Spoilers Two steps forward, one step back? Thoughts on the world DSC presents

[Crazyewok]

What naive claptrap.
.

Klingons have ALWAYS been male dominated since TOS.

As for other warp capable sexist civs.

You have:
Ferangi (TNG)
Talarians (TNG)
Kazon (voy)
Taresians who killed men (VOY)
Kamala (TNG)
Orions(TOS, ENT)
Ligonians (TNG)
Angel One, (TNG)
Proof that advanced technology does not equal advanced civil rights.

 

[Alan Roi]

But let's not assume that it's only new fans who are capable of enjoying a new take on an old property or that every older fan will automatically be "alienated" by a new and different approach to an old favorite.

It's not strictly a generational thing, or a binary choice between old and new fans. And, yes, I tend to protest when folks assume that older fans will inevitably be "alienated" by reboots, retcons, revisionism, and "canon violations." Some of us old coots like that DISCO doesn't look or feel exactly like the stuff we've seen before . .....

Keeps us on our toes.

True. for someone like myself, I've been through TOS, the movies, TNG-ENT, the new movies, read books, comics etc. and see nothing more wrong with a new interpretation of Star Trek than I would with a staging of Hamlet in the original Klingon.

 

[Alan Roi]

What naive claptrap.
.

Klingons have ALWAYS been male dominated since TOS.

As for other warp capable sexist civs.

You have:
Ferangi (TNG)
Talarians (TNG)
Kazon (voy)
Taresians who killed men (VOY)
Kamala (TNG)
Orions(TOS, ENT)
Ligonians (TNG)

Proof that advanced technology does not equal advanced civil rights.

I think the main objection is based on the fact that previous versions of Klingons were bad boys/girls that certain fans of Klingons could fantasize shtooping. This show's variation only really offers that to those with an H.R. Giger fetish, so the more conservative Klingon fanbase is understandably meshugana.

 

[Crazyewok]

I think the main objection is based on the fact that previous versions of Klingons were bad boys/girls that certain fans of Klingons could fantasize shtooping. This show's variation only really offers that to those with an H.R. Giger fetish, so the more conservative Klingon fanbase is understandably meshugana.

Don't get me wrong, I hated the Klingon design change.

But to say klingons have been a equal society is false.
Women where NEVER equals in Klingon society.

And the OP who obviously belongs to the "genes vision" () crowd is clearly wrong to think star trek has EVER portrayed advanced civilisation as always equal. Even in the most vomit inducing utopian la la land days of TNG in series 1 and 2 when gene was at the height of spouting pseudophiliosphical BS, this was never the case.

 

[XCV330]

What naive claptrap.
.

Klingons have ALWAYS been male dominated since TOS.

As for other warp capable sexist civs.

You have:
Ferangi (TNG)
Talarians (TNG)
Kazon (voy)
Taresians who killed men (VOY)
Kamala (TNG)
Orions(TOS, ENT)
Ligonians (TNG)

Proof that advanced technology does not equal advanced civil rights.

The English were male dominated since the Angles Jutes and Saxons first landed. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have a powerful queen like Elizabeth I (whose "I am your mother" speech seems to have been used as inspiration for L'Rells). Things are never quite as monochromatic as they appear

 

[Greg Cox]

Star Trek was only utopian for the GR reign of TNG, yes?

TOS was, "We're workin' on it." I want to kill the Gorn, Finnegan, etc., but I won't kill today. Kirk in fact loves destroying utopias! It's like his THING! Something Freudian goin' on: No happiness for you. Struggle! Pain! If I have to, you have to!

Amen. TOS was never "utopian." If anything, it was profoundly suspicious of utopias, which were usually the result of mind-warping spores, insane computers, etc.

And the Vulcans have always been extremists. Heck, the whole point of the Spock-Kirk-McCoy triangle is that Spock represents one extreme (logic), McCoy represents another (emotion), with Kirk listening to both of them.

