Social Commentary in this new Star Trek show

[Spot261]

Which is in reality exactly when the social commentary works best, when it doesn't seem forced. You enjoy the show, you relate to the characters and care about them therefore what happens to and around them leaves an impression. If the show is well crafted you are left pondering the questions without it necessarily being the most prominent thing you get from the show.

The important word there is "questions". The first season of TNG was notorious in particular for being hamfisted with the one liners about how society has advanced beyond the "primitive" 20th century and obviously judgmental with it. The best commentary is when you are left wondering about the events in the show and by proxy about the world we all live in.

 

[JD]

I doubt very much that anybody wants the show to just focus on social issues rather than stories, but social issues have been a big part of Trek so it makes sense that we would want that to be a part of the new show too.

 

[Rahul]

I want to see the riveting social commentary of "The Doomsday Machine," "The Enemy Within," and "The City On The Edge Of Forever."

Oh, those episodes were chock full of social commentary! "The Doomsday Machine" literally has it's subject theme in it's title. "The city on the edge of forever" was not just a love story, but a commentary on society, the course of history and the role of the individual in it's told through a personal angle. And "the enemy within" (not exactly being equal in quality to the other two) was a high-concept story about the good and evil within the main character.

But they were social commentary in the best way: You didn't notice them! They weren't hamfisted. They surely had an ISSUE to talk about. But you weren't spoonfed some talking-points by a new commenter.

That's the kind of social commentary I want to see in the new Trek: Interesting plots and stories, that have a deeper meaning if you delve into them, but that are entertaining on their own. I usually hate those clean-cut "message shows". I want to see writers engaging me in an interesting way. Don't shy away from moral ambiguity. Ask questions, and be brave enough not to answer them, but suggest multiple solutions and let the viewers decide. Hell, let the viewers argue on their own!

I think one thing "Captain America: Civil War" lately did very well was to give an issue, present different sides, and let the viewers decide. (It could have defined those positions a bit better). But I see arguments how this side makes so much more sense or I was with him, until this. And I notice, those points are different for everyone. I want to see such ambiguity in a new Trek show!

 

[Tim Walker]

Regarding Rahul's comments....

I was rewatching "Statistical Probabilities" (DS9). This was the episode that introduced the Jack Pack.

One reason this episode worked is rather than being hamfisted/preachy, characters within the story spoke of moral ambiguity.

Which is particularly remarkable because genetic enhancement is not yet an issue in the real world.

I'm thinking that Trek could try morally ambiguous stories with characters who are neurally different, but who still feel the pain of rejection by "normal people". But with a science fiction kind of different, rather than basing the story on an existing (untreated) disability. Come to think of it, what if a present day neural problem was addressed with, say, an implanted computer that interfaces with the brain? Maybe an implant enables a person to function in society, but turns him into a sort of idiot savant, in a way that disturbs others.

 

[Tim Walker]

I think you could imply the humanity of an Idiot Savant by giving him a pet tribble.

 

[TwoJakes]

" Captain Picard let's me drive the Enterprise, but just up and down the driveway."

 

[SPCTRE]

I can't wait to see them tackle the Bathroom Debate*

*

Spoiler

where are the bathrooms?

 

[Mudd]

Oh, those episodes were chock full of social commentary

So's a Ouija board.

 

[Trekkin]

I want to see the riveting social commentary "The Enemy Within."

In every man, there's a little rapist just waiting to burst out?

I think a lot of people mix up writers purposefully creating social commentary, and a piece of writing simply reflecting its writer. Trek did both, and probably will keep doing so.

 

[Mudd]

I think a lot of people mix up writers purposefully creating social commentary, and a piece of writing simply reflecting its writer.

Exactly so.

 

[Spot261]

In every man, there's a little rapist just waiting to burst out?

Rather worryingly there are people out there who actually believe this.

 

[TwoJakes]

Given the school teachers who've molested their students over the years, apparently there a little rapist in women too.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh, those episodes were chock full of social commentary! "The Doomsday Machine" literally has it's subject theme in it's title. "The city on the edge of forever" was not just a love story, but a commentary on society, the course of history and the role of the individual in it's told through a personal angle. And "the enemy within" (not exactly being equal in quality to the other two) was a high-concept story about the good and evil within the main character.

But they were social commentary in the best way: You didn't notice them! They weren't hamfisted. They surely had an ISSUE to talk about. But you weren't spoonfed some talking-points by a new commenter.

That's the kind of social commentary I want to see in the new Trek: Interesting plots and stories, that have a deeper meaning if you delve into them, but that are entertaining on their own. I usually hate those clean-cut "message shows". I want to see writers engaging me in an interesting way. Don't shy away from moral ambiguity. Ask questions, and be brave enough not to answer them, but suggest multiple solutions and let the viewers decide. Hell, let the viewers argue on their own!

I think one thing "Captain America: Civil War" lately did very well was to give an issue, present different sides, and let the viewers decide. (It could have defined those positions a bit better). But I see arguments how this side makes so much more sense or I was with him, until this. And I notice, those points are different for everyone. I want to see such ambiguity in a new Trek show!

So, like Abrams Trek, then? It might be different for everyone, and everyone will read different facets in to a show or film.

I personally do not see any specific "commentary" on "Doomsday Machine" aside from the "Ahab complex" that Decker expresses. But, I also know that i react differently than most to films and TV media. I always saw "social commentary" as commentary that could be broadly applied to a specific society or societal problem but without calling it out as such. This is different than any meaning, inferred or implied, that the audience member may take from the piece.

