Yes, there are legitimate bigoted Star Trek fans. It’s the Internet. You can find an abundance of any extreme niche. I’m honestly willing to bet I could find an abundance of furry star Trek fans fairly easily also, despite furries as a whole being vanishingly rare in real life.
However it’s a lot more common to see legitimate criticism of Star Trek painted as bigotry, often by people who clearly aren’t really that big fans of the series.
You couldn’t criticize Discovery for the first year it came out without being called a bigot, and a lot of the people doing so would clearly have 0 idea about the greater Star Trek universe. I remember reading a multitude of comments calling Burnham the first female Captain or first black captain, saying how female senior officers were quiet and unassuming until Tilly came along, and a bunch of other shit that was objectively wrong.
I feel like most implied accusations of bigotry these days are low faith effort attempts to stifle criticism by newer fans who just can’t handle criticism. It’s exhausting and super toxic.
Finally Lower Decks is a grabbag of woke tropes but was met with widespread and is the most popular NuTrek among hardcore fans. That should tell you something more is going on.
It’s definitely true that some people with legitimate criticisms get misread, but I think it’s inaccurate to say that it’s “a lot more common” to see legitimate criticism construed as bigotry than actual bigotry.
Just look at this thread, there are a bunch of people whining about queer characters being forced in your face just for being a part of the show. The bigoted fans come out in force with talk of “STD” (ugh) all the time, which is what created that expectation in the first place.
I feel like dismissing all the bigotry out there (including in this very thread) as “it’s just the internet” while dwelling on a few dumb comments you read in the past (probably on the Internet?) is disingenuous.
The top comments are by far just assholes. They dismiss and demean people like high school bullies. They are overly cruel, and blatantly attempt to justify that behavior like pretending their targets are just deplorable who deserve to be treated like this.
I find it disingenuous that you focus on the comments downvoted to hell and completely handwave away this obviously shitty behavior.
My instance has downvotes disabled, so if those comments are downvoted to hell I wouldn’t know. As a result they show as reasonably highly upvoted on my end. Even if those opinions are controversial, the number of upvotes they get (plus the fact that there’s several such comments, even here) show that there’s lots of people who share the opinion. We just happen to be in a community that tends to be biased towards Discovery, so those opinions are in a minority here. Go to other communities, and suddenly people will be complaining about “woke Trek” left and right and getting majority support.
People came at you because you responded to a meme about bigots complaining about wokeness, which even you seem to concede exist, to make a complaint about how legitimate criticism gets construed as bigotry—which the meme in the post is not an example of. It comes across a little like a self report. It’s like if you make a post saying “Nazism is bad” and some conservative randomly responds “this is hate speech against conservatives”. You were talking about Nazis, not conservatives, but their response comes across as them admitting they’re a Nazi.
That said, people came at you really aggro. It’s easy to get caught up in labeling people as bigots and then get carried away in the dunking. I don’t want to handwave away that fact.
The reason I immediately jumped to the bullying is because I feel like I’ve seen this story a million times. Someone loudly proclaims some extremely popular moral opinions. In the process, they then proceeded to insult whatever morally defunct out group.
At first it seems great. After all, bigots/Nazis are horrible people that need to be put in their place.
However, over time, the definition of bigot/Nazi widens to the point where it essentially becomes meaningless, while the vitriol towards whatever group becomes more and more unhinged.
I remember on reddit there was a sub called justneckbeard things. It started by roasting toxic neck beards. However by the end they’d just be posting pictures of obese nerds, making wild and completely unfounded moral assumptions, and then using those assumptions as a justification to bully people.
I honestly don’t think most of the people complaining about bigots are here to protect tolerance. I think they’re just toxic people who enjoy being cruel.
The whole “it used to be other nerds (read as social awkward straight men) until you guys came along” narrative just shows you have an “us vs them” mentality about the whole thing.
Please explain to me, in detail, how the people responding to my comments aren’t being overly aggressive, outright hostile, extremely dismissive, and overall disrespectful.
