Good morning people. Not nearly as delighted with the discourse this morning, as much of it not only misses my points, but conveniently leaves me looking like a jerk. I think people are happier to jump to what they think I mean than what I actually said, and drawing many accusatory assumptions along the way. Perhaps I can clarify, because, at the risk of offending anybody, I’m a bit offended myself. Maybe we can converse instead of condemn.
gblews, I literally started by saying that I did NOT expect her to know jack about Trek, and yet I stand by my annoyance that she declares with a vague and hollow authority to know what she’s talking about. She should have kept it vague, rather than generalizing about a thousand different stories she doesn’t know, and ironically alienating some of the people who she’s trying to endear herself to. She doesn’t seem to know what she’s talking about beyond a few sentiments that are as old as TOS.
My point about DS9 was that even if the entire (24 ep?) last season wasn’t a single arc, it was built on a series with unprecedented continuity and relevance, and in all ways became a more serialized show than the disjointed, disappointing, and brief season 1 of STD.
As far as what she ACTUALLY said...well, she didn’t say much, but she speaks a language I’ve heard before, and casually lumps the idea of show criticism in with people being behind the times. It’s never a good idea to tell people that if they don’t like you, they are misguided. As someone above put it, Discovery shouldn’t give itself so much credit.
Up until now, I admit being perturbed, but it’s the next bit I’d love an apology for. You’ve made yourself comfy on the high ground while putting ugly words in my mouth, and wrongfully so. The idea that I was displeased with having anything but white men on the cast is your invention, and not appreciated. I need to be told, much to my presumed chagrin, that entertainment isn’t the domain of white guys anymore? I need to get with the times? I’m bellyaching that it’s not all white guys? (Also, the alternative to almost all white guys needn’t be almost none, and having a different majority isn’t even close to what the word diversity means). Not sure where to begin with this condescending character assassination you piled on. Even assuming you only read one comment I made, how you can leap to all of these dark implications is beyond me. I’d appreciate a retraction, but if you don’t think you owe me one then I will get over it.
The long and short of my objection comes down to this: if STD isn’t a great show, (and it isn’t), then I don’t care if it has a positive social agenda. It feels as though the first thing written on the first wipe board at the first story meeting was the word ‘diversity’, when in fact it should’ve been the phrase “essential Star Trek”, which, by the way, is already organically diverse, and didn’t need someone to introduce the idea.
Furthermore, of course diversity isn’t inherently feeding quality, that’s why affirmative action is a farce. At any given moment, when you prioritize choosing someone for their race instead of the quality of their character, you are just being political. MLK knew to judge people by their character, so maybe you should as well.
. You are championing diversity OVER quality, so don’t pretend to mean the opposite.
Spot261, you heaped on some harsh implications yourself. You don’t like my point that the priorities are all wrong on a show that can’t claim to be good Star Trek, but CAN claim to have a decent couple of gay characters and some fancy set design. You have to say that it is I, intolerant as SMG apparently thinks I am, who cannot have any reason to dislike the show other than some deep rooted prejudice. Gee, thanks. I already stated that I found the dr to be one of the best characters, and that gay characters should of course be in Star Trek, and that I liked many of the scenes with the gay couples in them, but I also said that the show wore its’ social agenda rather clumsily on its sleeve while committing the only real sin I see in the show’s core: not being very good. Pairing a lack of quality with misplaced priorities is a bad recipe. I’d be perfectly happy with a great Trek series with a bunch of gay characters, or without. What I’m not happy with is wracking my brains for what they did well, coming up with CGI and a decent gay couple...and very little else.
I clarified my statement that the heavy handedness wasn’t necessarily on screen, but in making it clear that socially progressive messages were an aggressive priority, but quality Trek was not. It felt clunky, and it felt preachy. Yeah, that’s something of a Trek tradition, especially if you look at things like the black and white faced people from TOS, but we’ve come a long way. We don’t expect cardboard sets, or paper rocks, and I don’t expect to laugh and cringe like the old days when the ham fisted moral of a badly aged Star Trek ep hits me.
So no, I don’t wish for a show with less gay guys and more white guys. I wish for a show that is excellent, and when I don’t get that, I want to know what went wrong, and no, having gay guys isn’t the issue. The issue is priorities. You can take a comment recently made by the departed show runner (who, by the way, I really like, and yeah, I know is gay, and no, I don’t care). He said that he wants people to know when they see his work that a gay guy did it. Much as I respect the man, I think he’s in danger of juggling his showrunning duties too loosely. I think this show is often inorganic and inelegant with its self aware messaging. As a depiction of diversity, it’s pretty good, and as Trek, it’s very disappointing.
In conclusion, you kinda missed my point and talked down to me. “Can you make any remotely coherent case...” isn’t really all that nice a thing to ask. I don’t mind clarifying and discussing, but I’m not interested in the accusations and animosity.