Maybe it's just me, but I see social commentary and personal meaning or application as two different things.

 

[Trekkin]

Given the school teachers who've molested their students over the years, apparently there a little rapist in women too.

No. In reality there's a little rapist in every individual person who happens to be a rapist.

I'm going to just file this whole interaction under 'missed the damn point.'

I personally do not see any specific "commentary" on "Doomsday Machine" aside from the "Ahab complex" that Decker expresses.

I don't see much commentary at all. I do see a whole lot of 'it's 1966, and by God am I scared of WMD's and mutually assured destruction.' It uses a familiar (and no doubt a personal) fear for the villain (which obviously shows that the author considers it 'bad'), but it doesn't directly address the actual issue like Dr Stangelove or even Gojira had already done years before the episode came along.

Kinda like you now see a lot of 9/11 imagery in things that aren't really 'commenting' on it. I'm fucking looking at you, Man of Steel.

 

[Spot261]

The idea of a society destroyed by their own superweapon seems a little more specific and topical than buildings collapsing. Dr Strangelove may have done it better, but that doesn't detract from the point being there.

 

[Trekkin]

Does every movie need Dakota Fanning shrieking 'Is it terrorists!?' in order for a director to be 'specific' in what they're (purposefully or not) conveying?

The issue at stake in Doomsday Machine isn't a society destroying itself by war. It's never even confirmed on screen that (a) the Planet Killer is a Doomsday Machine (outside the title), nor (b) that it wiped out the civilisation that created it. Kirk's spitballing is a 10 second asterix to the story's primary messages of: 'Be thrilled' and 'Buy our sponsors detergent.'

As for specific - man destroying itself by misusing its own creation is literally the plot of the 'first' science fiction novel. Hubris is to science fiction, what masks and knives are to slasher movies.

 

[Rahul]

So, like Abrams Trek, then? It might be different for everyone, and everyone will read different facets in to a show or film.

I personally do not see any specific "commentary" on "Doomsday Machine" aside from the "Ahab complex" that Decker expresses. But, I also know that i react differently than most to films and TV media. I always saw "social commentary" as commentary that could be broadly applied to a specific society or societal problem but without calling it out as such. This is different than any meaning, inferred or implied, that the audience member may take from the piece.

Maybe it's just me, but I see social commentary and personal meaning or application as two different things.

No, absolutely not like Abrams Trek! The exact opposite to be precise.

"Doomsday Machine"'s entire plot rests on a premise: What if the superweapons we create go rogue? It is even spelled out by a Kirk speech. Most of the episode then is a mindless action romp to stop said bad thing from happening.

If you want to compare to a movie: Crimson Tide is an extremely good example. The whole basic premise is built on the (frightening, but then true) idea, that each and every submarine captain has the whole authority to start a nuclear attack (and thereby war) on the enemy. The "plot" of the film then is an action adventure to stop said thing from happening.

All of these cases are mostly action/adventure type stories. But while Abrams Trek entirely relies on "stoping the comic-book villain", the other ones containing "social commentary", the whole premise of said adventure is enabled by a real-world problem which thereby is adressed.

The good "social commentary" episodes usually don't need a badguy to drive the plot (although they sometimes have an "antagonist", but he is usually neither the focus-point of the story, nor bent on evil - just doing what he thinks is the right thing), because the real life problem enables already enough conflict for the characters to handle and bring to a fictional solution.

 

[Go-Captain]

I can't wait to see them tackle the Bathroom Debate*

*

Spoiler

where are the bathrooms?

They use site to site beaming.

 

[Zonker]

I'm all for social commentary in Trek but one thing I hope we don't get is allegory minorities. If they're going to do issues like racism or homophobia I'd rather them just do it head on.

 

[fireproof78]

No, absolutely not like Abrams Trek! The exact opposite to be precise.

"Doomsday Machine"'s entire plot rests on a premise: What if the superweapons we create go rogue? It is even spelled out by a Kirk speech. Most of the episode then is a mindless action romp to stop said bad thing from happening.

If you want to compare to a movie: Crimson Tide is an extremely good example. The whole basic premise is built on the (frightening, but then true) idea, that each and every submarine captain has the whole authority to start a nuclear attack (and thereby war) on the enemy. The "plot" of the film then is an action adventure to stop said thing from happening.

All of these cases are mostly action/adventure type stories. But while Abrams Trek entirely relies on "stoping the comic-book villain", the other ones containing "social commentary", the whole premise of said adventure is enabled by a real-world problem which thereby is adressed.

The good "social commentary" episodes usually don't need a badguy to drive the plot (although they sometimes have an "antagonist", but he is usually neither the focus-point of the story, nor bent on evil - just doing what he thinks is the right thing), because the real life problem enables already enough conflict for the characters to handle and bring to a fictional solution.

Respectfully, I will disagree. I think that Abrams Trek has villains who think they are doing the right thing (Nero to protect Romulus and Marcus to defend the Federation). Then you have the action romp to stop them

Oh, and I think Abrams Trek is wholly steeped in real world problems that are being addressed.

As I said, social commentary is not something I see happening in every Trek episode, but I think that it is there for people to chew on and consider. They are not always overt, but can be quiet, insightful or deeply personal.