The main dude responding to me immediately called me a bigot, and is in other parts of this post is “joking” about how bigots should be burned. When I pointed out that was kinda fucked, he made a “joke” that I was a sexual deviant.
This is high school bully behavior. You guys are bullies who tag people are problematic to justify shitty behavior.
This is about a very specific, very silly objection, levelled by people who have found themselves indoctrinated into a mode of thinking that alienates them from the people around them, because of a manufactured fear preying upon alienation many of us experience in our modern world.
I’ve had plenty of objections to aspects of Disco, especially during season two, but scattered throughout the series, and no one has ever called me a bigot for my hot takes. If you’re presenting your critiques in such a way that people are assuming you’re bigoted, perhaps you should reevaluate how you’re constructing your criticism.
non episodic / arcs within arcs make it hard to jump in and follow
Everyone talks too fast (lampooned on SNW | LD crossover even!) Deus Ex (Time Travel | AI | Etc.)
MultiLithium gets really explody if you cry hard enough.
Not Valid:
Everything is too (Gender | Sexual Preference | Skin Color) for ST (these people have a vacation fuck planet, and regularly bone holocharacters, get over it we all know if Kirk had a holodeck he would have died in that thing).
Mushroom warp is stupid (fuck you I loved mushroom warp).
ha! That’s excellent. I was not in a position time-wise to watch DSC S1 when it actually aired, so I missed all these shenanigans. In retrospect it’s probably the best trek to binge (which I did) since many episodes feel more like parts of a movie instead of being self contained. I’m a fan of all trek, even Enterprise. :D
I think in their efforts to make the crew less woke than in the TNG era to maintain continuity, they accidentally made the crew less woke than people are in 2024. I’m saying it aged poorly. For example I cite Trip being uncomfortable with polyamoury.
From my perspective, I didnt start to appreciate it until the final season and then I wasnt even that bummed because I knew I wouldnt have to hear budget rod Stewart sing over an old Timey map with crew member power point transitions
I don’t know I’m not really into TOS, it was too campy for me. I liked TNG just fine, something about ENT really had like a rough, we’re doing real first time exploration kind of vibes to it which I really enjoyed.
Okay so you’ll notice I didn’t have any specific criticisms of discovery listed, and people in this thread are calling me a bigot, dismissing my opinion, and being general assholes to me.
There also is someone who comes in, implied that the legitimate criticisms that have nothing to do with identity politics are BS and the real reason OP doesn’t like Discovery is that they are a bigot.
I genuinely don’t understand this question. What “that” are you referring to, what “it” are you referring to, who’s “they”, what’s “normal” for “they”?, and what “it”, again.
This conversation is too Daystrom for Risa. I’ll agree to disagree :old man shakes fist at clouds:
because I can’t stop me:
Mushroom warp was “bat shit crazy” to pretty much everyone.
the last ship that tried it disappeared, presumed lost with all hands.
Section 31 probably has the whole story locked in a cabinet next to Mirror Universe Spock’s Goatee.
I think there was a whole plot about how using it hurts the thing that is the mushrooms? So like, ethically, that’s a no go.
By the end of Voyager, the Federation is beginning to understand how to build trans warp gateways (Borg tech) which is, at least practically, close enough to mushroom warp that it’s good enough.
STD had shit writing, unbelievable performances, and stands as a monument of what not to do making Trek. They did inclusion pretty well however, which I think opened the door to future, positive choices in the franchise.
SNW did all these things correctly. (I’m 100% not biased because I’m crushin on Captain Angel)
Picard S2 is legitimately the worst thing ever made in Star Trek. It physically hurt to try to finish it, and remains to this day the only Trek I skipped episodes of.
Star Trek is one of the things I still hang onto as optimistic about the future. We can make a better world for everyone and overcome racism, capitalism, transphobia, etc. We can build something better and reach for the stars. And that’s always been the message. The characters have advanced technology like ships and teleporters, but what’s really advanced is how they are as people. They’re curious, educated, accepting people who want to explore the universe for the sake of it.
