Except when there's a snow storm and they have to cancel =D
Paramount apparently still doesn't get it...
- Thread starter IRW Bloodwing
- Start date
This is exactly correct.
These new shows are desperately trying to ACT like they're SOOO tolerant, by shoving as many minorities and LBGTQ characters everywhere, even in situations that make no sense, and focusing heavily on writing dialogue that makes it VERY apparent just how LOVING and TOLERANT of minorities they are, but this simply is so obvious to someone who looks and reads between the lines. It's obvious the writers and showrunners want to get credit and act like they're totally liberal, even if it may be possible that deep down, secretly, they may be not.
It's entirely different than how it was back in 1968 with the "first interracial" kiss, a move to make the "majority" uncomfortable and FORCE change, or at least show that the future MUST change and no longer be bigoted.
Same with Jadzia kissing another female trill. It wasn't done much back then and when it was done in ds9, it was done as if its completely normal,no different than a male and female getting together. The story of why two female trills kissed was also well executed as well. Those kisses were not meant to be pretense. They genuinely wanted to show they aren't bigoted, and that the future shouldn't be either. Thats how it comes across, because it's easy to read between the lines and recognize pretense, vs genuine honest viewpoints of a writer/producer/showrunner.
But in STD, it's just so obvious that it's pretentious, meant to act like they're such a "FORWARD THINKING"/"TOLERANT" SHOW in a desperate attempt to gain praise and cheap followers, who FALL for their pretense and CONTINUE to watch the show only because it's stuffed with as many LGBTQ/MINORITY characters and dialogue, rather than an ACTUAL good story with ACTUAL genuine compassion and tolerance for everyone, including minorities or groups who are burdened by bigots. When I watch new trek, it's EXTREMELY obvious it's being pretentious when it comes to minorities, whereas from tos to Berman Era, you could tell they were trying to normalize it to the masses because they genuinely cared.
That says everything right there.
What exactly about the Stamets/Culber relationship is pretentious? Specifics.
I mean, the complaint the OP made in the thread I referenced was essentially about white people inadvertently appropriating Asian identity for their characters without actually respecting Asian culture. Somehow I doubt that's a concern you have.
Oh? And what situations are those? Because I'm not aware of any situations where it makes no sense for people who are not white or who are queer to be present.
Could you please tell me which sense those might be?
No. There's nothing pretentious about Paul's and Hugh's marriage. They're just a married couple, and their marriage is treated as no different from any other relationship on DIS. Same thing with the rest of the characters.
It is of course somewhat I ironic that where I called myself out for initially not wanting to listen to an Asian poster's criticisms of how white writers are not fully respecting Asian culture when they depict Asian characters, instead @IAmAParrot took that as a license to whine about there being too many queer folk and brown folk.
It's not pretentious. I have no doubt when I see those two, that they're genuinely in love. What I clearly stated, was that sometimes, writers or producers or whatever, will forcefully include as many characters, dialogue, or scenes possible to prove just how caring and open and understanding of minority groups they are, in an attempt to win favor with them, and because they see it as an easy way to gain loyal followers by appeasing them because they realize by representing minorities by just shoving as many scenes or minority characters as possible, they will easily acquire lifelong loyal fans who will keep supporting them simply because support for their groups isn't everywhere, so whenever they get support, they will continue to be fans and be loyal to the show which included them.
So it'd not the characters im referring to, it's the people who forced their inclusion. We already had two female leads at the start of discovery both minorities, it was also in 2017,-and we all know what kind of times those were, it's very obvious their inclusion was done to appear "forward thinking" without ever having to write a single character or scene that displayed the forward thinking future through the action or story.
I simply can easily detect whenever something is FORCED and probably fake, vs something that's genuine, and if forced, then forced for the right reasons.
In 2017, gay rights were established already. Most people knew of the plight of the LGBTQ and it was a given that people would show their support and understanding of them. Therefore not including them especially in trek, would look bad. But then there's also going overboard with it, and that betrays the true reason of their inclusion.
But when the Kirk/uhura kiss or jadzia/female trill kiss were forced to be shown, it was during a time where such things WEREN'T expected and people were bigoted, so the forced scenes were included to force people to accept these things, but by the time of discovery, it was already a given to show support for minorities or LGBTQ, so not including them . would be bad. But inclusing them too much and or never allowing them to be wrong or make mistakes,clearly indicates a lack of genuinity
Last edited:
Wow! Just fucking wow!
Listen up people - minorites are apparently extra gullible or desperate so will love any old shite!
As a member of a minority (albeit a far less persecuted one than many) might I kindly ask you to take your I'll informed and offensive bullshit elsewhere
In 2017, gay rights were established already. Most people knew of the plight of the LGBTQ and it was a given that people would show their support and understanding of them. Therefore not including them especially in trek, would look bad. But then there's also going overboard with it, and that betrays the true reason of their inclusion.
But when the Kirk/uhura kiss or jadzia/female trill kiss were forced to be shown, it was during a time where such things WEREN'T expected and people were bigoted, so the forced scenes were included to force people to accept these things, but by the time of discovery, it was already a given to show support for minorities or LGBTQ, so not including them . would be bad. But inclusing them too much and or never allowing them to be wrong or makemistakes,clearly indicates a lack of genuinity
You're acting very much like Sci pointed out and I also.pointed out earlier. You're finding either something small in my post, or simply misunderstanding my post without a second thought or care so you can throw your "ist's" around since you know the moment you do everyone in 2023 will jump to your defense and attack the person you accused with zero evidence.
Read carefully what I wrote and my clarification here. I'm talking about something entirely different than what you force yourself to imagine so you can appear like some victim under attack by a "baddie".
