News Martin-Green: Star Trek Is About Universality

[Jinn]

Yeah, I have a hard time believing the writers room was brooding for weeks over what exactly to do with the gay characters, so they didn't have enough time to write a good season finale.

 

[Refuge]

Yeah, I have a hard time believing the writers room was brooding for weeks over what exactly to do with the gay characters, so they didn't have enough time to write a good season finale.

Yeah they just decided to kill one of them. The bad season finale fitted in with the rest of the bad writing.

 

[Refuge]

Ok, what exactly does make for good Star Trek? TOS and TNG were in many ways defined by heavy handed social agendas, whilst DS9 was notable on any intellectual level for deconstructing and reframing those agendas. We didn't see Nichelle Nichols in the White House, Whoopie Goldberg seeking out a role in the show which inspired her or countless progressive groups adopt Trek as an icon because of the Shakespearean scriptwriting.

Watch "The Omega Glory" or "Let This be You Last Battlefield" and then tell me Discovery is heavy handed and badly written by comparison. It really isn't.

This is precisely why VOY is referred to as "TNG lite", because it had all the superficial elements of the show sans the willingness to make statements, direct or allegorical. ENT suffered much the same faults, both shows lacked any substance and the spaceships, rubber foreheads and phasers started to look pretty crass without it.

Trek's cultural impact has been about social commentary, not shooty adventures in space.

Your last comment praising Trek's cultural impact on social commentary makes zero sense when you just trashed each and every Trek version prior to Discovery.

 

[jaime]

Good info. The tale of the filming of Plato’s Stepchildren came, I suspect, from Shatner’s (Kreski’s) Star Trek Memories book 1. Granted, the source may have been less than rock solid, but I believe I read it in the words of somebody who was there. The gist of it was that even once the line seemed to have been crossed, and they were filming an interracial kiss, someone insisted that the shock be lessened a bit for sensitive viewers. I think Shatner said something like “they specifically made me turn so that the camera angle wasn’t as good.”
As I recall the scene, it’s much more of a shot of HIS face, not both faces, in the kiss, and his kiss was about as passionate as a mannequin’s. They were brave and timid at the same time. So now you’ve got a bunch of unsourced tales, and no bibliography! Maybe somebody else recalls this better...

They had shots where it was ‘fought’ more, and where it didn’t happen, stuff like that, and then they found out in all the ‘acceptable’ versions Shatner was crossing his eyes to make the shots unusable, so they would have to go with the interracial kiss. That’s according to legend.

 

[Spot261]

Your last comment praising Trek's cultural impact on social commentary makes zero sense when you just trashed each every Trek version prior to Discovery.

Did I? Or was I just honest about their strengths and weaknesses?

 

[Refuge]

Most people watch Star Trek simply to enjoy science fiction and adventure. That is where Discovery needs to improve.

 

[Spot261]

Most people watch Star Trek simply to enjoy science fiction and adventure. That is where Discovery needs to improve.

Granted it does, but so did TNG at the beginning, which is my point. It will improve or not as a TV show based on the writing, not the politics.

It isn't the social commentary which is causing those problems, it is the social commentary which has always lifted Trek up above the field and given it something extra that made it iconic, made it something special. That commentary being heavy handed is nothing new, on the contrary TOS was much heavier, as was TNG. Admittedly that can at times rob it of it's subtlety, but having a gay couple onscreen is hardly heavy handed compared to the inter racial kiss.

 

[Refuge]

Granted it does, but so did TNG at the beginning, which is my point. It will improve or not as a TV show based on the writing, not the politics.

It isn't the social commentary which is causing those problems, it is the social commentary which has always lifted Trek up above the field and given it something extra that made it iconic, made it something special. That commentary being heavy handed is nothing new, on the contrary TOS was much heavier, as was TNG. Admittedly that can at times rob it of it's subtlety, but having a gay couple onscreen is hardly heavy handed compared to the inter racial kiss.