I also hang onto the X-Men. That was also important to me growing up, seeing how the characters could come together to defend themselves against hatred. I grew up in a really conservative area so I’m always gonna be grateful to Star Trek and X-Men (and later all sorts of books) for keeping me sane as a kid
Star Trek and X-Men were a huge part of my childhood and teen years as well, so I 100% get where you’re coming from.
Only tangentially related, I really do wish Marvel would take a back to basics approach with the X-Men so I could get into them again. I know a lot of people love the Krokoa era, and I’m happy they have it, but for me it is too dense and too far removed from what I grew up with for me to be able to penetrate. I know they’ve got an upcoming sea change happening, so maybe then.
In my opinion STD is just badly written with the focus on timeline breaking technology and a Mary Sue.
There is nothing wrong with LGBT characters if they fit to the story (not just people with the superpower of being gay).
Why even have gay humans? I thought the sexy point of sexy star trek sex was interspecies sex? Remember when Trip got pregnant? Riker boned the 3 fingered mitten hand doctor after he was captured? Troy and Crusher both got mind raped! Even data has sex! See, no need for this silly human on human stuff.
I read the Mary Sue link you provided but I can’t figure out what character you’re suggesting is “portrayed as inexplicably competent across all domains, unrealistically free of weaknesses, extremely attractive, innately virtuous, and generally lacking meaningful character flaws.” (from your link).
I agree about the timeline stuff and also that the LGBT representation was excellently done and not any character’s “superpower” or anything.
(Also the official initialism for Disco is “DSC” (or “DIS” on Memory Alpha) but never “STD”)
I’ve only just started discovery, and knowing how ST almost always has bad first seasons I’m giving it some slack. I’m not a big fan of the Klingon redesign but my main dislike is the less episodic nature of the show. That was my issue with the last seasons of ENT as well. I’ll keep watching it but I do really prefer the more episodic nature with occasional multiparters.
I meant especially Michael Burnhams abilities as a human. Her short and unbelievable backstory on vulcan, her super vulcan logic where she outsmarts experts in their fields, her exceptionally fighting skills and so on.
Maybe not all checkpoints could be marked here, but I think she was written in the wrong genre.
Maybe a superhero movie (with a better backstory) would be more appropriate.
If Kurtzman did anything with it, that trek is likely garbage and ignorable. If someone else wrote and directed without Kurtzman sticking his mystery box horseshit in it, I’ll give it a shot. Lower decks is great. Strange new worlds is sometimes fantastic, and sometimes very fucking stupid, which brings it in line with trek in general, so I like it.
The thing I love about this, the thing I always find funny whenever this comes up, is that these midwits are just too dumb to make the obvious argument. The argument that is “in their face” and “being shoved down their throats.”
There is a rational, coherent argument to make their point. It’s one I disagree with. It’s one that, in my opinion, can only be made in bad faith with no purpose other than to be a concern troll, but it’s there.
They always bring up Adira, Gray, Jett, Stamets, Culber, and anything else that’s gone up their ass but never any of the actual social commentary because they’re so thick it went over their heads and they didn’t even notice it. You can see it in this thread. They mention the characters and people respond with “but they’re just existing, how does that bother you?” They just bring up the characters again to a response of “yeah, we heard you the first time, what are they doing that bothers you other than existing?” And it just goes in a circle.
There was never an episode of ToS where Uhura talked about how hard it was to be a black woman as a bridge officer, because it wasn’t. That’s the whole point. In the future Star Trek wants us to imagine, a black female officer is completely unremarkable. Whenever they wanted to engage in social commentary about race relations in the 60s they had to invent an allegorical race, time travel, or use some other device to make their point.
The same thing is happening in the newer series. All those characters are just existing. Their sexuality and gender identity is completely unremarkable in the future Star Trek shows us. If those dipshits had two brain cells to rub together they would see the new series are full of allegories about not just tolerance, or even acceptance, but appreciation for beings with non-conforming expressions of self. If any of that did manage to trickle through their thick skulls they probably just twisted it into “yeah, people shouldn’t make fun of me for having a relationship with a waifu pillow.”
