Will Trek XI be TOS lite due to PC?

[Ceridwen]

Proximity_Phaser said:
TOS has a caveman reputation (womanizing violent Captain, funny drunks, the big three are white males, etc.) and TNG went out of it's way to avoid such antics.

Tamek said:
The author of this thread does have a point. TOS was *anything* but politically correct.

It was the first TV show to show an interracial kiss.

Women were, while not necessarily in positions of authority, definitely in positions of power and valued contributors to their peers.

There was the episode with the two guys who were black on one half of their body, white on the other...and the episode was an in-your-face parable about the potential consquences and pointlessness of racism.

No offence meant to either of you, but this is why I have to roll my eyes every single time someone brings up political correctness. The phrase has become absolutely meaningless: one poster says it applies to things he sees as simpering liberalism, another sees it as applying to conservative bigotry. We have a whole culture of people proudly declaring how "un-PC" they are, and how oppressive the "PC Police" have become, but pick two of them at random and they'll give you completely different definitions of who those "PC Police" are, and what they stand for. "PC" is nothing more than a buzzword bogeyman concocted by talk radio in the late 80s, early 90s, and it's exploded to the point that it completely destroys any discourse about real issues.

To the topic at hand, though, I'd like to remind everyone that there's a big difference between the common mythology about Star Trek and the reality of what was shown on screen, especially with regard to the character of Kirk. Kirk wasn't a womanizer; the majority of episodes have no love interest for him, and we really only know of about three or four times during the series where he had sex. Spock has just as much sex during the show as Kirk does, yet somehow he avoids this lacivious reputation. Kirk also was in no way some violent warrior man. He was a soldier-diplomat. Yes, he occassionally got hot-headed, but he always knew that peace and defense were his first duty.

As Brutal Strudel points out, the major area where Star Trek will have to be updated is in its treatment of women. The mini-skirts might be what people focus on, but the sexism on that show was far more problematic than just the choices of wardrobe, and unfortunately, this is a trend that not even modern Trek fully got away from.

 

[Proximity_Phaser]

Ah, I'm unaware that the term PC has become dilluted. What I meant by the term is the state of mind that makes avoiding giving offense mandatory, and the attitude that any other way of thinking is primitive, making the primitive thinker the only one who is allowed to be offended.

For instance, TOS and alcohol. In the three martini lunch world of the 60's, where Dean Martin and Foster Brooks were a hoot, booze is a part of the ship, it's a treat that raises a real smile and has no stigma.

In TNG, we have Synthehol, and the idea of real Demon Rum is dismissed with a condescending half smile at the idea of such a vulgar and harmful delight.

By my definition, the TNG treatment of alcohol is PC, to the point where "Relics" uses the difference to show how truly out of touch Mr. Scott is in the TNG world.

Now, does Trek XI need to show the young officers engaged in drinking games or slyly going to sickbay for a toddy to capture the spirit (no pun intended) of TOS? I don't think so, but if the movie showed McCoy turning away a proffered libation and he gave a short temperance lecture while doing so, I'd say that would be a major departure from what was the norm in TOS. It would be UnMcCoy.

The perception of Kirk as the womanizing warrior is certainly not reflected in most of the shows, but it is what stuck in the mind to the point of being "common mythology". I'd say that because a lot of the most memorable and vivid moments of TOS show those aspects of Kirk, and that's what stuck. When you think of "Arena", is your first recollection of the Shat-Fu with the Gorn or is it of the pacifist speechlet at the end?

I think certain things can and should be shifted around (The idea that gender would limit opportunity in Starfleet is dated) but I also think that there is an attitude or "spark" that show had that could be damaged if you take out all the possibly offensive stuff. I think Kirk's self assured, cocky nature almost demands that he acts like Don Juan, and his treatment of women is a tool he uses to further the interest of his true love, his command of the Big E.

Do you update or change that?

 

[Tamek]

Ceridwen Troy said:

Proximity_Phaser said:
TOS has a caveman reputation (womanizing violent Captain, funny drunks, the big three are white males, etc.) and TNG went out of it's way to avoid such antics.