I don't think the social commentary for better or worse is really that impacting. If Star Trek stood out against the crowd in the past it no longer does. We are used to seeing other shows with gay couples or gay sex or profanity or you name it. Trek is no longer edgy that way.

 

[Spot261]

I don't think the social commentary for better or worse is really that impacting. If Star Trek stood out against the crowd in the past it no longer does. We are used to seeing other shows with gay couples or gay sex or profanity or you name it. Trek is no longer edgy that way.

Agreed and I genuinely hope DSC will follow the lead of TNG and move forward learning from the first season rather than being defined by it.

Whether I'd use the word "edgy" to characterise the agenda is another matter. Trek has been behind the curve for a quite while, hence my criticisms of both VOY and ENT. For me both are notable for a lack of courage in their writing and casting, their lack of substance. Nonetheless it makes no sense to view anything with the Trek header and it's place within that legacy without reference to it's social and cultural impact. There have, frankly, been many shows with more consistently high quality writing over the years but few if any have had the influence on our society that Trek has.

Rather than being something groundbreaking Stamets and Culber represented Trek playing catch up on exactly the values for which it has traditionally been known for leading the field and I don't see any rational argument for claiming that was somehow a causative factor in the show not quite living up to the hype or it's potential

Nonetheless there has been an almost staggering amount of backlash about the show's politics, not so much here on the BBS but throughout facebook groups and youtube comments sections, treating the level of equality in the casting as being simultaneously the cause of the show's faults and indicative of everything that certain people consider the problems of modern society. We've seen far more confrontational casting and scriptwriting decisions made in the past with far less backlash and for me that is really telling. It's not just about the show but the social and historical context. TNG rode out it's seven season run with relatively little open hostility with regard to the politics despite being heavier handed than DSC in many cases but it was released in a very different context. TOS on the other hand came at a time remarkably similar to the ones we find ourselves in now and that shows in the responses we see.

It's willingness to be almost provocatively diverse at the time earned it both fame and notoriety depending where you looked and that seems to be the case here, people are reacting (badly) in a way that represents the cultural sensitivities and dynamics of 2018, not just what is shown on the screen in a vacuum. for me that means playing catch up or not it is having exactly the intended impact, it's doing it's job and making the conversations happen.

 

[jaime]

Agreed and I genuinely hope DSC will follow the lead of TNG and move forward learning from the first season rather than being defined by it.

Whether I'd use the word "edgy" to characterise the agenda is another matter. Trek has been behind the curve for a quite while, hence my criticisms of both VOY and ENT. For me both are notable for a lack of courage in their writing and casting, their lack of substance. Nonetheless it makes no sense to view anything with the Trek header and it's place within that legacy without reference to it's social and cultural impact. There have, frankly, been many shows with more consistently high quality writing over the years but few if any have had the influence on our society that Trek has.

Rather than being something groundbreaking Stamets and Culber represented Trek playing catch up on exactly the values for which it has traditionally been known for leading the field and I don't see any rational argument for claiming that was somehow a causative factor in the show not quite living up to the hype or it's potential

Nonetheless there has been an almost staggering amount of backlash about the show's politics, not so much here on the BBS but throughout facebook groups and youtube comments sections, treating the level of equality in the casting as being simultaneously the cause of the show's faults and indicative of everything that certain people consider the problems of modern society. We've seen far more confrontational casting and scriptwriting decisions made in the past with far less backlash and for me that is really telling. It's not just about the show but the social and historical context. TNG rode out it's seven season run with relatively little open hostility with regard to the politics despite being heavier handed than DSC in many cases but it was released in a very different context. TOS on the other hand came at a time remarkably similar to the ones we find ourselves in now and that shows in the responses we see.

It's willingness to be almost provocatively diverse at the time earned it both fame and notoriety depending where you looked and that seems to be the case here, people are reacting (badly) in a way that represents the cultural sensitivities and dynamics of 2018, not just what is shown on the screen in a vacuum. for me that means playing catch up or not it is having exactly the intended impact, it's doing it's job and making the conversations happen.