If they weren’t so stupid they could easily give a half dozen examples and say “it’s too much,” “I got it the first time,” “focus on something else for a change,” or whatever other bullshit justification they came up with to oppose these themes. It would be a bad faith argument that I would disagree with but at least they could pretend they’re not bigots, instead of their current position which seems to be “I’ve got no problem with these people, I just don’t want to see them.”
In the future Star Trek wants us to imagine a black female officer is completely unremarkable.
Interestingly, in the unaired TOS pilot Pike did in fact remark on a female officer (albeit Una rather than Uhura), saying he “can’t get used to having a woman on the bridge”.
Of course, being unaired, the episode’s canonicity was pretty questionable. Until SNW used the exact clip of him saying that as archive footage.
(n.b. None of this is intended to negate the point you’re making. It’s just a strange little thing that could have been brushed aside as an artifact of the show not quite having figured out what it was yet, had not modern Trek gone and affirmed it.)
Until SNW used the exact clip of him saying that as archive footage.
That never happened. Discovery was the only show that used a scene from The Cage but it wasn’t that clip. If Memory Serves did a “last time on Star Trek Discovery” segment that used clips from that episode. It gave backstory on Talos and Pike’s relationship with Vina. The clip of Pike making a sexist comment was not used, and has never been used in any other show to date.
And, on the flip side, there’s also their total blindness to many examples of old Trek being decidedly unsubtle. They just will not address those, because to do so would completely undermine their point—and they’re not interested in the truth, really. They just want their anger.
I don’t know how someone can be a Star Trek fan and not get it. It’s an attitude diametrically opposed to the core spirit of the franchise. How do these people enjoy a show about exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations, but they can’t stand the presence of different humans?
The one argument that Star Trek has gone woke I agree with is that the characters are all tripping over themselves to make make Tilly captain despite her obvious incompetence for that position. Contrast that with Barkley who everyone recognized needed self improvement to progress.
Otherwise I totally agree. Star Trek has always been progressive when it comes to race, religion, etc.
TBH, I initially had a strange reaction to Discovery. It seemed to me like it was virtue-signalling and pandering to an audience to increase viewership or profit. Similar to how you sometimes see fake stock-photos of a business where they contains exactly one person from every ethnicity. I think the word I’m thinking of is “tokenism.” I still watched it for a couple seasons, and it was decent. I didn’t really realize at the time how prevalent and dangerous bigotry still was in the U.S… Now I think it’s probably good some shows and movies over-represent minorities.
It seemed to me like it was virtue-signalling and pandering to an audience to increase viewership or profit.
Until people stop seeing minorities as different, then these kind of labels are going to get applied just because they exist. If a cast of non-minorities doesn’t raise an eyebrow, then a cast of minorities shouldn’t either. Base such labels on the way the characters are written, not because they exist. Stopping bigotry requires not caring about sex, gender, or sexual orientation.
I didn’t really realize at the time how prevalent and dangerous bigotry still was in the U.S
Bigotry is a worldwide issue, not just in the US. The problem is often implicit discrimination, where someone is subconsciously influenced by bigotry and isn’t aware they’re doing it. It never gets resolved because people get defensive when it’s pointed out to them. Stopping it requires prioritizing doing the right thing over being right.
I remember seeing people complaining about “woke adaptation” with The Sandman, and Neil Gaiman always reply on Twitter he was ok with that, is like people can’t believe there is authors or works who is being left-right stories, people acted like he was controlled, mind-washing or something.
The Sandman is such a hilarious example of something to get upset about being too woke, too. “This adaptation of a comic written that featured gender fluid characters in 1989 has been corrupted by the woke mob!”
In all honesty, most people that hate current trek don’t hate it because it’s too woke, they hate it because it’s just generic trash. Classic trek didn’t care much about big space battles, loads of pew pew and great action shots. Classic trek cared about great stories. The ships were places where people actually worked and lived together.
