd type, would you be happy with a torchwood type, the bisexual man who sleeps with literally anyone or anything, which is also quite insulting I feel, as I am bisexual...I just feel star trek doesn't need to make a character or episode for everything, as long as their is no hatred for gays and bisexuals, then let it be I say.

what's with the extreme jumping to stereotypes thing? Why does the hypothetical character have to be a bisexual who sleeps around or a flamboyant gay guy?

Why can't he/she just be gay, either in a loving, monogamous gay relationship, single but looking, whatever?

people aren't defined by their orientation.


your responses are like if someone said "there should be more Asian-American characters in Trek, and some other poster replied with "oh, so do they have to be really good at math and computers and video games and stuff?"

 

[Ninjacore]

But a professional Starfleet officer no more has to be Jack McFarland, than that same officer is required to be Zap Branigan. An effeminate sashaying individual is not going to be the way a gay main character "would end up being written." It's not a requirement, an archetype gay adult male is simply going to be attracted to someone of the same gender, that's all. His "gayness" would manifest itself in no other aspect of his personality or behavior.

The ongoing insult is the obvious marginalizing of gays in the fictional universe depicted in Star Trek. This isn't an accident, it's the result of a series of deliberate decisions on the part of "TPTB," the end result of those decisions is that "in-universe" in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries gays are not seen or heard. We in effect don't exist in the future. The decisions made by the producers and others define the Star Trek universe and what that future contains.

It doesn't contain gays.

As I posted elsewhere, in the utopian Star Trek future, acceptance of gays isn't a given, non-acceptance could very well be the reason (one of the reasons) that gays are not apparent. If gays are a ostracized segment of the overall Federation society, it's unlikely we would be seeing them in Starfleet, certainly not openly.

Even if the character isn't a Jack Mcfarlarnd type, would you be happy with a torchwood type, the bisexual man who sleeps with literally anyone or anything, which is also quite insulting I feel, as I am bisexual...I just feel star trek doesn't need to make a character or episode for everything, as long as their is no hatred for gays and bisexuals, then let it be I say.

what's with the extreme jumping to stereotypes thing? Why does the hypothetical character have to be a bisexual who sleeps around or a flamboyant gay guy?

Why can't he/she just be gay, either in a loving, monogamous gay relationship, single but looking, whatever?

people aren't defined by their orientation.


your responses are like if someone said "there should be more Asian-American characters in Trek, and some other poster replied with "oh, so do they have to be really good at math and computers and video games and stuff?"

since when does hollywood not jump to extremes, its the common practice to gain ratings.

 

[sonak]

true, hollywood does tend to embrace stereotypes, but I don't think Trek should feel bound by that or something.

 

[Set Harth]

your responses are like if someone said "there should be more Asian-American characters in Trek, and some other poster replied with "oh, so do they have to be really good at math and computers and video games and stuff?"

No, just martial arts.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I did not catch any sort of utopistic vision in this one.

There was a utopian vision in this one. Aliens all around, Uhura was the sex symbol (chased by Kirk, dating Spock), the women were competent, they valued Pike's life enough to risk their own. Spock struggled to find the balance between his two halves. Kirk dealt with the loss of his father. Prime Spock talked about the friendship that would result from the crew of the Enterprise.

Pike: "You know what the Federation is, don't you? It's a humanitarian and peace-keeping armada--"

This movie was breath of fresh air in a movie series that had become very dark (Generations-Nemesis).

 

[sonak]

I did not catch any sort of utopistic vision in this one.

There was a utopian vision in this one. Aliens all around, Uhura was the sex symbol (chased by Kirk, dating Spock), the women were competent, they valued Pike's life enough to risk their own. Spock struggled to find the balance between his two halves. Kirk dealt with the loss of his father. Prime Spock talked about the friendship that would result from the crew of the Enterprise.

Pike: "You know what the Federation is, don't you? It's a humanitarian and peace-keeping armada--"

This movie was breath of fresh air in a movie series that had become very dark (Generations-Nemesis).

huh? What does the stuff you mentioned have to do with a utopian vision? Uhura as sex symbol? Showing competent women= utopia to you? Not sure what that says about your views on women in the workplace.

