• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The lack of national diversity in the Discovery cast...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are the roles of men or white people limited in any way? Are they struggling to have their voices heard? No, no reasonable person would think that. It’s a different situation.

Are there no white transsexuals? Are they not men or women on completing their transition?
Are all white people the same? Are all men?
I agree with a lot of things you say in a lot of posts, but sometimes, understandably, certain posts seem to come more from a place heavier in reaction than in discussion.
Nyotarules seems in their post to simply be pointing out that truly open thinking means some of these things don’t apply, that straightjacketing certain roles and fencing them off as ‘should only be allowed for’ is not something that necessarily works in art. We have seen a woman play Bob Dylan in recent years. We have seen a furore around Zoe Saldana playing Nina Simone in recent years. Real people, played by actors. We have seen the (IMO) badly informed furore around Scarlett Johanssen playing an established fictional character just this past year, with almost nothing taking the art of the film or its predecessors into consideration.
Your argument about men, and white men, won’t always work..firstly because white and men covers a ton of the planet, all of whom have very different experiences (and a bunch of countries disagree on what constitutes white and black anyway...America seems to issues some kind of paint guide like battleships at birth, so far as we can tell from outside, where Spain and Portugal are both mostly white, but in America you seem to have the various South Americans in some whole other category.) so what we are really talking about here is Hollywood, not even all of the U.S. and also because of the paradox in saying ‘you can’t do something because of identifier x’ being seen as an O.K thing.
I am, for example, behind the idea that a new adaptation of James Bond could be a Black Actor (where I differ is I think it should be Adrian Lester not Idris Elba.) which under the ‘x must be played by x and never y’ thinking simply wouldn’t be allowed.
Men have played women since the dawn of time, Women have also played men off an again, for a long time. Sometimes that’s because of various things like availability, sometimes it’s about the best person for the job (I doubt anyone was annoyed that Philadelphia starred Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas, because it sure as hell wouldn’t have won Oscars without them, and that’s a whole different kind of visibility...neither of those actors are gay.)
What this is really about is ‘mainstream’ media, and what that means is the U.S and Hollywood, from western perspectives. Which means you are dealing with that culture.
The good news is, Hollywood seems to be embracing precisely what you want, the bad news is it always takes time, and it takes really talented people to break through. More so if there are cultural or religious barriers. One of the most popular and talented actors in Hollywood is Denzel Washington, and he didn’t get there because of the colour of his skin or taking ‘Black only’ roles. He got there by being a damn good actor, regardless of whatever little box some people like to pit people in (I think he’s awesome in Much Ado About Nothing, and his brother in that is played by Keanu Reeves, and he marries a white girl, somewhere in Italy, surrounded by English people and a few Americans, in a story by a very dead English dude. But hey, Shakespeare has always been good for ignoring boxes in its casting. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen are from Yorkshire, Shatner is Canadian, and yet they are all RSC Players of some flavour.)
The answer is not more boxes. The answer is more actors, and yes, more opportunities and open-minded people. It may mean working on stage work, it may mean independent films, and the making the jump to mainstream...because that’s basically how every other ‘group’ in acting ever did it, even in Hollywood, perhaps especially in Hollywood. It’s just been so long that people forget that. Hollywood was built on poor immigrants, and people working their way up, and the weird power that comes from rich people wanting new toys and business. Look at United Artists and it’s origins.
The struggle is a real thing, but fortunately there’s a template in place. Everything else just takes time and work.
Edit: just to clarify, Denzel Washington marrying a white fiel should have had bit about how some people would get their knickers in a twist over that, idiots, but then my thought process whirred on a bit as I typed.
 
It does seem to make for an odd situation of segregation if taken to its conclusion. Can white guys only make movies about white guys because a movie like Black Panther should be helmed by a black person, Wonder Woman by a woman, and so on?

Should RZA not be able to make a movie like Man with the Iron Fists because he's appropriating Asian culture? Hell, the whole Wu-Tang Clan should never have happened.
 
I don't want to blunder into something that I might well be simplistic about. However if there is a trans role and especially a positive one it would have more relevance, in my opinion, IF a trans actor or actress took on the role. It's not that another actor or actress could not play the role. The roles are really almost non-existent anyway and I don't know but adding authenticity is a good thing.
 
