What We Want VS What We'll Get?

[Vger23]

The two positions contradict each other. The cast of the new show will be a artificial construction of TPTB, any diversity won't simply "just happen."

Casting decisions are concerted efforts, prior to the first auditions the people doing the casting will know the gender, age, appearance that they will be casting for. Before a major character is cast, TPTB will have created the shows "bible," at that stage a major character that is to be (say) gay, this is where they will "become" gay. The same with disabled or alien.
+

Not always true. Ben Sisko was not conceived as any specific race when the series was in the creative phases. They cast a good/great actor and built the character background further around his heritage.

Heck, when "Alien" was first conceived back in the late 70s, none of the genders or ethnicities were part of the characters as conceived. Great casting, and one of the greatest female heroines of all time was born.

 

[Vger23]

I disagree, certainly by listening to the fans (sorry, "The Fans") general themes and overall preferences can be observed, reoccurring ideas can be seen, and patterns discerned.

+

If this is true, why don't you read this board for a few hours, and then tell me what the general themes and overall preferences are that you observe from fans?

"It should be in space"
and
"It should be good"
are as about as specific as it gets...and I'd guess that you'd even find people willing to debate "it should be in space."

 

[Nintendo1889]

One-at-a-time (old fashion)

This is certainly better. I wish netflix would do this. It gives the show time to sort of age and grow in people's minds.

 

[Nintendo1889]

I don't care what we get, but I want it to be great.

I'll be daring and say I'd rather have fewer or 30 minute episodes than more episodes and get burnout. More akin to what adult swim is doing with their 15 minute shows.

People say about TOS that the humans considered the aliens they encountered to be more superior, but also say that the humans in TNG considered themselves to be superior. I understand that humanity progressed in the 70 years or so. Perhaps have a mix of these two ideas, be more advanced than others and yet learn things from foreign aliens.

I want the ship to be faster and I mean wayyyyyyyy FASTER and far more powerful weapons and defenses, if it's set in the future. Not these evolutionary piecemeal upgrades. I want them to go to other galaxies, dammit! But still follow the newer non-cochrane warp scale. Reaching warp ten (everywhere in the universe) a few times would be nice, but be dangerous enough to not do all the time. If there's one thing that always bothered me about the other series, it's that the ship is always getting knocked around so easily, losing power and other resources. Like the time in TOS when a nuclear weapon detonated near the ship. It may be be weaker than a photon torpedo and is probably less focused. But I believe their shields were down so getting shaked so badly makes sense. Also having similarly stronger enemies would be nice as well.

I may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but even with greater technology, I'd like to see a focus on good storytelling.

My guess is that it will be 70 years after TNG, since there was about 70 years between TOS and TNG.

 

[T'Girl]

It amazes me that people can see casting diverse characters as pandering, when the straight white male demographic is by far the group that is pandered to more than anyone else.

A few years back and we were discussing a academy series and it's possible details, one poster was very against the idea of a show that featured younger actors, repeatedly decrying "teen angst," and that it was pandering. Subsequently the poster admitted that the reason they didn't want younger actors was they wanted actors who were more their own age.

If this is true, why don't you read this board for a few hours, and then tell me what the general themes and overall preferences are that you observe from fans?

Sure, I've been here several years. The general theme is a prime universe show set decades after VOY, aboard a large fast well-armed ship. The ship would technologically advanced but not "magical."

The main cast would be more diverse than seem in previous shows and movies (resent movies have 5 white male actors, 1 female, 1 East Asian, only one of whom plays an alien), the characters would include multiple aliens, a mix of previously seen and new, about half of the primary characters would be aliens. The would be a balance of males and females. The Captain would be human, middle aged, experienced and strong (there a slight preference for a female). While there would be a atmosphere of friendliness, the "no conflict rule" of TNG would be absent.

All the characters would have lives off duty, but this wouldn't be a main focus. There would be a fairly large number of rotating secondary characters.