Tamek said:
The author of this thread does have a point. TOS was *anything* but politically correct.

It was the first TV show to show an interracial kiss.

Women were, while not necessarily in positions of authority, definitely in positions of power and valued contributors to their peers.

There was the episode with the two guys who were black on one half of their body, white on the other...and the episode was an in-your-face parable about the potential consquences and pointlessness of racism.

No offence meant to either of you, but this is why I have to roll my eyes every single time someone brings up political correctness. The phrase has become absolutely meaningless: one poster says it applies to things he sees as simpering liberalism, another sees it as applying to conservative bigotry. We have a whole culture of people proudly declaring how "un-PC" they are, and how oppressive the "PC Police" have become, but pick two of them at random and they'll give you completely different definitions of who those "PC Police" are, and what they stand for. "PC" is nothing more than a buzzword bogeyman concocted by talk radio in the late 80s, early 90s, and it's exploded to the point that it completely destroys any discourse about real issues.

To the topic at hand, though, I'd like to remind everyone that there's a big difference between the common mythology about Star Trek and the reality of what was shown on screen, especially with regard to the character of Kirk. Kirk wasn't a womanizer; the majority of episodes have no love interest for him, and we really only know of about three or four times during the series where he had sex. Spock has just as much sex during the show as Kirk does, yet somehow he avoids this lacivious reputation. Kirk also was in no way some violent warrior man. He was a soldier-diplomat. Yes, he occassionally got hot-headed, but he always knew that peace and defense were his first duty.

As Brutal Strudel points out, the major area where Star Trek will have to be updated is in its treatment of women. The mini-skirts might be what people focus on, but the sexism on that show was far more problematic than just the choices of wardrobe, and unfortunately, this is a trend that not even modern Trek fully got away from.

You know what's really funny about this?

Both of the posts you quoted are absolutely right.

The show stuck with the conventions of the times in some areas and went way out in others.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, I think.

 

[VulcanJedi]

UWC Defiance said:
If the question is, "will this movie reflect the values of forty years ago, 'progressive for their time' or not" the answer is most certainly:

No.

Not unless the producer and studio have a cunning plan to retrieve an audience from the year 1966 to watch the thing.

TOS is still broadcast daily all over the world. People are still watching it. There is an audience in 2007. Not only that, fans and non-fans are clamoring for them to finally make a movie of it. People want TOS. They are tired of PC Trek. Will Abrams give the audience what they want? Probably not. PC pressure from the mind-tsars will prevent that. Are you saying in 2007, we have surpassed 1966 in love and respect and treatment of our fellow man? Are women no longer objectified? You could make a case that things are worse! (Girls Gone Wild?)

Women still use sex to get what they want. Men still are pigs and people are still prejudiced. And jocks still pick on nerds.

The only thing that has changed is LANGUAGE and POLITICS.

We now live in a BRAVE NEW WORLD loaded with DOUBLESPEAK, carefully crafted not to offend. We've retooled our communication to create the APPEARANCE of sensitivity.

Thought police and socialist enforcers in government and in the media are ready to POUNCE on you if you step out of line.

In Canada people have been put in prison for saying things that were laughed about on TV in 1966.

people jailed

The thing is, people still laugh and let their opinions be known, as long as Big Brother isn't watching or you're not living in Canada.

The needs, desires, passions and vices of the audience of 1966 are no different in 2007; only the rules have changed.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Okay, the definition of "PC" is, I think, the key "arguing point" here, isn't it?

"Political Correctness" (or PC) is simply this... the act or condition of establishing that certain thoughts, certain attitudes, certain beliefs, are unacceptable and thus must be punished. Not ACTIONS, mind you... but THOUGHTS.

There's another term for that... "thought policing."

There's another term, more recently established, that attempts to establish this... "hate crimes."

No matter what you call it, it's the same thing... making ATTITUDES and OPINIONS illegal.

To use a much-overused example... I absolutely HATE what the Ku Klux Klan stands for, and I don't believe that anyone can be part of that and ever represent me in any way (Yes, I'm talking to you, Robert Byrd!). However, I oppose any attempt to silence those people or to "coerce" them into thinking differently.