Didn't let that stop me, just look how many eyerolls I got. :)
It's sometimes hard to understand I guess when you're not living a different life the significance of our influences. I was thinking that a trans actor/actress portraying a trans role would have more heart. Just like you don't need a parent to play the part of someone who has lost a child but I'm sure they would tap into something far more real. THAT being said a trans actor/actress portraying a role without a trans story should also be a given.

Now I'm leaving the thread ;)
 
The whole point is that it's not about me. I'm not the one who's being discriminated against. But I have enough basic human decency and empathy that I don't want others to be discriminated against either. That's not politics, that's just not being a selfish jerk.

Besides, it's easy enough to recognize that if people with diverse viewpoints are creating fiction and art, it makes the fiction and art more interesting, richer, deeper. If it's all coming from just one point of view, that makes it more limited and boring. So more diversity among the creators of fiction and art is good for everybody.

What, do you think "art" is some magic thing that wafts down from the heavens? Art is a job. It's something people work to create, something they get paid to do. You only get to enjoy it because they worked hard to create it, and because they were given the opportunity to create it. So you should show some consideration for their labor, just like you should show consideration for the labor of the people who grew the food you eat, made the clothes you wear, built and maintained the roads you drive on, built and maintained the electrical grid you depend on for power, etc.

Seriously????? Star Trek has always, always been a work of social and political allegory. It's promoted equality and racial and gender inclusion, spoken out against prejudice and war and economic injustice, you name it. I was just talking a few weeks ago to Twilight Zone expert Mark Dawidziak, who used to cover Star Trek and other SF extensively for Cinefantastique Magazine back in the day, and he was telling me how much Gene Roddenberry was influenced by Rod Serling's use of fantasy and science fiction as a way to sneak controversial political ideas past the television censors, by disguising commentary on today's problems as stories about fantasy worlds. Using art as a vehicle for politics was a large part of the reason Star Trek was created at all.

The problem is that whatever you write is actually your own political view. Job problem is a social problem. But the way you talk about equality and "people need job" and "the studio must employ Middle Eastern, Chinese, Korean, etc" that's politic. Looks, you want Hollywood has more LGBT actors / actress, middle eastern ancestries, equality, etc", that's the same as labor union goes demonstration and ask for wages raise. In my eyes, that's politic. It's different if you think that LGBT people need job and you employ them and give them jobs. Or you donate some of your money to open and foundation for their welfare, or you help medical institution to fights AIDS, That's empathy. But when you think about the social problem, and you force other people, whatever it's your government, or Hollywood Studios, or other business enterprise, that's politic. Because it can influence your government policy, like how you force your government to make a policy about LGBT people. I don't want to argue about the right or wrong about your political view. Because I respect that. But I think that we should put aside that matter because whatever LGBT people have job or not is not our topic of discussion.

Now about Star Trek is about politic? I beg to pardon, but a show with political plot is actually different than a studio that has to comply the correctness of your political view just because you think it's right. A show with political plot / story telling is an art. But forcing a studio to comply the think that you think right... lol, that's politic.
 
Last edited:
It does seem to make for an odd situation of segregation if taken to its conclusion. Can white guys only make movies about white guys because a movie like Black Panther should be helmed by a black person, Wonder Woman by a woman, and so on?

That is entirely a false equivalence. The problem is, white heterosexual men have always, always had the deck stacked in their favor, to the exclusion of everyone else. The system is still built to exclude everyone else by default. So white hetero men don't need the same consideration.

Look at it this way. Imagine the folks at one table have a 20-course banquet of the finest foods, and the folks at all the other tables get a Happy Meal, or stale bread and moldy cheese, or nothing at all. And imagine one or two of those people at the other tables manage to win a seat at the banquet table -- and then some of the original banqueters say, "Well, to be fair, we should get to take some of their food too!" It should be obvious how grossly unfair that is, and what a complete lie it is to pretend the groups are anywhere near equal footing. You don't get to start talking about it as if it were symmetrical until after it becomes symmetrical, and that is still quite some way in the future.


The problem is that whatever you write is actually your own political view.

