News Martin-Green Answers Disgruntled Fans

[Spider]

Well, it's not diversity for the sake of diversity, it's diversity for the sake of humanity. More precisely, depicting a diverse humanity would be, I believe and expect, for establishing part of the setting, so that the drama occurs with respect to the diverse species that is humanity. Not all aspects of the diverse humanity need to specifically be a focal point for drama.

However, perhaps somewhat paradoxically, the lack of drama, with respect to certain of these myriad diversities that people today find objectionable, would itself be a kind of story point. Wouldn't it? It would be saying that people in the 23rd century don't find these things objectionable, again to establish that aspect of the setting.

As others have basically said already, that setting is implicitly hopeful. Humanity is not like the Borg. We accept differences among ourselves.

I didn't see your post until after editing mine. To be honest, if you really want to get all science fictiony and futurist about it, the races will have had another 200 years to commingle and this shouldn't even be a point. In fact, we'll probably be MORE like the Borg than humanity anyway given the current cell phone proliferation. Besides, we're not actually talking about the future, we're talking about the Star Trek Universe which is (already) different from it's own canon. LOL

Don't take my point wrong, I'm not arguing against Diversity, Diversity is good, it's shows us different paths and expands our tiny little brains which is always a good thing. But I find the whole debate about diversity unsettling, as if we want the future to look exactly the same as today just with better toys. That isn't going to happen.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I do have to wonder just how much "The colors will bleed into one". There would have to be some significant migration and procreation between "races" to impact the population make up of Asia and Africa.

 

[Spider]

I do have to wonder just how much "The colors will bleed into one". There would have to be some significant migration and procreation between "races" to impact the population make up of Asia and Africa.

Which probably won't happen. (But who knows?) I don't even like the idea, or consideration, that there are actually even different races of humans. We are all homo sapiens, there is no further subdivision of humans. The idea of racism unsettles me not only on a cultural standpoint, but on a scientific one as well. It's just a dumb idea that has no merit.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In 200 years if blacks and whites are still quarreling amongst themselves, then we got bigger problems than Klingons anyway.

Absolutely.

Don't take my point wrong, I'm not arguing against Diversity, Diversity is good, it's shows us different paths and expands our tiny little brains which is always a good thing. But I find the whole debate about diversity unsettling, as if we want the future to look exactly the same as today just with better toys. That isn't going to happen.

I agree with the boldfaced part.

To be honest, if you really want to get all science fictiony and futurist about it, the races will have had another 200 years to commingle and this shouldn't even be a point. In fact, we'll probably be MORE like the Borg than humanity anyway given the current cell phone proliferation.

However, I don't currently agree that such a radical change is likely in aggregate in just 200 years. It's much more likely to occur in a thousand years. But, if we restrict our attention to the military/whatever is like Starfleet, then there's much more likely to be a radical shift towards the Borg much sooner.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Henry Blake: Look, I can't be responsiblefor anybody's "gruntlement."

 

[ichab]

Are these all crazy twiter complainers? Because I haven't seen any type of response like these people are talking about.

I haven't seen much evidence of this either. Certainly not on the levels I've seen with other castings in the past.
Even if the accusations are true, every major franchise goes through this whenever casting is announced for the next entry of the series. Off the top of my head I remember fan outrage over the casting of the new Superman, Batman(MANY times) Spiderman, James Bond(Blond Hair? BLASPEMY!), Freddy Krueger, Fantastic Four, Ghostbusters etc.etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if the makers of this are taking a few social media comments and trying to blow it into something bigger. Controversy sells.

 

[Vger23]

Misleading title. This article only applies to fans who are disgruntled with CASTING choices.

As opposed to fans who are disgruntled about other, far more legitimate concerns like the uniforms, actors hairstyles, and design of the ships bridges? Or the fact that they need to give up one meal at McDonalds per month to save enough money to watch the show?

Disgruntled fans can suck it.

People wonder why everyone thinks Star Trek fans are a joke...?

 

[Leighton]

What's wrong with diversity for the sake of diversity, anyway? I kinda thought that was the point. The more diverse the better.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What's wrong with diversity for the sake of diversity, anyway? I kinda thought that was the point. The more diverse the better.