Sure, punish the hell out of them for actually DOING anything wrong.

But the moment you start policing THOUGHT... you've crossed that hair's breadth line and are on the path of fascism.

This is the thing that really offended me, more over time, about TNG. It's something that people pick out, easily enough, in stories like "Starship Troopers" where it's only SLIGHTLY more overt. The Federation, as shown in TNG, is really a fascist state... all industry is governmental, it's a perfect socialist utopia, everyone is "equal" (but as always, some people seem to be "more equal" than others). Certain thoughts and attitudes, if held, result in you (at best) being a social pariah. If you're not "enlightened" (with the meaning of "enlightened" being "in agreement with the common social sentiments of the day") you're pretty much an outcast.

It was really quite scary.

TOS, on the other hand, represented something else entirely... the common term is "rugged individualism." Kirk, even though he was within a military organization, was never really happy working under the bureaucracy. Kirk was a bit of a rebel. So was Spock... and so was McCoy. But each in their own way.

It's funny... the times that TNG-era stuff was best... say, "First Contact"... were times that the characters acted in violation of "the established, TNG-era-PC way of doing things." Picard disobeys orders and returns to Earth... and saves the day. Very "Kirk-esque," actually.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

VulcanJedi said:
The needs, desires, passions and vices of the audience of 1966 are no different in 2007; only the rules have changed.

Whatever. The audience in 2007 rewards - that is, pays to see - different kinds of characters in stories that are told differently than the audience in 1966. Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp would not have dominated the U.S. box office in the 1950s, and John Wayne could not compete with them in the U.S. were Wayne to be reincarnated as a forty-year-old actor today.

It is that simple. To be completely clear: if anyone expects or hopes to see a Trek film that recreates the social postures, attitudes and values of 1966 instead of what's contemporary they'll be disappointed by this movie. Next.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Sigh. Not so fast. James Dean would do just fine today and George Clooney would do just dandy then. I daresay Depp would have done just fine, too--his range is astounding.

Trek does not need to re-make itself in the image of Smallville or The O.C. in order to be successful. If it does, then it is truly better off dead.

 

[CoveTom]

Brutal Strudel said:
Trek does not need to re-make itself in the image of Smallville or The O.C. in order to be successful. If it does, then it is truly better off dead.

Amen.

 

[ancient]

Well...Star Trek did run into a PC-style quagmire by basically refusing to say anything meaningful on a controversal topic or tough choice, instead opting for technobabble fixes most of the time.

But I doubt Abrams has written something that requires watering down.

Besides, this is a movie, not another sequel that ran out of meaningful things to say.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Brutal Strudel said:
Trek does not need to re-make itself in the image of Smallville or The O.C. in order to be successful. If it does, then it is truly better off dead.

Not for you to say. After all, there are a great many movies and tv shows that you or I don't care for but which are entertaining many other people. No reason that the next version of "Star Trek" can't be one of those, and no reason other than sour grapes to think it "better dead."

 

[Brutal Strudel]

The hell it ain't--and if it isn't, then nothing is for anyone to say--or does that only apply to views different from yours?

Really, it's more fun if you engage in debate rather than constantly trying to shut it down from a false position of loftiness. Next.

 

[xanderwess]

"Shat-Fu" is the funniest thing I have ever heard.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Brutal Strudel said:
The hell it ain't--and if it isn't, then nothing is for anyone to say--or does that only apply to views different from yours?

Really, it's more fun if you engage in debate rather than constantly trying to shut it down from a false position of loftiness. Next.

But that's Dennis's whole style of arguement.

Step 1 - State your opinion as though you know more than everyone else.

Step 2 - Tell everyone who disagrees to shut up

Step 3 - Mock those who don't do as you commanded them to. Pretend to have the moral high-ground over those who refuse to acknowledge that you're their better.

It's not debate, it's personal ego-stroking.

It's really pretty @#$*ing obnoxious, too.

 

[Tamek]

UWC Defiance said:

VulcanJedi said:
The needs, desires, passions and vices of the audience of 1966 are no different in 2007; only the rules have changed.