Never quite understood why some folks object to seeing Vulcans portrayed in a negative light. Heck, the very first time we ever saw an actual, full-blooded Vulcan, she was plotting to get Spock or Kirk killed in order to escape an arranged marriage . . ..

Not exactly role models there.

 

[lawman]

I feel like I should take a moment to add that I don't agree with you that Section 31 is being portrayed in a positive light here. That their existence is somehow being claimed to be necessary. They are presented as a perversion. As a blight, undermining what the Federation stands for. That they do so while claiming to be it's defenders should not be taken at face value. ...

The existence of Section 31, or a group like it, may be inevitable. But that doesn't make it necessary. And in every instance so far, Section 31 has been presented as an organization that is a cancer. It is literally the worst of us made manifest, as the Federation is the best of us. It is the Federation's shadow.

I hope that's how the current Trek PTB understand S31, and how they're planning to use it. However, I'm not optimistic... seeing as how they're planning an entire series based around it. Once you have to do stories on an ongoing basis, you tend to treat your protagonists as the "good guys," no matter how morally compromised they are from an objective POV.

Worse, even if the producers do have more nuanced thematic goals in mind, that doesn't mean audiences will necessarily pick up on that, rather than just taking things at face value and celebrating whatever the protagonists do. Think, for instance, about how Springsteen's "Born in the USA" (in no way, shape, or form a jingoistic song) got perverted into a "pro-American" anthem in the Reagan years by people who never listened closely to the lyrics...

 

[Hythlodeus]

I hope that's how the current Trek PTB understand S31, and how they're planning to use it. However, I'm not optimistic... seeing as how they're planning an entire series based around it. Once you have to do stories on an ongoing basis, you tend to treat your protagonists as the "good guys," no matter how morally compromised they are from an objective POV.

In a world where Breaking Bad exists, where Hannibal was a huge success, I guess we can assume that writers are capable of delivering shades of grey on an ongoing basis

 

[Alan Roi]

The existence of Section 31, or a group like it, may be inevitable. But that doesn't make it necessary. And in every instance so far, Section 31 has been presented as an organization that is a cancer.

Because helping the Klingons find a cure for the Augment Virus could only have been the act of sociopathic monsters. As well, agreeing to provide info on Terra Prime to help against that terrorist group, well, that surely could have only been the act of people who are the worst of humanity.

And if you are going to go to a biological metaphor, Section 31 are antibodies. They have a purpose, which is to fight infections however they can, they aren't bound by issues of morality and they are autonomous.

 

[Alan Roi]

I hope that's how the current Trek PTB understand S31, and how they're planning to use it. However, I'm not optimistic... seeing as how they're planning an entire series based around it. Once you have to do stories on an ongoing basis, you tend to treat your protagonists as the "good guys," no matter how morally compromised they are from an objective POV.

Worse, even if the producers do have more nuanced thematic goals in mind, that doesn't mean audiences will necessarily pick up on that, rather than just taking things at face value and celebrating whatever the protagonists do. Think, for instance, about how Springsteen's "Born in the USA" (in no way, shape, or form a jingoistic song) got perverted into a "pro-American" anthem in the Reagan years by people who never listened closely to the lyrics...

And its that attention to nuance is why some of use quite enjoy Discovery and suggest that others would also enjoy and understand it better if they only were willing to pay attention to the lyrics.

And honesly, Springsteen had it coming with Born in the USA being used the way it had been.. You don't adlib 'I'm A Cool Rocking Daddy in the USA" at the end of a song like that if you don't want it to be used as a slogan.

 

[STR]

Amen. TOS was never "utopian." If anything, it was profoundly suspicious of utopias, which were usually the result of mind-warping spores, insane computers, etc.

And the Vulcans have always been extremists. Heck, the whole point of the Spock-Kirk-McCoy triangle is that Spock represents one extreme (logic), McCoy represents another (emotion), with Kirk listening to both of them.

Never quite understood why some folks object to seeing Vulcans portrayed in a negative light. Heck, the very first time we ever saw an actual, full-blooded Vulcan, she was plotting to get Spock or Kirk killed in order to escape an arranged marriage . . ..

