What We Want VS What We'll Get?

[hux]

The show is, first and foremost, being made for an American audience. White people are the majority in America so reflecting current US society is clearly in no-one's interests and the ethnicities represented will be based on what society could be (not what is). For a show that wants to represent an ethnic utopia, that's fair enough and TOS set the trend

Though it demands that one wonders where the Muslim and gay characters all are.

Just not intentionally stacking the deck with an imbalance of white men is a good start.

It wouldn't be an imbalance of white people. It would be an accurate representration of American society today. And besides, Trek has been pretty good at representing ethnicity and women whereas its representations of homosexuals, disabled people and religious people has been woeful. I suspect the new show will address ONE of those but not much more.

 

[borgboy]

I think the intention with disabled people is that Trek's near magical technology has eradicated most disabilities, which seems a logical part of the way Trek's tech and society works.
DS9 was full of religious Bajorans. Sure, actual Earth religions haven't been represented much, but I also think that the intention is that Trek's future of Earth religion is that religion isn't nearly as common as it is now. Of course there will be some religious people, but the guiding force of humanity seems to be secular humanitarianism.

 

[hux]

I'm happy to accept that monotheistic, dogmatic religion has died off but some back-story on just how that happened would be nice. Especially when we know that types of spirituality/religion do still occur (Chakotay). As for disability, there's also an interesting story to tell about the rights and wrongs of genetic engineering which seems to have been swept under the eugenics wars carpet (we created super-men and genetic engineering went too far... oh but we totally removed genetic disability from society but let's not talk about that). Where were the disability rights activists?

And besides, surely there are diseases, accidents etc out there that disable people in some way. Not everything can be fixed with a hypo-spray.

 

[JWPlatt]

In Star Trek [women] are [a minority]

You are confusing population with representation (for humans).

I would not make the assumption that the show consists of people "who are Starfleet officers, stationed aboard a starship." The show will be "different," they say. Officers on a Starship is not different.

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

It looks like you misunderstand and believe I'm defending the presence of white people. I'm not. I'm defending the proportionate representation of that color wheel. And as it relates to that, I'll reiterate that a whole lot of special interests will be left out because you only get six or seven main cast members to represent all human attributes - not to mention aliens. No doubt all those special interests will complain with unrealistic expectations of imbuing six or seven characters with their favorite gene pool or physical condition. Reasonable people will know that the show did its best to do the most with what they have in the times that they live.

There was a good point from hux, above, about how the show will represent not the people of today, but the people of the future (probably). That's great to raise the standards for ourselves with a vision for the future. That's part of what Trek is about. But it also has to sell to the people of today.

 

[Admiral2]

Want: Hot lesbians who visit hot lesbian planets each week. Maybe a planet where everything's made of chocolate. Ooh and the hot lesbians have to fight a giant chocolate lesbian.

Get: Some kind of Star Trek related televisual entertainment.

I like your idea better...

 

[Jedi_Master]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tim Walker]

Huh mentioned the gay, the disabled, and the religious...and that we are likely to get ONE of these.

I think The Powers That Be would most likely choose the religious. Because that is the least risky. And lends itself to tokenism, and being low key. Consider, for example, an extra dressed as a rabbi....

The next most likely? The disabled. Not so risky as the gay thing, and we can feel sympathy for disabled people.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I would think CBS creating it's pay viewer programming to bring any sort of controversial or progressive storylines or images they would have liberty to express. I wouldn't think having gay characters to be risky on Star Trek.

 

[RandyS]

Huh mentioned the gay, the disabled, and the religious...and that we are likely to get ONE of these.
The next most likely? The disabled. Not so risky as the gay thing, and we can feel sympathy for disabled people.

I don't want your sympathy. Only your respect. And your unquestioning obedience when I assume control of the world, of course.

 

[Spot261]

When star trek came out and we had the ethnic/gender mix on the bridge it was challenging, it was thought provoking. It wasn't done to match some numerical ideal in terms of human diversity, it was because it hadn't been done before and it made us question how we looked at the world.

In that regard I would argue Chekov and Uhura to be the most important characters in the show, with current events of the time (the cold war, gender equality and racial integration) being given new perspective via the medium of TV and the safety of distance.

In certain regards however trek has become a victim of it's own moral success. What was challenging and thought provoking in the 1960s is now the norm. TV shows are made almost as standard with a formulaic approach to racial/sexual minorities and to do so now is no longer a step forward, it is just following the trend.

I've read here and on another thread about it "being time" for the show to have a gay character for instance.

Well, not really, no....

The time for that was 30 years ago when they were planning TNG and every other news article was about gay rights/prejudice and the AIDS outbreak. That was a perfect window of opportunity to trek to carry on being a tool for social change but the time to make a difference has gone. I don't watch soap operas and even I can happily tell you every mainstream primetime soap here in the UK has had at least two gay characters (either two in the main cast or one with a minor character in order to make a relationship possible), usually many more.

To make casting decisions in that regard now purely to make a statement is to chase the tail of an issue where trek should have been leading. It's difficult to imagine the vast majority of the fandom being anything other than open minded regarding sexuality anyway but it's too late by half.

Cast a gay/disabled/transgender character by all means (although one might make a case they already, depending on how you interpret Malcolm Reed's sexuality - I see it as ambiguous myself but that's subjective, and Geordi is an obvious tick in the second box), but genuinely creative storytelling can't be done by numbers and the characters/stories need to stand on their own merits, not exist to meet demographic criteria

Far more relevant to the modern world and it's issues for me would be to explore where the world's current religions (Islam in particular to be blunt) went and how they are represented (if at all) in the far future. I don't buy that an instinct that seems to have been universally represented throughout the history of the human race could have suddenly just slipped into rational enlightenment without a trace, religion having become a tolerated and humoured quirk of other species. Humans smug in their superiority having left it behind.