Whatever. The audience in 2007 rewards - that is, pays to see - different kinds of characters in stories that are told differently than the audience in 1966. Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp would not have dominated the U.S. box office in the 1950s, and John Wayne could not compete with them in the U.S. were Wayne to be reincarnated as a forty-year-old actor today.

It is that simple. To be completely clear: if anyone expects or hopes to see a Trek film that recreates the social postures, attitudes and values of 1966 instead of what's contemporary they'll be disappointed by this movie. Next.

I can't agree with you about the actors, but I do definitely agree with you about the lifestyles and mannerisms that we can expect from the film.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Cary L. Brown said:

Brutal Strudel said:
The hell it ain't--and if it isn't, then nothing is for anyone to say--or does that only apply to views different from yours?

Really, it's more fun if you engage in debate rather than constantly trying to shut it down from a false position of loftiness. Next.

But that's Dennis's whole style of arguement.

Step 1 - State your opinion as though you know more than everyone else.

Step 2 - Tell everyone who disagrees to shut up

Step 3 - Mock those who don't do as you commanded them to. Pretend to have the moral high-ground over those who refuse to acknowledge that you're their better.

It's not debate, it's personal ego-stroking.

It's really pretty @#$*ing obnoxious, too.

As Kirk said to McCoy in TWoK: Hadn't noticed.






( )

 

[Woulfe]

Hollywood [AP]

The PC police were dragged behind Paramount, shot, dropped from a 1,000ft cliff, bribed to shut the heck up, and finally buried in cement to even out the floor on stages 9 and 10 where the Enterprise bridge sits once more.

Paramount PR people had this to say about that "It had to be done, we were tired of their garbage, we've read the script for the new Star Trek movie you know"

We tryed to interview J.J. Abrams about this and heres what he had to say "I thought the PC police were LOST a long time ago."

A PR person for the PC police had this to say "Mrrgulugum" as it's hard to talk through quick drying cement.

Meanwhile all is set for the new Star Trek film to start filming in a month or so.

 

[Tamek]

Woulfe said:
Hollywood [AP]

The PC police were dragged behind Paramount, shot, dropped from a 1,000ft cliff, bribed to shut the heck up, and finally buried in cement to even out the floor on stages 9 and 10 where the Enterprise bridge sits once more.

Paramount PR people had this to say about that "It had to be done, we were tired of their garbage, we've read the script for the new Star Trek movie you know"

We tryed to interview J.J. Abrams about this and heres what he had to say "I thought the PC police were LOST a long time ago."

A PR person for the PC police had this to say "Mrrgulugum" as it's hard to talk through quick drying cement.

Meanwhile all is set for the new Star Trek film to start filming in a month or so.

Are you talking about Berman or Braga?

 

[Ceridwen]

VulcanJedi, Cary L. Brown, you're both very, very wrong about hate crimes legislation, but this isn't the forum for us to have this conversation. (There's a thread on the topic going on right now over in TNZ; I invite you both to share your views in there.)

I'd like to challenge the people in this thread who are running around screaming that the "thought police" are going to censor this movie to point out something in our entertainment that points to the idea that we're living in some enlightened age of "PC" sensitivity. Stereotypes continue to dominate media depictions of minorities (the black urban thug, the brainy Asian doctor, the Middle Eastern terrorist). Jokes about gays abound. Women continue to be objectified. Movies and television glorify violence and torture. The only thing we seem to have less of is healthy depictions of sex, and that is more the fault of angry parents' groups than any "liberal thought police".

An honest look at what continues to succeed in television and film should leave you with absolutely no fear that J.J. Abrams' Star Trek will somehow be "sanitized" from the way Star Trek has always been. The only thing I'm seeing in this thread is a lot of misunderstand about the way Star Trek really was, and even more misunderstanding about the way television currently is.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Ceridwen Troy said:VulcanJedi, Cary L. Brown, you're both very, very wrong about hate crimes legislation, but this isn't the forum for us to have this conversation. (There's a thread on the topic going on right now over in TNZ; I invite you both to share your views in there.)