Current trek (anything after enterprise) has horrible story lines, horrible dialogue, is mostly about dump action pew pew and CGI, ignores 50 years of history, is all about fuck this, fuck that and fucking fuck you and honestly: it isn’t woke: it’s only virtue signalling.
Classic trek was woke by making great stories about real issues in society. New trek is just a sad shadow of what it used to be.
I was never bothered by new trek being too woke because it isn’t.
To quote a really shitty show: sheer fucking hubris.
Current trek (anything after enterprise) has horrible story lines, horrible dialogue, is mostly about dump action pew pew and CGI, ignores 50 years of history, is all about fuck this, fuck that and fucking fuck you and honestly: it isn’t woke: it’s only virtue signalling.
To claim that all iterations of modern Trek are a homogenous unit cut from one singular cloth tells me that either you haven’t actually even attempted to watch even half of it, or you’re completely blinded by personal biases. Either way, your opinion would be easy to discard even if it wasn’t a rant only tangentially related to the original post.
So you’re saying I should be chewed to death with Dijon mustard? I don’t get why every time I barge into a thread and drop a completely unrelated turd of a reddit brained opinion someone like you always shows up to bully me.
Discovery was a rollercoaster for me. It kept having moments that made me think it was getting its stuff together and then instead of sticking the landing it would fall flat on it’s face.
I’m with you, I did not really like 1-2 much (despite liking the characters, sets, costumes music, etc.) and 3 was an improvement, but season 4 I actually thought was phenomenal and what I want to see more of in Trek, specifically the slower pacing and big weird alien-aliens, and a conflict not solved with pew pews.
I feel similarly with Enterprise, Season 4 of ENT was so good, so I’m excited to see if DSC S5 can keep it up.
Current trek seems to ignore the origional ‘meta’ of Star Trek, until the ratings are so bad that they overly backpedal and turn it into poor fan service. And because of that, it tells poorly written stories.
Well said. I don’t think new Trek has been too “woke” (whatever that means because no one can define it). The only one that was over the top was that kid who was non-Trill that had a symbiont. For being in the 31st century (or whatever) they focused too much on his they/them nonsense. You’re not suppose to mention it. When you make a thing of it, it doesn’t come across as normal. That’s like TOS making a big deal of a black woman working on the bridge. Sure, in reality it was a big deal at the time, but being set in the 23rd century it should be normal by then.
New Trek sucks for all the reasons you said. God awful writing, poor dialog, and plenty of bad actors. No character development. I can only remember a few characters names from Discovery. The rest I just physically describe: chick with metal on half of face, robot chick, darked haired guy and blonde chick who stood in the back of the bridge sometimes, and chick with African name.
I only continued to watch it for Stamets (after he chilled out), Saru, and Georgiou.
And it was a scene of, what, 30 seconds where they stated what their pronouns were, then it was never mentioned again? How is that focusing too much on it?
You’re not suppose to mention it.
Unless everyone’s a mind reader, nobody’s going to know what a person’s pronouns are unless they tell them. They did, and that was that.
It was several scenes. Mostly between the doctor and Stamets. More than “30 seconds”.
No other character stated their pronouns, so how am I supposed to know everyone elses? The same way people figured it out since day 1. And here’s an easy way for us to know. Other characters can call him by it, and then we’ll know. Not everything has to be outright stated on camera for the audience to figure it out.
I’m only aware of this scene. What others are there? Stamets misgenders them at 0:09 and they’re done with the scene around 0:48, so you’re right, it was about 40 whole seconds.
I am frequently just… astonished to be honest, how often it’s repeated that it was a “major plot arc” or “multiple scenes” when it was, (as you pointed out) so brief. And it doesn’t ever seem to sway anyone’s opinion when this fact is pointed out!
“They made an entire episode about nonbinary people”
“The one in TNG?”