I'd love to see an actual human being who chooses to follow such a path in the 24th century or beyond and see how the nature of those beliefs and their expression has been altered over time and thruoghout the emergence of the Federation. Rather than it being a question of (oh, we've got a muslim in so there's a box ticked - next!) that expression of individuality has to mean something, it has to fit into the universe of trek and make us question it and by proxy our own, otherwise it's just a ratings ploy and not worthy of the proud legacy of trek.

 

[TwoJakes]

oh, we've got a muslim in so there's a box ticked - next

But that concept can be done in reverse. Who are we going to deliberately exclude from the line-up of characters?

[ ] Gays
[ ] Non-whites
[ ] People of Faith
[ ] The physically imperfect
[ ] People with different points of view

 

[Longinus]

Far more relevant to the modern world and it's issues for me would be to explore where the world's current religions (Islam in particular to be blunt) went and how they are represented (if at all) in the far future. I don't buy that an instinct that seems to have been universally represented throughout the history of the human race could have suddenly just slipped into rational enlightenment without a trace, religion having become a tolerated and humoured quirk of other species. Humans smug in their superiority having left it behind.

Roddenberry wanted the religion to be gone by TNG and it was the right call. Religion is already dying in the western world, it would be stupid for enlightened humans hundred of years from now to still cling to silly superstitions. Sure, it might be overly optimistic for that to happen so completely, but Star Trek is overly optimistic portrayal of future in many regards. Besides, religion was already dealt with having Bajoran religion to play big part in DS9.

 

[thumbtack]

I wouldn't think having gay characters to be risky on Star Trek.

Seems to depend on your age.

 

[Spot261]

But that concept can be done in reverse. Who are we going to deliberately exclude from the line-up of characters?

[ ] Gays
[ ] Non-whites
[ ] People of Faith
[ ] The physically imperfect
[ ] People with different points of view

Granted and either scenario is equally undesirable, exactly why I feel that the writing and casting should flow naturally from a creative place, not a formula. That applies in either direction as you say and those decisions should be based on what will make a better, more meaningful and worthwhile end result, not a demographic.

Roddenberry wanted the religion to be gone by TNG and it was the right call. Religion is already dying in the western world, it would be stupid for enlightened humans hundred of years from now to still cling to silly superstitions. Sure, it might be overly optimistic for that to happen so completely, but Star Trek is overly optimistic portrayal of future in many regards. Besides, religion was already dealt with having Bajoran religion to play big part in DS9.

Absolutely, however times change and old habits die hard. The 25th century federation may be a very different place to the 24th and even if it isn't it would be interesting to see the exceptions as well as the norm. If any "type" or "social issue" was relevant to the problems we face today then religion and its varying degrees of extreme fit the bill rather more tellingly than the now safe option of sexuality

 

[Tim Walker]

Just how risk averse are the Powers That Be?

After a female commanding officer, and a black commanding officer, in the '90s, there was a reversion to a white male captain (ENT).

With J.J.'s movies there was a reversion to Kirk and Spock (in a summer blockbuster mode).

 

[RandyS]

Just how risk averse are the Powers That Be?

After a female commanding officer, and a black commanding officer, in the '90s, there was a reversion to a white male captain (ENT).

Why do you see that as a "reversion"? How do you now Berman didn't simply think Bakula was the best man for the part?

 

[TwoJakes]

How do you now Berman didn't simply think Bakula was the best man for the part?

As I understand the process, Archer (the character) was conceived of as a white male long before any actor was sought.

 

[Spot261]

As I understand the process, Archer (the character) was conceived of as a white male long before any actor was sought.

But that still works without seeing it as a backwards step. If Berman simply believed the character worked best that way then why should it matter? The character was/is a white male, moving away from that isn't necessarily a step forward. I'd rather have a crew whose characters have all developed in a natural, "organic" way (shudders - I hate abusing that word but it just works in this case) than seeing it somehow being "progress" to alter them just to make the numbers work.

Would I object to an all female crew? No, not if it made sense in terms of the characters as written. On the other hand if it were done simply to say "look, we are balancing the franchise's books on gender ratios" then it's going to be much harder work for the writers to make a worthwhile show and interesting characters.

Likewise I'd happily watch an all transgender, disabled alien crew (or any other iteration of real and fictional groups within society) if the writing allowed for that making sense in a believable and interesting way. What would make it even better would be if the show became more meaningful as a result.

All I ask is that the show entertains us and makes us think. It will do that best if the best writers for the job are given the freedom to put ideas out there rather than being restricted by a demographic format. That isn't forward thinking and creative, nor is it challenging or edgy, it's simply dry, formulaic, cynical and overdone.

The only real reason for positively discriminating (in my view and as opposed to simply allowing characters to develop in the creative process) is if the inclusion of that character trait somehow allows for questions to be posed about the world we live in.

We (mostly) accept these days that discrimination based on gender, race and sexuality is wrong and abhorrent. The show would be saying nothing new by trying to "address" that by following the usual format and ticking the boxes. Where it can make a difference is by allowing talented people the freedom to make the best show they can and make the audience think by engaging them on a cerebral level.

 

[thumbtack]

Projecting current racial birthrates to the 23rd century, or "worse", 24th century, having a ship with more than 12-15% Caucasian males would be preposterous. If the show exceeds this, the writers better be prepared to justify it to my satisfaction.

 

[mos6507]

Projecting current racial birthrates to the 23rd century, or "worse", 24th century, having a ship with more than 12-15% Caucasian males would be preposterous. If the show exceeds this, the writers better be prepared to justify it to my satisfaction.

It's funny how some people insist on a quota system. It's entertainment, people.