We live in a polarised time of battlegrounds, where we ‘other’ people on ideological lines so thin sometimes as to be almost invisible. Then hostilities begin, and even essay length thoughts will be cut down to fit the reason to fight. DSC is both a victim of that, and uses its PR to continue that unfortunate paradigm...as well as the biggest thing it does to rile existing fans by seeming to edit the existence of previous Trek according to its needs.
Sisko as first ‘Black lead’ didn’t happen, Janeway as first ‘female lead’ didn’t happen, VOY had a more diverse cast of characters, had a woman co-creator (Jeri Taylor) but this things aren’t worth mentioning because DSC has to be first in all of these things.
About the only ‘diverse’ thing DSC can claim is having a gay guy as main cast character, and...well, they fridged his boyfriend. And in all of that, they barely managed to give their bridge crew names, whilst still not actually remotely being ‘lower decks’ but on a series scale.
I blame Hollywood of the 21st century. *shrug*
They even bungled poor Ash, and he was the best actor in the show.

 

[Refuge]

Agreed and I genuinely hope DSC will follow the lead of TNG and move forward learning from the first season rather than being defined by it.

Whether I'd use the word "edgy" to characterise the agenda is another matter. Trek has been behind the curve for a quite while, hence my criticisms of both VOY and ENT. For me both are notable for a lack of courage in their writing and casting, their lack of substance. Nonetheless it makes no sense to view anything with the Trek header and it's place within that legacy without reference to it's social and cultural impact. There have, frankly, been many shows with more consistently high quality writing over the years but few if any have had the influence on our society that Trek has.

Rather than being something groundbreaking Stamets and Culber represented Trek playing catch up on exactly the values for which it has traditionally been known for leading the field and I don't see any rational argument for claiming that was somehow a causative factor in the show not quite living up to the hype or it's potential

Nonetheless there has been an almost staggering amount of backlash about the show's politics, not so much here on the BBS but throughout facebook groups and youtube comments sections, treating the level of equality in the casting as being simultaneously the cause of the show's faults and indicative of everything that certain people consider the problems of modern society. We've seen far more confrontational casting and scriptwriting decisions made in the past with far less backlash and for me that is really telling. It's not just about the show but the social and historical context. TNG rode out it's seven season run with relatively little open hostility with regard to the politics despite being heavier handed than DSC in many cases but it was released in a very different context. TOS on the other hand came at a time remarkably similar to the ones we find ourselves in now and that shows in the responses we see.

It's willingness to be almost provocatively diverse at the time earned it both fame and notoriety depending where you looked and that seems to be the case here, people are reacting (badly) in a way that represents the cultural sensitivities and dynamics of 2018, not just what is shown on the screen in a vacuum. for me that means playing catch up or not it is having exactly the intended impact, it's doing it's job and making the conversations happen.

Well I guess personal taste and sensitivities will always factor into assessment. I rate certain Trek for its contributions where others may not. I will always be a little proud of Janeway, B'Elanna, Kes and Seven. Tuvok is my all time favourite character of Trek. I even look to Chakotay with his Maori-esque moko and it hits a note. If Voyager Trek makes a social commentary it is one I recognise as family more than anything. As for Enterprise I am really enjoying a first viewing. It is exploration. I wouldn't (again personally) criticise either of these for their casting. If they have lacked substance then I must be shallow because I really do ponder the episodes from Tuvix to Equinox.

Discovery can do both. It can use its resources, its cast, its demographic, its representation as tools in good, adventurous, story telling. When people just see 'Janeway' as a Captain then the battle is won. They don't have to admire her but just accept her. I think viewers kind of felt accepting and relaxed with Stamets and Culber as simply a couple in a relationship. So I would be more optimistic. Just give the characters something to work with.

 

[Spot261]

When people just see 'Janeway' as a Captain then the battle is won. They don't have to admire her but just accept her. I think viewers kind of felt accepting and relaxed with Stamets and Culber as simply a couple in a relationship.