“No, Discovery”
“There was a single 40 second scene”
“Are you trolling? It was shoved down our throats”
Its funny because while we gloss over it today, this is how shocking uhara just being on the bridge was to people, or the shatner kiss. Like people were still being murdered and lynched for interracial relationships and even in northern cities we had red lining and racial violence. The big trans arc is a minor scene. With a person who also literally and unsubtly has memories of being MULTIPLE sexes and genders.
Its so shocking for some people it stands out. Even if they arent overt bigots being exposed to it rubs them a certain way.
I kind of get where some people are coming from if they’re (in good faith) saying that by that time Adira should just be matter-of-factly correctly Stamets rather than acting uncomfortable, but here’s the thing: the show might take place in the future, but it was made in 2020. Star Trek has always addressed the social issues of its time in a way that plays to the audience.
And hell, plenty of people are uncomfortable correcting others in general, regardless of the reason.
For the sake of argument (and I don’t care enough to go digging), let’s say it was no more than 40 seconds, but you didn’t respond to the rest of my comment so I’ll assume you’re in agreement.
Maybe they didn’t respond to the second half of the comment because, even though they had just corrected your pronoun misuse, you did it right away again.
You assume incorrectly. So in conclusion, a 40 second scene is the show “focusing too much on they/them ‘nonsense,’” since it’s the only part that addresses it.
You know you’re never going to get any hard evidence other than surface-level stuff that they can get from their bigot blogs, because bigots hate actually engaging with media.
I agree. StarTrek was always woke in the truest sense of the word. In my opinion the new shows are just not good - Neither as StarTrek nor as general entertainment. Except for maybe Strange New Worlds which certainly has shown some potential.
Lower Decks is brilliant. But Discovery and Picard was enough to make me hate new trek. What else is there? Prodigy is just a trashy show for kids. Well for stupid little kids it’s good enough. You don’t need quality writing for kids /s
PS: Yes I’m angry at the enshittification of star trek.
Prodigy is great for what it’s trying to be. If you don’t like kids shows that’s fine, but Prodigy is still teaching a new generation about Starfleet ideals and I think that’s awesome. Strange New Worlds is also pretty decent.
Well lol, very loosely yeah kinda. Very similar processes. Instead of being in the control of creatives who love the franchise, the franchise is owned by a corporation through a monopoly (IP ownership) who just try to diversify the portfolio and suits just hire anybody that sounds like they make money. And nobody else is allowed to make star trek. The Orville was better Star Trek than new trek but it competes against the name recognition of the brand.
Yeah, there’s a difference between a well written stories that take on social issues and really breaks down the ethics of them in an interesting and entertaining way and a poorly written story that’s trying to do something vaguely similar and completely fails to accomplish anything other than just mentioning that social issues exist.
It’s a weird feeling where I agree with what they’re trying to do but it’s so painful to watch them constantly fail.
A bad thing about the anti-woke thing is it’s hard to criticize things that have good intentions but have bad execution without being lumped in with the assholes. And I feel like poor writing won’t improve when there’s that excuse of “well they’re just hateful anti-woke assholes” to fall back on.
Okay so what’s your take on the core dilemma presented by the villain in Prodigy? Given an apparent choice between isolation and extinction, what do you think the right resolution is? Personally I think the conflict mirrors the real world isolation of Sentinel Island. And with the Sentinelese in mind, it starts feeling culturally insensitive to say isolation has no cultural excuse.
Or do you think the question posed by Prodigy is overly simple?
Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks have been pretty good at scratching the classic itch I think. But yeah I do agree that picard and discovery suffer from a problem that a lot of Marvel and DC comics these days suffer from. They dont slow down and spend every arc going from a threat THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING to another threat that WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING. So many universe ending events.
Yes but the woke messages were embedded in good stories so it felt smart and natural. That is why fans of classic Trek embrace the way it is woke. Discovery on the other hand constantly puts the woke element in the center, points three spotlights at it and then paints it neon until there is no more room left for a good story and mature viewers feel treated like they were idiots. It is sad how younger fans seem to be unable to perceive this significant difference and accuse people who do of bigotry.