Also, the movie's only a lighter change of pace from NEM if you completely ignore the whole "destruction of Vulcan" thing, kind of a big plot point to overlook.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I did not catch any sort of utopistic vision in this one.

There was a utopian vision in this one. Aliens all around, Uhura was the sex symbol (chased by Kirk, dating Spock), the women were competent, they valued Pike's life enough to risk their own. Spock struggled to find the balance between his two halves. Kirk dealt with the loss of his father. Prime Spock talked about the friendship that would result from the crew of the Enterprise.

Pike: "You know what the Federation is, don't you? It's a humanitarian and peace-keeping armada--"

This movie was breath of fresh air in a movie series that had become very dark (Generations-Nemesis).

huh? What does the stuff you mentioned have to do with a utopian vision? Uhura as sex symbol? Showing competent women= utopia to you? Not sure what that says about your views on women in the workplace.

Also, the movie's only a lighter change of pace from NEM if you completely ignore the whole "destruction of Vulcan" thing, kind of a big plot point to overlook.

It's about where the movie focuses its energy. There are large chunks of this movie without a bad guy. We see Kirk grow up, for instance, and Spock as well. We see them at Starfleet Academy. About 1/3 of this movie doesn't even involve a conflict. The destruction of Vulcan is nowhere near as violent as Troi getting raped, spending time aboard the dark Scimitar, bigotry towards Romulans, and the grating voice of Shinzon. Look at the darkness of the frame, the mis en scene of Nemesis. Very dark. Very bleak. Very evil. Twirling a knife without a light in sight. Dark tone.

Nero sticks out like a sore thumb. He's the bad guy in a utopia, the wolf among sheep and therefore, he's a little more successful than Shinzon. In Nemesis, Shinzon blends in with the carpet. By the time we get to Nemesis, all the sheep have been killed or turned into wolves in the 24th Century.

Let me put it another way. If this were done in the style of Nemesis, we would see, and focus on, Nero's reaction to destroying Vulcan. We would cut from the planet being destoryed (to dramatic music, not a sombre tone) and we'd see more scenes of Nero winning--torturing Pike and getting to Earth. Then we'd go back to the Enterprise.

Bad things happen in the universe. They happened in Star Trek: The Original Series, too. But what did we see in the movie? Spock become as emotional as he will allow himself over it, and then Uhura tries to comfort him with tears in her eyes. Did Riker ever try and even touch Deanna? That's compassion where Nemesis had none.

As for what is utopia, it is consistent with the 1960s vision. It may not strike you as odd today, but having an interracial couple is a big deal, still a big deal in parts of the United States today. Uhura, a black woman, is a sex symbol without ever saying it, and the female lead is a departure from the Original Series, a good one. And outside of Spock and Pike, there's not a smarter character than Uhura. She's not with the skirt-chaser. She's with the one who values logic and intellect. She is shown as compassionate without losing herself. She's a very 21st-Century woman character in a series that treated women like they were around for Kirk to...couple with.

What does Utopia look like to you? What did you want to see?

 

[sonak]

There was a utopian vision in this one. Aliens all around, Uhura was the sex symbol (chased by Kirk, dating Spock), the women were competent, they valued Pike's life enough to risk their own. Spock struggled to find the balance between his two halves. Kirk dealt with the loss of his father. Prime Spock talked about the friendship that would result from the crew of the Enterprise.

Pike: "You know what the Federation is, don't you? It's a humanitarian and peace-keeping armada--"

This movie was breath of fresh air in a movie series that had become very dark (Generations-Nemesis).

huh? What does the stuff you mentioned have to do with a utopian vision? Uhura as sex symbol? Showing competent women= utopia to you? Not sure what that says about your views on women in the workplace.

Also, the movie's only a lighter change of pace from NEM if you completely ignore the whole "destruction of Vulcan" thing, kind of a big plot point to overlook.

It's about where the movie focuses its energy. There are large chunks of this movie without a bad guy. We see Kirk grow up, for instance, and Spock as well. We see them at Starfleet Academy. About 1/3 of this movie doesn't even involve a conflict. The destruction of Vulcan is nowhere near as violent as Troi getting raped, spending time aboard the dark Scimitar, bigotry towards Romulans, and the grating voice of Shinzon. Look at the darkness of the frame, the mis en scene of Nemesis. Very dark. Very bleak. Very evil. Twirling a knife without a light in sight. Dark tone.