Wasn't that the motivation behind the casting of TOS?

 

[Leighton]

I wouldn't be surprised if the makers of this are taking a few social media comments and trying to blow it into something bigger. Controversy sells.

I would have agreed a week or two ago, but now I know better. If you think this is being blown out of proportion, visit one of the forums welcoming his kind of racist crap, like Trek Prop Zone.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Diversity for the sake of diversity is poor story telling. Diversity that's contributes to the story is not actually diversity, it's drama.

Edit to add: In 200 years if blacks and whites are still quarreling amongst themselves, then we got bigger problems than Klingons anyway.

Humanity is diverse. Since Star Trek is supposed to be about humanity and the human adventure, then it more than any other show should be more diverse. Yet it fails miserably at this. Diversity doesn't mean they have to quarrel, it just means we need to see more than just a bunch of white guys. The default of humanity is not a straight white man.

 

[Awesome Possum]

What's wrong with diversity for the sake of diversity, anyway? I kinda thought that was the point. The more diverse the better.

Because broflakes freak out when a white man isn't in charge. Hell, a lot of the criticism of Janeway is charged with sexism.

 

[ralph]

Humanity is diverse. Since Star Trek is supposed to be about humanity and the human adventure, then it more than any other show should be more diverse. Yet it fails miserably at this. Diversity doesn't mean they have to quarrel, it just means we need to see more than just a bunch of white guys. The default of humanity is not a straight white man.

Especially because star trek set 200 years in the future. We are not the same people that we were even a 200 years ago.

 

[Leighton]

What's mind blowing is that the racists and extremists of the 60s can easily be imagined using the exact same criticisms against the original series. Oh, here we go again. Putting a bunch of blacks and asians in just to be PC.

 

[dahj]

We are not the same people that we were even a 200 years ago.

I'm exactly the same person I was 200 years ago.

Vampirism has its perks

 

[Spider]

Humanity is diverse. Since Star Trek is supposed to be about humanity and the human adventure, then it more than any other show should be more diverse. Yet it fails miserably at this. Diversity doesn't mean they have to quarrel, it just means we need to see more than just a bunch of white guys. The default of humanity is not a straight white man.

Which means you're asking for diversity simply for the sake of diversity, not for objectivity or story telling. Which is fine by me because I don't give a shit who's in charge as long as the stories are good. In Star Trek, I don't get annoyed by diversity of humans, what annoys me is pointless forehead aliens.

So please, I'm alienahphobic, not different-humans-ohphobic.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Which means you're asking for diversity simply for the sake of diversity, not for objectivity or story telling. Which is fine by me because I don't give a shit who's in charge as long as the stories are good. In Star Trek, I don't get annoyed by diversity of humans, what annoys me is pointless forehead aliens.

So please, I'm alienahphobic, not different-humans-ohphobic.

Diversity is realistic, it doesn't need a reason in the story.

 

[Spider]

Diversity is realistic, it doesn't need a reason in the story.

Whites are a minority in Houston, Mexicans are the majority. The mayor is black. We have an ex-lesbian mayor. You'd like it here. Except for the heat, it gets really fucking hot in the summer.

If you'd read some of my earlier posts, you'd find I agree with all this diversity and totally hate the idea of racism. Not sure why we're having this back and forth here.

 

[Leighton]

Diversity is realistic, it doesn't need a reason in the story.

All of this. I honestly don't get this "diversity just for the sake of diversity" complaint. Diversity is awesome in life, and it's awesome in Star Trek. In fact "diversity for the sake of diversity" is as good a way to sum up IDIC as any I can think of.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Whites are a minority in Houston, Mexicans are the majority. The mayor is black. We have an ex-lesbian mayor. You'd like it here. Except for the heat, it gets really fucking hot in the summer.

If you'd read some of my earlier posts, you'd find I agree with all this diversity and totally hate the idea of racism. Not sure why we're having this back and forth here.

Then why are you saying there needs to be a reason for it or it's diversity for the sake of diversity?