Not exactly role models there.

"Most Vulcans are kinda dicks, and sometimes violent and/or zealots" is essentially the premise for the entire run of "Enterprise". Not sure why anyone is objecting to that now.

 

[Manchester]

My problem with Section 31 is that it takes out some of the "sting" of seeing Starfleet officers behaving in a way counter to Federation ideals. TNG had the trope of Admirals behaving erratically which I've seen as retconned into those Admirals working for Section 31. This makes it less interesting in my opinion. Instead of having flawed characters, we have to have a secret evil organization that is responsible for any questionable acts. I've even seen people say that Admiral Cartwright was working for Section 31. Couldn't he just have been misguided?

DS9 is my second favorite series after TNG but I don't like that they introduced Section 31 to deal with the Dominion War. Humanity and the Federation was pushed to it's breaking point by that war and could've easily came close to genocide without Section 31 being involved AT ALL.

 

[Tuskin38]

Because helping the Klingons find a cure for the Augment Virus could only have been the act of sociopathic monsters. As well, agreeing to provide info on Terra Prime to help against that terrorist group, well, that surely could have only been the act of people who are the worst of humanity.

And if you are going to go to a biological metaphor, Section 31 are antibodies. They have a purpose, which is to fight infections however they can, they aren't bound by issues of morality and they are autonomous.

You just made me realize something. S31 in ENT wanted to help the Klingons to keep them friendly, and here we are again, S31 is trying to protect L'Rell to keep the Klingons friendly.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Amen. TOS was never "utopian." If anything, it was profoundly suspicious of utopias, which were usually the result of mind-warping spores, insane computers, etc.

And the Vulcans have always been extremists. Heck, the whole point of the Spock-Kirk-McCoy triangle is that Spock represents one extreme (logic), McCoy represents another (emotion), with Kirk listening to both of them.

Never quite understood why some folks object to seeing Vulcans portrayed in a negative light. Heck, the very first time we ever saw an actual, full-blooded Vulcan, she was plotting to get Spock or Kirk killed in order to escape an arranged marriage . . ..

Not exactly role models there.

TOS embraced flaws, TNG attempted to erase them, DS9 resurrected them, VOY showed they existed in the Delta Quadrant, ENT showed they were historical, and DISCO is continuing ENT's theme.

I LOVE TNG, but it's treatment of the flaws found in both characters and species was tedious. It was like the hand sanitizer of Star Trek.

 

[Kor]

Georgiou is technically not a cannibal. She was not depicted as eating members of her own species.

Perhaps we should coin some neologism that describes the practice of eating species which are at or above a certain level of intelligence/sentience/whatever the applicable term is.

Kor

 

[Hythlodeus]

Georgiou is technically not a cannibal. She was not depicted as eating members of her own species.

Perhaps we should coin some neologism that describes the practice of eating species which are at or above a certain level of intelligence/sentience/whatever the applicable term is.

Kor

xenocannibalism

 

[Alan Roi]

Georgiou is technically not a cannibal. She was not depicted as eating members of her own species.

Perhaps we should coin some neologism that describes the practice of eating species which are at or above a certain level of intelligence/sentience/whatever the applicable term is.

Kor

A non-vegan? I mean, how stupid does whatever someone is consuming to sustain their physical form have to be to not offend anyone?

 

[fireproof78]

But why are modern writers so obsessed with introducing morally ambiguous elements into the United Federation of Planets? Do we really need an analogue in this future society for the well-understood failings of our own?

Yes.

I did mention that. DS9 starting a bad trend.

DS9 did not start this. It started with TWOK, with TNG The Undiscovered Country. DSC exploration is not new, nor is it objectionable in its presentation, as it is producing discussions such as yours.

Worse, even if the producers do have more nuanced thematic goals in mind, that doesn't mean audiences will necessarily pick up on that, rather than just taking things at face value and celebrating whatever the protagonists do.

Audiences will not. I need only look at Abrams' Trek to see that fact.