Nero sticks out like a sore thumb. He's the bad guy in a utopia, the wolf among sheep and therefore, he's a little more successful than Shinzon. In Nemesis, Shinzon blends in with the carpet. By the time we get to Nemesis, all the sheep have been killed or turned into wolves in the 24th Century.

Let me put it another way. If this were done in the style of Nemesis, we would see, and focus on, Nero's reaction to destroying Vulcan. We would cut from the planet being destoryed (to dramatic music, not a sombre tone) and we'd see more scenes of Nero winning--torturing Pike and getting to Earth. Then we'd go back to the Enterprise.

Bad things happen in the universe. They happened in Star Trek: The Original Series, too. But what did we see in the movie? Spock become as emotional as he will allow himself over it, and then Uhura tries to comfort him with tears in her eyes. Did Riker ever try and even touch Deanna? That's compassion where Nemesis had none.

As for what is utopia, it is consistent with the 1960s vision. It may not strike you as odd today, but having an interracial couple is a big deal, still a big deal in parts of the United States today. Uhura, a black woman, is a sex symbol without ever saying it, and the female lead is a departure from the Original Series, a good one. And outside of Spock and Pike, there's not a smarter character than Uhura. She's not with the skirt-chaser. She's with the one who values logic and intellect. She is shown as compassionate without losing herself. She's a very 21st-Century woman character in a series that treated women like they were around for Kirk to...couple with.

What does Utopia look like to you? What did you want to see?

I just think that viewing an intelligent, capable Black woman in an "inter-racial"(with Spock it's a bit more) relationship as some amazing sign of progress is a bit stuck in a 20th-century mindset of utopia for me.


I mean it's the 21st-century now, and apart from as you say, certain parts of the U.S., in most places an inter-racial relationship is NOT that big of a deal. So it really shouldn't be a sign of a utopia for a 23rd-century vision.


to me, a vision of a future utopia is more like one where Humans no longer suffer from most physical or mental defects, live very long lifespans, have peacefully colonized space, abolished poverty, war, etc.(remember what the whole idea of "utopia" is after all.)

 

[Greg Cox]

Maybe they are there, just not making a big production number out of something that is no one's business in the forst place, especially in settings where it has bo relevance.

of course. Because no characters in Trek ever discuss their heterosexuality when it comes to dating, relationships, etc., right? But gay characters would have to keep things quiet, because in their case, it would be "no one's business."


a nice standard of equality, there. "sure, be gay, just keep it QUIET, ok?"

Yeah, I've always found that argument to be a shameless double standard. Romantic subplots are fine until gay characters are involved--at which point they become "unnecessary," "irrelevant," or part of some sinister "agenda."

 

[Ninjacore]

huh? What does the stuff you mentioned have to do with a utopian vision? Uhura as sex symbol? Showing competent women= utopia to you? Not sure what that says about your views on women in the workplace.

Also, the movie's only a lighter change of pace from NEM if you completely ignore the whole "destruction of Vulcan" thing, kind of a big plot point to overlook.

It's about where the movie focuses its energy. There are large chunks of this movie without a bad guy. We see Kirk grow up, for instance, and Spock as well. We see them at Starfleet Academy. About 1/3 of this movie doesn't even involve a conflict. The destruction of Vulcan is nowhere near as violent as Troi getting raped, spending time aboard the dark Scimitar, bigotry towards Romulans, and the grating voice of Shinzon. Look at the darkness of the frame, the mis en scene of Nemesis. Very dark. Very bleak. Very evil. Twirling a knife without a light in sight. Dark tone.

Nero sticks out like a sore thumb. He's the bad guy in a utopia, the wolf among sheep and therefore, he's a little more successful than Shinzon. In Nemesis, Shinzon blends in with the carpet. By the time we get to Nemesis, all the sheep have been killed or turned into wolves in the 24th Century.