Nope, not "wrong" in any way... but you're correct, this isn't the place. Odd, then, that after (correctly, really) pointing this out, you proceed to talk about it yourself.

I'd like to challenge the people in this thread who are running around screaming that the "thought police" are going to censor this movie to point out something in our entertainment that points to the idea that we're living in some enlightened age of "PC" sensitivity. Stereotypes continue to dominate media depictions of minorities (the black urban thug, the brainy Asian doctor, the Middle Eastern terrorist). Jokes about gays abound. Women continue to be objectified. Movies and television glorify violence and torture. The only thing we seem to have less of is healthy depictions of sex, and that is more the fault of angry parents' groups than any "liberal thought police".

Well, that's all bullshit, IMHO... there's an AWFUL lot of talk about sex... all the time... and re: the "jokes about gays"... there was an actor on a show, not too long ago, who was nearly crucified for saying something derogatory about a gay costar... anybody remember that? He was forced to "apologize" publically for his BELIEF and his OFF-SCREEN STATEMENT, and then he was removed from the show anyway. Yeah... no "P.C." there...

You'll only get the feeling you're arguing, above, if you hang out with no one but those who share your viewpoint (say, in the liberal arts department faculty lounge of your local university). Out in the "real world" there is plenty of disagreement on the issue, yet your own statement, above, seems quite "black and white" with no nuances or shades of grey involved. Curious, that, huh?

An honest look at what continues to succeed in television and film should leave you with absolutely no fear that J.J. Abrams' Star Trek will somehow be "sanitized" from the way Star Trek has always been. The only thing I'm seeing in this thread is a lot of misunderstand about the way Star Trek really was, and even more misunderstanding about the way television currently is.

Here, I'd tend to agree with you.

P.C. was always quit "liberal"... in the sense that it challenged the status quo. "Liberal," after all, basically means "promoting change" while "Conservative" means "promoting keeping things the way that they are now."

That's why I don't like those terms, without a modifier, in political terms... by the real, meaningful definitions, Ronald Reagan... who wanted to change things... was the "liberal" and Jimmy Carter, who wanted to keep things the way they had been for a while, was the "conservative." I use the terms only in relationship to the Constitution... one group wanting to promote changes to the original-intent (what I call "Constitutional Liberal") and the other wanting to maintain the original-intent (what I call "Constitutional Conservative"... ie, "strict constructionist")

But Trek was always about challenging the status quo... it was quite "liberal" in that way. It promoted a future that wasn't quite how you'd have projected things at the time. It was NOT "P.C." in any way.

The thing about "P.C." is that it's just a "nicey-nice" way of describing the way that one group attempts to silence the opposing voices. It's always OK to "silence the opposition" if it's a given, up front, that the "opposition" is inherently WRONG... or so the argument goes.

I'm not "wrong" about Hate Crimes. A murder is a murder is a murder. If you kill someone of the same race, or someone of a different race... it shouldn't make any difference. In both cases, the crime is that you MURDERED someone... not WHY you did it.

You can, should, and MUST judge people based upon what they do. But once you start judging people, and PUNISHING people, based upon what they THINK... come on, Troy, you must see this... once you start punishing "WRONG THINKING" instead of just "wrongdoing"... it is, BY DEFINITION OF THE VERY WORDS USED, "THOUGHT POLICING."

Freedom of thought... freedom of opinion... and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION is so important that a section specifically protecting that was added to the Constitution by the original authors in the very first amendment that they made to it, to explicitly protect the citizens against "thought policing" which is, and always has been, one of the most favored tools of tyranies throughout human history.

"Political Correctness" is just "thought control" stated in a way that we're not supposed to immediately catch on to. "Hate Crimes" legislation is about punishing THOUGHT, not ACTION.

Anyone who can't see that is in willful denial.

 

[Lord Garth]

By my count this thread has drifted off topic three times. TOS fans, Dennis, and the definition of PC. None of these have to do with what ST XI is going to be like.

All that's going to be said about the actual topic has been said and it's likely the discussion will continue to drift. Time for closure.