One main character would be gay, in a stead relationship with a reoccurring character, the gender of the gay isn't important, although there is a slight preference for a male.

There would be a philosophy on display, humanitarian, positive and just. And not dark and dystopian. Scripts would make a low level effort to include/push modern social consciousness. The show would include analogy stories of modern events and concerns.

Starfleet is the Federation's military, explorers and general errand boys. Politics would be present, but mostly in the background. While it is the military, most fans don't want heavy military symbolism or personal conduct.

The show would combine long running story arcs, with stand alone stories (somewhat like what Babylon Five did).

General consensus is against miniskirts, overt "soap opera," and long wars in the way of the Dominion and the Xindi.

The show should be internally consistent, example a new invention or discovery used in one episode is going to be available for the rest of the series run.

***

These are things I've picked up through the years here from various threads and polls. I don't agree with all of them (I want mini's) and there's going to be other fans who feel the same. But there does seem to be consensus support, at least among the posters here.
+

 

[borgboy]

That seems pretty consistent with what I think the new series should be like. I'd be fine with the mini skirts as long as they were seen on men and women.
I thought the mini should've been kept as a variant uniform on TNG. Troi should've worn it most of the time, while Worf and Riker both would wear it often.

 

[JWPlatt]

If we selected the main cast attributes (gender, race, sexuality, height, skin color, eye color, hair color, temperament, etc.) randomly according to the odds represented by the percentage of the population possessing each of those attributes that are beyond the control of the individual to determine for themselves, with no mulligans after the first roll, would that be sufficient? Or do people more want affirmative action or pandering than fair odds at representation? (Character species is up for grabs, but all the actors must be human - for now.)

It amazes me that people can see casting diverse characters as pandering, when the straight white male demographic is by far the group that is pandered to more than anyone else.

Both can be true, though the latter tends toward marketing (follow the money).

 

[mos6507]

Regarding the skant...I find it ironic that we live in an era that is clamoring for gay rights and representation and yet when it comes down to what straight men will be wearing hundreds of years in the future there is a visceral aversion to anything that could be construed as feminine.

If we're going to stick with a vision of future fashion based on what's considered fashionable today I don't see how keeping skants off men is any different from wanting skirts (or catsuits) on women.

 

[eyeresist]

Regarding the skant...I find it ironic that we live in an era that is clamoring for gay rights and representation and yet when it comes down to what straight men will be wearing hundreds of years in the future there is a visceral aversion to anything that could be construed as feminine.

In the West these days I think pants is the default for everyone, unless they are making some sort of statement about their femininity.

 

[borgboy]

If we selected the main cast attributes (gender, race, sexuality, height, skin color, eye color, hair color, temperament, etc.) randomly according to the odds represented by the percentage of the population possessing each of those attributes that are beyond the control of the individual to determine for themselves, with no mulligans after the first roll, would that be sufficient? Or do people more want affirmative action or pandering than fair odds at representation? (Character species is up for grabs, but all the actors must be human - for now.)


Both can be true, though the latter tends toward marketing (follow the money).

It's not that hard to be diverse. Just cast an equal number of men vs women and be aware of the importance of fair racial diversity and go from there. Just not intentionally stacking the deck with an imbalance of white men is a good start.

 

[SPCTRE]

One-at-a-time (old fashion)

This is certainly better. I wish netflix would do this. It gives the show time to sort of age and grow in people's minds.

this is exactly what Netflix are doing

 

[JWPlatt]

It's not that hard to be diverse. Just cast an equal number of men vs women and be aware of the importance of fair racial diversity and go from there. Just not intentionally stacking the deck with an imbalance of white men is a good start.

This implies, because of its specificity, that intentionally stacking the deck with non-white non-men is okay. That's probably not your intent, but your answer needs a lot more explanation to avoid misunderstandings and unintended inferences.