Let me put it another way. If this were done in the style of Nemesis, we would see, and focus on, Nero's reaction to destroying Vulcan. We would cut from the planet being destoryed (to dramatic music, not a sombre tone) and we'd see more scenes of Nero winning--torturing Pike and getting to Earth. Then we'd go back to the Enterprise.

Bad things happen in the universe. They happened in Star Trek: The Original Series, too. But what did we see in the movie? Spock become as emotional as he will allow himself over it, and then Uhura tries to comfort him with tears in her eyes. Did Riker ever try and even touch Deanna? That's compassion where Nemesis had none.

As for what is utopia, it is consistent with the 1960s vision. It may not strike you as odd today, but having an interracial couple is a big deal, still a big deal in parts of the United States today. Uhura, a black woman, is a sex symbol without ever saying it, and the female lead is a departure from the Original Series, a good one. And outside of Spock and Pike, there's not a smarter character than Uhura. She's not with the skirt-chaser. She's with the one who values logic and intellect. She is shown as compassionate without losing herself. She's a very 21st-Century woman character in a series that treated women like they were around for Kirk to...couple with.

What does Utopia look like to you? What did you want to see?

I just think that viewing an intelligent, capable Black woman in an "inter-racial"(with Spock it's a bit more) relationship as some amazing sign of progress is a bit stuck in a 20th-century mindset of utopia for me.


I mean it's the 21st-century now, and apart from as you say, certain parts of the U.S., in most places an inter-racial relationship is NOT that big of a deal. So it really shouldn't be a sign of a utopia for a 23rd-century vision.


to me, a vision of a future utopia is more like one where Humans no longer suffer from most physical or mental defects, live very long lifespans, have peacefully colonized space, abolished poverty, war, etc.(remember what the whole idea of "utopia" is after all.)

Humans could never live without a struggle of some kind, we need war, poverty and longer life spans would just cause gentrification and put more strain on younger people unfairly.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I just think that viewing an intelligent, capable Black woman in an "inter-racial"(with Spock it's a bit more) relationship as some amazing sign of progress is a bt stuck in a 20th-century mindset of utopia for me.


I mean it's the 21st-century now, and apart from as you say, certain parts of the U.S., in most places an inter-racial relationship is NOT that big of a deal. So it really shouldn't be a sign of a utopia for a 23-rd century vision.

Well, I wish this was true. But if you look at how Hollywood portrays an African-American, it may not get the attention for being so, but it's still a big deal. Take, for instance, Halle Barry's portrayal in Monster's Ball, Denzel Washington's character in Training Day, and Terence Howard in Hustle and Flow. We're talking about a pimp, a crooked cop, and the poor wife of an convict who is not very intelligent. All received critical acclaim and they were great acting performances. However, if I were raising a child that was black, I'd rather they look to Uhura than Leticia Musgrove.

And anecdotally, I have a casual friend who is white who is engaged in a black man. We haven't seen each other in years, but she recently (in the last week) posted a comment on facebook from a conversation she had last week. A woman told her that seeing a white and black person kissing made her violently ill. She lives in Michigan. I have heard the n-word used in its traditional tense by a white man in my community. Racism isn't dead and just because we've had the first interracial kiss doesn't mean that we have grown past it.

to me, a vision of a future utopia is more like one where Humans no longer suffer from most physical or mental defects, live very long lifespans, have peacefully colonized the stars, abolished poverty, war, etc.

How do you portray that on-screen? I think having aliens all around, people working with each other, not showing poverty or disease (they didn't talk about it, but it wasn't shown), is about all you can do. These people, outside of Spock's outburst, are defending themselves. They were on a humanitarian mission to evacuate Vulcan. There was death and destruction, but that's the source of conflict. Pick a Star Trek episode and you'll find a hand-to-hand fight or the ship in danger or a powerful force dictating to the crew of the Enterprise. I'm talking about the Original Series Utopia. Earth was the Utopia, not Starfleet. We had to defend ourselves.

 

[T'Girl]

huh? What does the stuff you mentioned have to do with a utopian vision? Uhura as sex symbol? Showing competent women= utopia to you? Not sure what that says about your views on women in the workplace.

A young woman, uses her prior sexual relationship and familiarity with a superior
to get herself transferred to the prestigious new flagship.

Yeah, there your utopian future.