In all seriousness, all laughing about the joke I was initially responding to put one side for a moment, I do think a Trump-like political character on a Trek show could be interesting if handled right..
Social Commentary in this new Star Trek show
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
In all seriousness, all laughing about the joke I was initially responding to put one side for a moment, I do think a Trump-like political character on a Trek show could be interesting if handled right..
^^
It won't be handled right.
It won't be handled right.
Which is why is why I used the word ''COULD'' when I made my original post as I'm not convinced that it would be. BUT if it were than it could be.
“Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been.”
Pretty much.
That's a chore for the writers. One of the reasons the federation presidents come off so weak and clueless (imo) is that then the heroes will look just that much more capable when they save the day (and the federation).
Often they get played.
The president wouldn't have to be made the center or hero of the story, but at the same time they could be depicted as possessing both knowledge and wisdom. Which up to now they haven't.
A example would be something like Admiral Nechayev, never the prime focus of the story, she was alway competent, in charge and never the fool.
Indeed, which is why I fear using a Trump stand in for a presidential figure. It would end up becoming a parody of itself in the process, and just be used to make the heroes look good.
I'm not interested in that sort of cheap drama shenanigans. Regardless of my political leanings, that isn't interesting stories to watch. So, as you said, I would like a leader who is wise and knowledgeable about the situation. I think one of the strengths of SG-1 is the fact that they showed the President being briefed on the situation and having to make up his own mind. He wasn't spoon fed or taken for a dummy, even as both sides tried to play him.
Star Trek could learn from that portrayal.
I started to, but it didn't hold my interest. From friends descriptions of the novel, the federation government is a unimaginative Human based western-style government with a small number of differences. What you would find in modern day America or Europe.
Given that Humans are a minority within the federation, I would prefer something with a more alien "feel" to it, more exotic, less conventionally western.
I hadn't heard about NBC wanting more Blacks in their shows, and even if Uhura was barely featured people like Whoopi Goldberg show that her just being on the bridge meant a lot to a lot of Black people. Sure Checkov might have been added to give them a Davy Jones like character, but they made him Russian as a way to show that we had moved beyond the then ongoing Cold War animosity between Russia and the US and it's allies.
EDIT: Articles of the Federation is one of the best Star Trek novels ever, if you have any interest in Star Trek politics it's a must read. The president who stars in the book actually went on to be a pretty major recurring characters in the quite of few of the books written after AoTF.
None. I know social commentary has historically been a part of the Star Trek franchise, but I really hope it can be avoided in the future. I'd love to see this series focus heavily on the exploration of new life, and new civilizations.
I love TNG, but the constant references to how barbaric mankind once was, compared to how perfect Starfleet is (will be), is easily the worst part of the show.
Writers inserting their own personal politics into the show will only serve to divide the audience. We get enough of that in real life, from our real life politicians and mass media. We don't need anymore of it in.
I love TNG, but the constant references to how barbaric mankind once was, compared to how perfect Starfleet is (will be), is easily the worst part of the show.
Writers inserting their own personal politics into the show will only serve to divide the audience. We get enough of that in real life, from our real life politicians and mass media. We don't need anymore of it in.
So not " Star Trek", then?
So not "Star Trek", then?
The whole "exploration of new life, and new civilizations" thing exists so the writers can make social commentary on real life and insert their personal politics into the show. It's never been about actual exploring.
Yes it has. As stated in a previous thread, Gene envisioned Star Trek as a Wagon Train to the Stars type show. It was a space opera filled with swashbuckling adventure. Kirk was Gene's Horatio Hornblower.
Mr. Roddenberry of course infused the show with his own personal beliefs, but the age of classic liberalism Gene belonged to is long dead. The nonsense being perpetuated by the new Left has little to no real connection to Gene's vision, and is best left in this dumpster fire of a century we are living in now.