You're the guy who in 1966 would be saying the same about having blacks, asians, women and a RUSSIAN (literally the cold war enemy) on the bridge, on the command team and treated as an equal. "It makes so sense they should all be white" you'd be saying. Because you're saying the exact same thing. Sexuality is just like skin colour. It varies. It exists. It's just there.
Why are you so threatened that they show it?
I didn't say how it's portrayed. I even mentioned I find their acting and feelings and portrayal genuine. It helps that they're also gay in the first place.
What I was referring to is why they're portrayed and the circumstances surrounding it
I think you have failed to understand, or you couldn't understand, or you misunderstood, or you didn't want to understand.
I clearly stated that in the 60s, the portrayal of minorities much less an "interracial" kiss at the time was a bold move, because it wasn't a given, and because Roddenberry wanted to force the audience to come to terms with a more open and tolerant future. The same applies to jadzia in the 90s.
But in 2017, everyone was already shoving all kinds of minorities and lbtq as leads, allowing them to always win, never be wrong, even get away with being scumbags as characters, and still be portrayed in the best light regardless of their words or actions.
I'm saying that these days, you have to question who is including minorities/LGBTQ and why. It's highly likely that many who include these characters or plot lines, may be doing it because they feel forced to, and not because they want to, and such things can be understood depending on how the character is written.
In the 60s, uhura was telling Kirk she's scared, she wasn't a Mary sue. Jadzia was a science officer, who also had limits. And when she died, she died.
But today, it seems minorities are given leads, are never wrong, don't die or are returned to life immediately, essentially have superpowers, etc. That's my problem. It's seems forced. It's clearly trying to pander to a community who can "cancel" someone or a show for being non inclusive, so some writers/showrunners/authors/companies go overboard with their minority characters and make them invincible, always right, justify all their bad choices even if it harms other, etc.
That's what's bad. Humanity unfortunately is corruptible, fragile, emotional, etc. If you want to write a minority character especially as a lead, fine, but don't disrespect minorities by showing them as succesful superheroes in fiction only. I would find it disrespectful. Id feel like the implication is that they want to imply that minorities can only fantasize about being larger than life, by only being portrayed that way in media. It also is disrespectful because it feels like they are doing this out of compulsion and or pity.
If you want to show respect and understanding with minorities, then make them just as human as anyone else. Allow them to have consequences for their actions..write them as having to overcome hardship in order to learn of their strength. Write them to show they also make mistakes, and learn from them. But in media today, minority characters are written like fantasy characters who are amazing, and the rest written as buffoons, or evil, who are over the top and always lose. It's pretentious and insulting. Thats what I mean. Remember how well data and the doctor were written, and they were minorities in the trek universe. How about Harry Kim? What about the female black captain in TNG's conspiracy? She succumbed to the evil bug aliens. But if this was written today, minorities would never be allowed to.be written to be taken over by aliens, or they'd be somehow.immune to it. Or be able to.easily resist. This type of pandering is extremely insulting and disrespectful. If I was a minority, and stories were written like this about me. I'd see it for the disrespectful, fake, pretentious, pandering that it really is, and realize they write us this way, as fantasy characters who are heroes who always win and are never wrong, becsuse they think we are like babies who will quickly get upset and start name calling or canceling them.
For example, I remember when black panther came out. I had lots of experience in black culture and had lots of.black friends, so I immediately knew the movie was definitely made and hyped in such a way to pander to the black audience.
So as I wrote this I Googled "black panther movie pandering", and there are lots of posts from black peolle themselves mentioning the same thing, the whole movie wants to pander to African Americans, in a sjw attempt to appear "woke" or something
I think the best way to stop intolerance and bigotry, is to stop crying or complaining to the BIGOTS in the first place, because that makes them feel like they're winning. It's a mistake. What needs to be done is that everyone treats each other with respect, and bigots when identified, need to simply be ignored. If they hold positions of power or authority, need to be ousted, then ignored, so we can all focus on the REAL issues, getting rid of either capitalism, or the whole concept of "classes" in the first place. People complain about racism, but the wealthy classes who are minorities, are barely if not at all affected by racism or "classists". What needs to be done is classes need to go away. And so should peolle who do no work essentially yet have more money than you can spend in hundreds of lifetimes. There has to be a salary or profit cap, wages should go higher, greedflation must be severely punished, etc. Then we would have the society people need but don't recognize that that's what they want
Last edited:
And I wasn't addressing you, nor was I commenting on your particular point of view when making my observation.
I'm gonna guess you don't know many LGBTQI+ people? Because I do, and just like in Discovery, they're just there doing their thing like regular people where the only difference is the gender of the person they're loving.
I imagine in the 60's, it seemed just as forced to have such a mixed-race crew and a Russian all working together. Just wait and see when we get a Muslim Trek character, and you'll get an idea what it must have been like back then.
It's only "forced" because it's not the norm for you and what you watch.
Yes, Michael Burnham is always right. She only helped start a war that killed thousands and spent years redeeming herself. She's not even gay and you're mad! But it's okay when the black woman say "I'm scared" and let the white man save the day for them, right?
Too fucking right lad - really well said
Honestly, The Culbet Stamets relationship was, though I think Stamets could be abrasive at times (which is honestly not that big of a problem, there have been plenty of prickly characters over the years).
It was the early tunnel focusing on Burnham to the exclusion of other character that was my main complaint.
However, I just hope the lessons from Discovery and other new Trek paves the way forward.
It was the early tunnel focusing on Burnham to the exclusion of other character that was my main complaint.
However, I just hope the lessons from Discovery and other new Trek paves the way forward.
It's almost like she was the star of the show or something.
There's so much viscous irony dripping off these two paragraphs that one could bottle it and make millions selling it to restaurant chains for cooking oil.
Similar threads