 

[mos6507]

Amen. TOS was never "utopian."

Oh, come on. If (classic) Trek doesn't model a utopian society then nothing does.

But these sorts of revisionist sentiments illustrate the "drift" going on with Trek. The further and further we get from the original Trek creators the more the vision of Trek drifts away from anything resembling original intent.

People may not like the religious analogies but the word "canon" is not new and it comes from religion. In the early days of Christianity you had Peter vs. Paul and then after the disciples all died you had sects like the Coptics, etc...

In its own way, that's what's going on with Trek. It's a schism. Some of the worst wars in the world were between rival sects (like Cathoics vs. Protestants).

The same people who throw up gifs of the church of Trek from Futurama to ridicule Trek purists are still in their own way demanding adherence to a canon, aka the revisionist canon. It's totally a double-standard.

The reason why it's generational is that pop culture is intertwined with fashion. Once something goes out of fashion society frowns upon it. Once disco and bell bottoms went out, anyone who still liked it was considered out-of-step with the times. Once grunge arrived, hair metal was "passe" and you'd be laughed at for liking it.

Most of the ardent DSC defenders embrace that approach, of putting down purists as out of touch geezers who should just shuffle off and leave the franchise to the next generation who "know better" how it should be done. This also feeds revisionist history of taking potshots at earlier Trek (aka Trek was never utopian, Gene was a perv, miniskirts are sexist, etc...). If you can't sing the praises of the new stuff, then make the old stuff look that much worse in comparison.

 

[Alan Roi]

Oh, come on. If (classic) Trek doesn't model a utopian society then nothing does.

But these sorts of revisionist sentiments illustrate the "drift" going on with Trek. The further and further we get from the original Trek creators the more the vision of Trek drifts away from anything resembling original intent.

People may not like the religious analogies but the word "canon" is not new and it comes from religion. In the early days of Christianity you had Peter vs. Paul and then after the disciples all died you had sects like the Coptics, etc...

In its own way, that's what's going on with Trek. It's a schism. Some of the worst wars in the world were between rival sects (like Cathoics vs. Protestants).

The same people who throw up gifs of the church of Trek from Futurama to ridicule Trek purists are still in their own way demanding adherence to a canon, aka the revisionist canon. It's totally a double-standard.

The reason why it's generational is that pop culture is intertwined with fashion. Once something goes out of fashion society frowns upon it. Once disco and bell bottoms went out, anyone who still liked it was considered out-of-step with the times. Once grunge arrived, hair metal was "passe" and you'd be laughed at for liking it.

Most of the ardent DSC defenders embrace that approach, of putting down purists as out of touch geezers who should just shuffle off and leave the franchise to the next generation who "know better" how it should be done. This also feeds revisionist history of taking potshots at earlier Trek (aka Trek was never utopian, Gene was a perv, miniskirts are sexist, etc...). If you can't sing the praises of the new stuff, then make the old stuff look that much worse in comparison.

And what of us who in fact grew up with TOS and have watched every series and every movie, read the comics and the books, know the background and embrace Discovery, even with all that experience in our heads? Are we not allowed to recognize the flaws in previous series and their creators when we point out why we appreciate what Disco is accomplishing when we defend it? Do you really think the only people who enjoy this new series must have no experience with its antecedents? And if we do so, must we view them with nostalgia rose-tinted glasses?

You can only watch episodes such as What Littler Girls are Made of, Dagger of the Mind, Conscience of the King and The Ultimate Machine to see that the original Star Trek writers were exploring cautionary tales as well as hopes for a future Utopia. If anything, IMHO, as someone who grew up on TOS, Discovery takes us back to the original intent of Star Treks creators at least as much as any other of the series.

And, IMHO, the trouble with being a so called 'purist' is one has to eliminate a vast swath of Trek from their mindcanon in order to do so. You may have been able to be one in the sixties, but with every new series, movie etc., it simply becomes harder and harder to maintain a narrow definitition of what is Trek without throwing a whole lot, possibly even the majority, of what has been produced out.