And therein lies my point, audiences in 1995 reacted very differently to those in 2018, Janeway as captain caused relatively little controversy, but contrast that to the social media backlash over DSC, even before it actually aired. It hasn't been the greatest TV show ever made thus far, but to say the audience reaction has been based solely on the quality would pretty much require burying one's head, shoulders and navel in the sand.

We live, as @jaime rightly points out, in very polarised times, times where conflict and controversy are constantly only a comment away. An awful lot of the show's criticism has focused on the diversity of the casting, often masking that by disingenuously drawing a link between the emphasis on casting and the weaknesses in scriptwriting. There is no real reason for this the scriptwriting will either stand or fall on it's own merits as you say, the show's diversity is not a factor in that either way.

Nonetheless if Star Trek is causing people to debate, causing them to question where they stand and why, if t is presenting positive images of minorities which even slightly call stereotypes into doubt then it is achieving on the commentary, the thing which has made it so important fifty years later where other shows have fell into obscurity.

 

[Refuge]

And therein lies my point, audiences in 1995 reacted very differently to those in 2018, Janeway as captain caused relatively little controversy, but contrast that to the social media backlash over DSC, even before it actually aired. It hasn't been the greatest TV show ever made thus far, but to say the audience reaction has been based solely on the quality would pretty much require burying one's head, shoulders and navel in the sand.

We live, as @jaime rightly points out, in very polarised times, times where conflict and controversy are constantly only a comment away. An awful lot of the show's criticism has focused on the diversity of the casting, often masking that by disingenuously drawing a link between the emphasis on casting and the weaknesses in scriptwriting. There is no real reason for this the scriptwriting will either stand or fall on it's own merits as you say, the show's diversity is not a factor in that either way.

Nonetheless if Star Trek is causing people to debate, causing them to question where they stand and why, if t is presenting positive images of minorities which even slightly call stereotypes into doubt then it is achieving on the commentary, the thing which has made it so important fifty years later where other shows have fell into obscurity.

No, Janeway being female was a big deal. Seven being sexy and relevant was a big deal.

I can't help but notice you dismissed Voyager for its casting. It's cast WAS diverse. You are in some ways illustrating what you are concerned about.

 

[Refuge]

We live in a polarised time of battlegrounds, where we ‘other’ people on ideological lines so thin sometimes as to be almost invisible. Then hostilities begin, and even essay length thoughts will be cut down to fit the reason to fight. DSC is both a victim of that, and uses its PR to continue that unfortunate paradigm...as well as the biggest thing it does to rile existing fans by seeming to edit the existence of previous Trek according to its needs.
Sisko as first ‘Black lead’ didn’t happen, Janeway as first ‘female lead’ didn’t happen, VOY had a more diverse cast of characters, had a woman co-creator (Jeri Taylor) but this things aren’t worth mentioning because DSC has to be first in all of these things.
About the only ‘diverse’ thing DSC can claim is having a gay guy as main cast character, and...well, they fridged his boyfriend. And in all of that, they barely managed to give their bridge crew names, whilst still not actually remotely being ‘lower decks’ but on a series scale.
I blame Hollywood of the 21st century. *shrug*
They even bungled poor Ash, and he was the best actor in the show.

I would guess most casual viewers are not hanging on every word from cast interviews but they are becoming very self-important and samey.

 

[Spot261]

No, Janeway being female was a big deal. Seven being sexy and relevant was a big deal.

I can't help but notice you dismissed Voyager for its casting. It's cast WAS diverse. You are in some ways illustrating what you are concerned about.

Was there a backlash to Janeway on the scale we are seeing to DSC? I've not dismissed VOY for it's casting, on the contrary it was very positive, but all I've mentioned was it's storytelling and allegory which is infamously weak.

Seven as sexy and relevant though?

Seriously? A male producer noted for his sexist attitudes putting an actress he was sleeping with in a skimpy outfit she objected to wearing and caused her serious medical problems in order to boost viewing figures. You see that as progress?

 

[Jinn]

Seven as sexy and relevant though?

Seriously? A male producer noted for his sexist attitudes putting an actress he was sleeping with in a skimpy outfit she objected to wearing and caused her serious medical problems in order to boost viewing figures. You see that as progress?