This is a nice article on Gene's politics in Star Trek, and even gives an example of Gene's frustration with the direction the franchise was going (both in film and on television), shortly before his death.
http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-politics-of-star-trek/
I think Gene would be more than happy with the "new left". If you read Gene's thoughts on Star Trek's development you'll find social commentary was as much apart of it as Hornblower and Wagon Train. Wagon Train being one of the Adult Westerns he wished to emulate. Social commentary was part and parcel to the Adult Western sub genre. Gene's ideas evolved as the show progressed and so did the show's point of view and other peoples ideas (writers/producers/actors/) ideas were presented as well. So it wasn't just Gene shaping Star Trek.
Gene was a 60s liberal and embraced the hedonism and excesses of that time along with the progressive ideas. His blue print for Star Trek in the 80s followed those ideas even though the times had moved on and that era was more conservative, while Gene moved more left. (while never losing sight of the dollar sign.
) TNG from the get go was very much a "New Left" show. So I'm not sure I'd call him a classical liberal. The article you linked seems to be an opinion piece. One person's interpretation of the relationship between Trek and Liberalism. For an article that show Gene's dissatisfaction with Trek in his latter years, it's woefully short on actual quotes by the man.
Last edited:
I think Gene would be more than happy with the "new left". If you read Gene's thoughts on Star Trek's development you'll find social commentary was as much apart of it as Hornblower and Wagon Train. Wagon Train being one of the Adult Westerns he wished to emulate. Social commentary was part and parcel to the Adult Western sub genre. Gene's ideas evolved as the show progressed and so did the show's point of view and other peoples ideas (writers/producers/actors/) ideas were presented as well. So it wasn't just Gene shaping Star Trek.
Gene was a 60s liberal and embraced the hedonism and excesses of that time along with the progressive ideas. His blue print for Star Trek in the 80s followed those ideas even though the times had moved on and that era was more conservative, while Gene moved more left. (while never losing sight of the dollar sign.
The article you linked seems to be an opinion piece. One person's interpretation of the relationship between Trek and Liberalism. For an article that show Gene's dissatisfaction with Trek in his latter years, it's woefully short on actual quotes by the man.
Of course it is "one person's interpretation." So is yours. If you think TNG, a show developed in the 80's, is somehow in step with the so-called progressivism of modern day new leftism, more power to you. I guess I missed the episode featuring "micro aggressions", "white privelage", "safe spaces", so-called "cis genders", and bathroom inequality.
Whatever. I'm done with this conversation.
Well, that was rather abrupt and unexpected. So much for discussion and debate.
But to anyone out there, yes I do think TNG tried to be a progressive New Left show. Issues like "white privilege", "cis gender" and "micro aggression" would fit in with TNG and Star Trek in general. Of course they would be be couched in "alien" cultures but obvious to those who bother to read between the lines.
But to anyone out there, yes I do think TNG tried to be a progressive New Left show. Issues like "white privilege", "cis gender" and "micro aggression" would fit in with TNG and Star Trek in general. Of course they would be be couched in "alien" cultures but obvious to those who bother to read between the lines.
Last edited:
If a white guy married an Asian woman in the 1950s, idiots would have been burning their TV sets, and picketing the local affiliate station.
It wasn't a thing, at all, but seriously Kieko, were you wearing that Wedding dress ironically or did you lose a bet with your grandmother that 600 years ago is relevant and matters on YOUR WEDDING DAY?
I think Kieko would have been allowed to murder Data if she had ever discovered, that her wedding was in an episode called Data's Day.
It wasn't a thing, at all, but seriously Kieko, were you wearing that Wedding dress ironically or did you lose a bet with your grandmother that 600 years ago is relevant and matters on YOUR WEDDING DAY?
I think Kieko would have been allowed to murder Data if she had ever discovered, that her wedding was in an episode called Data's Day.
Any story is going to rely heavily on a writer's experience and political leanings.
A
Amaris
Guest
Fortunately, by the 24th century it seems that a kinder, gentler, more compassionate humanity accepted these issues into its heart and resolved them. No longer would one be shamed for being transgender, or for using a restroom some fool felt they didn't deserve to use. Instead, we would have a humanity where progressive ideology would rule the day, and the backwards ultra-conservatism we see in the United States and all around the world would be at the fringes of society, but even their voice would be heard.
Gene would have greatly approved of that.
Similar threads