The first episode of Trek I ever saw was the ToS episode with aliens that had half-white and half-black faces and were engaged in a race war over which side was which. It has never been subtle, and for good reason. Nuance generally doesn’t work well with bigots. If you want to get people to examine their beliefs you need to shove the mirror in their face.
The only thing that’s changed is what is getting shoved in your face. ToS doesn’t make you uncomfortable? Good for you, you’re not a Jim Crow level racist. Some of the new stuff makes you uncomfortable? Maybe you think about why it makes you uncomfortable instead of complaining about it.
A little off the point: I actually think it’s less in your face. In the episodic series when they did something along these lines it was usually the main focus of the entire episode. With the newer serialized seasons it’s usually a b-plot. They can devote a little more time to the b-plots when they have a whole season to resolve the main story but it’s still not the main focus.
I am getting too many replies now to write a full fledged answer to each, sorry. I just want to tell you that you should keep in mind that you don´t actually know me personally, that I was friends with gay dudes 30 years ago already and that you should maybe try to be less judgemental. The new stuff does not make me uncomfortable. It simply annoys me that in NuTrek cheap virtue signalling and queer baiting took the place of good sci-fi storytelling. I am fine with it if you perceive that differently though. Enjoy your favorite Star trek shows, I for myself will enjoy my DS9 rewatch.
Respectfully, no, I’m not going to “try to be less judgemental.”
I see a show that continues it’s long tradition of inclusiveness and respect for all people by including characters that are sexual and gender minorities. I then see people who claim to be fans, not just of the show, but also of what it has always been trying to do, complaining about it doing what it’s always done.
I’m going to judge. I have judged, and I’ve found you wanting.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. However, you should know that you are not in a position where your opinion could concern me in the slightest.
It should be clear to any reasonable person that I have no need whatsoever to apologize to strangers on the internet for having my own opinion. The way you take yourself way too seriously sounds pretty megalomaniacal. Also, banned for trolling.
No one is asking you for an apology, just an example.
Surely you can do that, right? This thing that’s so pervasive it’s ruined entire seasons for you, you must be able to remember one scene from one episode where it actually happens.
It should be easy, shouldn’t it? Especially since there’s no shortage of examples of old Trek being decidedly unsubtle in this thread. Strange how that user never seems to respond to those…
I disagree with you. Since I can see from your comments that challenging your ideas even a little bit makes you think everyone is a scary troll and you block them, you should go ahead and block me, too.
Oh stop playing the victim, you just don’t like that people disagree with you; asking you to actually give one single example of this wokeness-pushing of epic proportions that you said is the problem isn’t asking you to apologize – it’s asking you to give an example.
There’s also an episode where literally Abraham Lincoln shows up, talks to Uhura, and comments on how much things have changed in the future. Real subtle stuff!
I get your point. You’re saying that “subliminal” wokeness is better than “in your face” wokeness because the later messes with the core of the series.
Honestly, I agree. Unless it is a show dedicated to social issues like racism, sexism or homphobia, try to keep the wokeness subliminal. Just show that it’s fine for these things to happen, that it is normal and acceptable, that it isn’t a big deal. Don’t make it the whole show, it’s just awkward.
I prefer when they show me what reality should be like. LGBTQ people in our social groups as if nothing special was happening at all. Once it becomes preachy and brainwashy, I’m out.
That’s what they did. Stamets and Culber were just there. Grey and Adira were just there. They used elements of the symbiote story as an allagory but their NB status just was. It seems like you’re making it bigger in your mind.
I’m assuming you’re not a racist or homophobic so how can something that’s true “become brainwashy”? Doesn’t brainwashing imply a reduction in critical thinking? You may not like the “preachy” way facts are presented but they are still facts. Forcefully pushing ideas is preaching, not brainwashing.
I think it is forced exposure, trying to program people. I don’t think it is bad if it helps spread tolerance, I just don’t enjoy watching stuff that forcefully pushes ideas, even if I agree with those ideas.