"Let's make it a Borg Babe!"

 

[Groppler Zorn]

The official Star Trek canon. Surprisingly for many it says nothing about continuity

Huh. It’s just a timeline. And a fairly broad one at that - that does come as a surprise lol!

I’d still argue that an event in that timeline (that could appear on it if the gradations were fine enough) is the design of the constitution class looking the way it did in TOS but that’s because I’m awkward haha!

Discovery has been savaged for it's "sjw agenda

I think I’ve seen that video - I seem to remember watching it a while ago. I’ll have to give it another watch - although I don’t always agree with Cullen’s interpretations of things - he did a doctor who video iirc and i was, shall we say, unconvinced.

The thing with the “sjw agenda” puzzles me, though. I don’t get that vibe from actually watching Discovery. Some things (c.f. Ghostbusters 2016) can feel like you’re being bashed over the head with an agenda through the writing, the characters, and the story. DSC didn’t feel like that to me. Its themes and characters did feel rooted in Star Trek in that they were diverse and inclusive. It only seems to be when people involved in making the show talk about it that these kinds of comments come up. Maybe they’re trying to remind themselves of how good a job they think they’ve done to distract us all from how uneven season 1 was?

In any case I’m looking forward to season 2 and I’m hoping that whatever was salvaged from Fuller’s original ideas for s1 can be left behind and DSC starts to come into its own. Maybe someone should grow a beard - that worked before.

 

[Spot261]

"Let's make it a Borg Babe!"

Yeah, we'll liberate this actress I'm sleeping with despite being her boss and against both her objections and medical advice by presented her as a piece of meat for teenage boys to leer over, but her boobs aren't big enough so we'll construct her some larger ones whilst we are at it.

Yey feminism.

 

[Spot261]

Huh. It’s just a timeline. And a fairly broad one at that - that does come as a surprise lol!

It's not even that really, just a list of the shows and movies, that's all the canon really is. Every other use of the word is generally fans applying their own interpretations to the concept, building it up into a bible of continuity and world building which simply doesn't reflect the official stance at all.

 

[jaime]

Was there a backlash to Janeway on the scale we are seeing to DSC? I've not dismissed VOY for it's casting, on the contrary it was very positive, but all I've mentioned was it's storytelling and allegory which is infamously weak.

Seven as sexy and relevant though?

Seriously? A male producer noted for his sexist attitudes putting an actress he was sleeping with in a skimpy outfit she objected to wearing and caused her serious medical problems in order to boost viewing figures. You see that as progress?

There was no backlash on this scale, because there wasn’t the current culture of rrrage on the nascent internet.

I think Braga is weirdo, with some...odd tastes, but in his defense, he didn’t put an actress he was dating in that suit, he started dating her after she started working on the show, and the suit was the result of a bunch of people...it also changed fairly quickly. The first version was actually quite...alien looking in some ways, with the shadow of her Borg body made underneath it by the corsetry pattern. It was, as you say, completely impractical and had to be toned back...whilst keeping the ‘sex sells’ approach no doubt inherent in the planning stages. DSC is not exactly innocent of this either...L’Rell is sexualised in appearance too.

VOYs storytelling and allegory, taken as a whole, is stronger than DSCs, even in its first season, only time will tell if that’s something DSC will catch upon.

It is ironic, that I dropped away from Trek during VoY, in part because of the silliness of Sevens PR introduction, but now find myself defending the show, because I have reassessed it in the intervening years, and caught up. DSC, ignoring its PR is about level with VOY in many ways, and uses it as a template in oh so many ways, while it benefits from getting more bang for its buck on the production itself...as well as a shedload more money. I would say VOY had a stronger cast out the gate though, as a group. It even had Star casting for ten minutes before Bujold ran screaming into the night. DSC kept its expensive movie people, but more money and different times I guess.

Edit to add: impractical costumes doing in the leads is also a thing with history...season one spandex did for the TNG crew too, and was about as revealing as Sevens attire is on her, but was on the male characters.