Yes, exactly. As I said, fiction and art are political. It's naive to pretend they aren't or shouldn't be. Fiction and art have always been used to express ideas and beliefs, to try to change people's minds or enlighten them or persuade them.

And politics isn't intrinsically bad. It tends to get used like a dirty word, but that's hypocritical, because people always pretend that what others believe is political and what they believe is not. But politics is just the process by which people try to organize other people to work for mutual goals. It's just a tool, as neutral as any other tool. It can be used for good or for ill, but it's a routine part of human interaction.

Job problem is a social problem. But the way you talk about equality and "people need job" and "the studio must employ Middle Eastern, Chinese, Korean, etc" that's politic.

And saying that you're okay with perpetuating discrimination or injustice is a political statement too. Don't pretend it isn't. Even apathy is a political stance.

But when you think about the social problem, and you force other people, whatever it's your government, or Hollywood Studios, or other business enterprise, that's politic.

By pretending that this is about force, you're being political. You're fabricating a lie about a position you disagree with in order to demonize it. This is not about force. Force isn't politics, it's what people resort to when politics fails. Politics is the art of persuasion, negotiation, inspiration, cooperation. The goal is to convince people to see the benefits of inclusion, to recognize that what helps others helps them as well.


But I think that we should put aside that matter because whatever LGBT people have job or not is not our topic of discussion.

Except that some of us in this thread are part of the LGBT community. So that community is not separate from "us," it's part of "us." Pretending otherwise is a political position.
 
I can count the times a trans actor played a trans character on one hand. Only one is fairly positive, meaning they aren’t a sex worker, murder victim or prisoner. That’s over my entire life and it took until I was 30. Do any of you honestly know what it’s like to go through life and never get to see someone like yourself? I highly doubt many of you can even imagine that. Unfortunately tv and movies are our windows to the world. It creates our impressions of ourselves and others. For my entire life I’ve seen trans women portrayed as men in dresses and makeup. I’m sure a few posters are even thinking that’s what we are. It’s why despite all medical and scientific understanding, the general population thinks we’re delusional, why our existence was made political (because certain groups needed a minority to vilify) and why my rights are under constant attack. It’s why young trans people have such a high suicide rate. We don’t have any role models, no one we can look up to and see as an example of what we can be. So since the whole world dehumanizes us, eventually we start believing it. It takes a long time to overcome that and based on the reactions I’ve seen here, I doubt many even care.

Having a trans character on Star Trek actually means something to us. It means that we have a place in one of the few positive depictions of the future. Especially in a time where many of us actually fear for our future. Our issues are “political” after all. We aren’t human beings with feelings and lives. We should be grateful we’re allowed what few rights we have left.
 
Yes, exactly. As I said, fiction and art are political. It's naive to pretend they aren't or shouldn't be. Fiction and art have always been used to express ideas and beliefs, to try to change people's minds or enlighten them or persuade them.

And politics isn't intrinsically bad. It tends to get used like a dirty word, but that's hypocritical, because people always pretend that what others believe is political and what they believe is not. But politics is just the process by which people try to organize other people to work for mutual goals. It's just a tool, as neutral as any other tool. It can be used for good or for ill, but it's a routine part of human interaction.

And saying that you're okay with perpetuating discrimination or injustice is a political statement too. Don't pretend it isn't. Even apathy is a political stance.

By pretending that this is about force, you're being political. You're fabricating a lie about a position you disagree with in order to demonize it. This is not about force. Force isn't politics, it's what people resort to when politics fails. Politics is the art of persuasion, negotiation, inspiration, cooperation. The goal is to convince people to see the benefits of inclusion, to recognize that what helps others helps them as well.

Except that some of us in this thread are part of the LGBT community. So that community is not separate from "us," it's part of "us." Pretending otherwise is a political position.

Now you nail it LOL. Fiction and art that has political agenda behind it is called Propaganda. I thought USA is a country of freedom, and only communist countries like China use art and fiction as propaganda machine. So now are you telling me that Star Trek is actually a propaganda machine, just like those commie propaganda machine out there? Now, there are only two answer in here. You're right, or you just mocking your own country movie makers.