 

[T'Girl]

this implies, because of its specificity, that intentionally stacking the deck with non-white non-men is okay.

Yes, it is in fact "okay."

If we selected the main cast attributes (gender, race, sexuality, height, skin color, eye color, hair color, temperament, etc.) randomly ...

I don't see the selection being random, casting won't be "just get good actors." Picard was older, Sisko was Black, Janeway was female.

Or do people more want affirmative action or pandering than fair odds at representation?

The selections will be deliberate, hopefully with a eye towards diversity. This will in no way be pandering, unless you feel that not having a cast composed primarily of white male actors is in some way pandering.

Regarding the skant

While I do advocate for both the minidress and the miniskirt, I seriously would prefer not to have a "skant" as one of the costumes, I don't think they move right when a person walks and runs.

†

 

[JWPlatt]

Yes, it is in fact "okay."

I don't see the selection being random, casting won't be "just get good actors." Picard was older, Sisko was Black, Janeway was female.

The selections will be deliberate, hopefully with a eye towards diversity. This will in no way be pandering, unless you feel that not having a cast composed primarily of white male actors is in some way pandering.

While I do advocate for both the minidress and the miniskirt, I seriously would prefer not to have a "skant" as one of the costumes, I don't think they move right when a person walks and runs.

You completely ignored the "what if" aspect of the questions except for your first answer. The rest showed no effort at imagination. The first answer indicates some hypocrisy by allowing the exclusion of an entire race and gender.
-1

But I did forget to include age in my list of potential attributes, regarding Picard types, because I was going with genetic attributes - not attributes gained over time. Good catch, but I'll excuse myself with the use of "etc." which I often use to make such excuses.

 

[borgboy]

This implies, because of its specificity, that intentionally stacking the deck with non-white non-men is okay. That's probably not your intent, but your answer needs a lot more explanation to avoid misunderstandings and unintended inferences.

My intention was that we need a fair balance of women and other minorities - which I have discussed at length in this thread. While I may not have spelled it out, I thought that point was implied.

 

[T'Girl]

The first answer indicates some hypocrisy by allowing the exclusion of an entire race and gender.

Hardly exclusion, just not the majority composition of the cast. I would have no problem with the cast including a white male.


†

 

[JWPlatt]

My intention was that we need a fair balance of women and other minorities - which I have discussed at length in this thread. While I may not have spelled it out, I thought that point was implied.

Nit: Women are not a minority. There are more male births on average, but more males tend to do really stupid things to earn the Darwin Award and they live a shorter life. But the mix is close enough as to not give the majority or minority award to either gender. The question is whether the mix is fairly represented in the situation presented. A show about miners, construction workers, and garbage collectors? Not so many women pushing for jobs there. Hospitals, education, business, space exploration and government? Certainly.

In any case, when a "fair balance" exceeds the proportionate population of the minority, it's not a fair balance. Some folks want to do to everyone else what what was done to them rather than seeking said fairness.

 

[borgboy]

My understanding is that women are generally considered a minority because of their relative lack of power in gov't, business, religion, etc.
I have absolutely no problem at all with the new series having a white male main cast member, but 75% of the cast shouldn't be white men.

 

[JWPlatt]

What if it's set on a mining colony?

 

[T'Girl]

What if it's set on a mining colony?

I probably wouldn't watch it.

Nit: Women are not a minority.

In Star Trek they are, certain when it comes to collective main characters, even more so when it come to "top decision makers." Example, in TNG the senior most bridge officers were played by male actors, the two female actresses played characters in the medical field. Of the top two officers in the five series, seven were male, three female, nine were white.

The question is whether the mix is fairly represented in the situation presented.

We (apparently) are discussing the feature characters, who are Starfleet officers, stationed aboard a starship.

In any case, when a "fair balance" exceeds the proportionate population of the minority, it's not a fair balance.

You are aware that white people are a minority in the overall Human species, yes?

†