But either way, I never know that you're more commie than those communists out there LOL. It's alright. Even communists have their own version of political right. So I won't justify your political view, even if you're a commie or liberal.

And you should know that I never judge your political view and "forcing" as good or bad in here. I have my own view about those matters, but I won't say it here. Because I won't bring my own political belief to a forum about a TV show. A forum that talk about art, entertainment, and culture. I just say that you make things political, when it shouldn't be about that.

And I know about to have empathy, as I join a social organization and doing many non pay social jobs to help people in my town. So don't say that I don't have any empathy as human being.
 
Last edited:
Now you nail it LOL. Fiction and art that has political agenda behind it is called Propaganda. I thought USA is a country of freedom, and only communist countries like China use art and fiction as propaganda machine. So now are you telling me that Star Trek is actually a propaganda machine, just like those commie propaganda machine out there? Now, there are only two answer in here. You're right, or you just mocking your own country movie makers.

But either way, I never know that you're more commie than those communists out there LOL. It's alright. Even communists have their own version of political right. So I won't justify your political view, even if you're a commie or liberal.
All countries and forms of government use propaganda. The patriotic songs you love: The Star-Spangled Banner, God Bless the USA, My Country Tis of Thee etc are propaganda. That poster of Uncle Sam rolling up his sleeve? Propaganda. Star Trek? Propaganda. It has a point of view and uses fiction to express them. Roddenberry was a liberal and the show(s) reflect that. Shows by more conservative artists reflect their POVs and politics. That both can do so is America and freedom.
 
I can count the times a trans actor played a trans character on one hand. Only one is fairly positive, meaning they aren’t a sex worker, murder victim or prisoner. That’s over my entire life and it took until I was 30.

Have you seen Sense8? Nomi on that show is the most positive example of a trans character played by a trans actor (and co-created by a trans filmmaker) that I know of. Rather more than "fairly" positive, in fact -- she's one of the most heroic characters on the show.
 
All countries and forms of government use propaganda. The patriotic songs you love: The Star-Spangled Banner, God Bless the USA, My Country Tis of Thee etc are propaganda. That poster of Uncle Sam rolling up his sleeve? Propaganda. Star Trek? Propaganda. It has a point of view and uses fiction to express them. Roddenberry was a liberal and the show(s) reflect that. Shows by more conservative artists reflect their POVs and politics. That both can do so is America and freedom.

But those songs is not my patriotic song. I'm not an American. I live in South East Asia. I don't even talk English in my everyday life. So I don't share the American people political view.
 
Have you seen Sense8? Nomi on that show is the most positive example of a trans character played by a trans actor (and co-created by a trans filmmaker) that I know of. Rather more than "fairly" positive, in fact -- she's one of the most heroic characters on the show.
That’s the one positive role I mentioned. Seeing her saved my life in many ways. It’s why I’m so passionate about this.
 
That’s the one positive role I mentioned. Seeing her saved my life in many ways. It’s why I’m so passionate about this.

Oh, I was hoping there was another positive portrayal out there besides her. Well, Sense8 may not have lasted as long as we hoped, but I think it left its mark, and hopefully others will follow in its footsteps.
 
I would think in Star Trek, you write a character to fill a role with somewhat of a backstory, and then fill it with whatever actor the producer thinks pulls off the intended role best. After that you setup some more backstory (race, place of birth, gender, age, all that stuff) based on the actor you hired. This has happened before. Denise Crosby and Marina Sirtis swapped roles and their character backgrounds changed accordingly.

One has to wonder if Michael Burnham was original written as a gender neutral character to be filled by whoever until Sonequa Martin-Green nailed it.
 
I would think in Star Trek, you write a character to fill a role with somewhat of a backstory, and then fill it with whatever actor the producer thinks pulls off the intended role best. After that you setup some more backstory (race, place of birth, gender, age, all that stuff) based on the actor you hired. This has happened before. Denise Crosby and Marina Sirtis swapped roles and their character backgrounds changed accordingly.

One has to wonder if Michael Burnham was original written as a gender neutral character to be filled by whoever until Sonequa Martin-Green nailed it.
IIRC, the character was originally conceived as being Number One from "The Cage". So I suspect the character was always female.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top