I think that’s exactly what the people calling this “too woke” are about. Like, exposure is so forced and obvious that it ruins the show for them. It doesn’t feel like a show anymore, more like advertisement for ideologies.
I don’t think they are saying “please no homosexuals on TV”, they are saying “please, focus on the plot, not on the social issues that surround homosexuality”.
As for my personal preference, I’ve always thought sex in movies is just awkward in general.
Since these characters were introduced people have said what you’re saying over and over. Always with the same “I don’t have a problem with gay/trans/NB but…” disclaimer. Then they refuse to give examples of the characters doing anything other than existing. This thread is a good example. Please refresh my memory. Which episode(s) focus “on the social issues that surround homosexuality.”
Outside of the scene where Adira tells Stamets their pronouns and the use of those pronouns, give me one line, in one scene, in one episode, of one season that would have to be changed if Adira was a cis straight human woman hosting the symbiote of her deceased cis straight Trill boyfriend.
Give me one line, in one scene, in one episode, of one season that would have to be changed if either Stamets or Culber was a woman.
To be clear, although I don’t remember any, I’m not saying you couldn’t find any examples. I’m just curious what constitutes “forced and obvious” plot elements that are “advertisement(s) for ideologies” that “ruins the show” for you.
Without examples all anyone hears is you bitching about the existence of these characters the way Archie Bunker would have bitched about Uhura simply existing.
It’s not ruining anything for me. I just said I understood his point. Everyone has a different threshold for what they consider preaching, it’s pretty subjective.
If he thinks that, then you should ask him. I just said I understood his point because I have felt this in the past with other shows. I’ve been on both sides of the discussion many times. After many times, you realize there’s no point in fighting about it, people won’t change their minds.
I just said my personal preference: when they act like it is totally normal and not a special event. That’s the sweet spot for me. I’m guessing some may see that as homophobia, and others may see that as brainwashing. That’s just the point I personally enjoy when it comes to these matters.
No, if I see his point doesn’t mean I agree with his point. I see it. I’ve been on his side of this discussion before.
It is totally relative, why do you need to be so divisive? I was trying to be understanding with him, I wasn’t joining a side. Just saw everyone attacking him and thought it was just a matter of personal preference not rooted in hate.
Do you think there is a series that is too woke or pushy? There’s probably someone who disagrees with you if you do, probably a whole community.
Saying that no series is too woke is also an opinion that would get a lot of disagreement.
To see their point, you would have to think there is at least something to it.
Their, and your, inability to support that point makes it nonsensical to me.
Why do you see their point? What is at least one example of “woke(nees)” or “push(iness)” that makes your see their point? Or do you just agree with them on a visceral level that requires no explanations?
I already told you that seeing someone’s point doesn’t mean agreeing with their point. Do you disagree with this? If you do, I’m OK with it and we can move on.
A lot of people have a lot of stupid/bigoted opinions. Do you see all of their points too?
Your opinions of other shows are irrelevant to weather or not they have a valid point about this show.
That’s enough? Someone says something, anything, and you see their point?
This is not semantic at all. I’m asking for one example from Star Trek that allows you to “see the point” of someone that says it’s “woke,” “pushy,” “preachy,” or anything else along those lines.
If you’re unable to give an example you’ll have to forgive people for assuming the reason is the mere existence of the characters that makes them feel that way and that allows you to “see their point.”
As I said, I was being understanding with them because I didn’t think their opinion was rooted in hate. I felt they really thought that the focus on the wokeness stole the spotlight from the plot.
And no, I wouldn’t see their point because I haven’t had bigoted or racist opinions before. I sent you a list with 2 points, why are you ignoring the second one?
OK, this is enough. I won’t block you because that’s immature, but please stop. Go ahead and downvote this, I don’t care.
You’re being downvoted, but I just wanted to let you know you’re not alone in noticing what you have. There is indeed a significant difference in the approach of classic Trek vs. what we have now. In the past, the story was the focus, and the wokeness was an addition to it. Now, the woke seems to be the focus, and it’s at the expense of the storytelling.
I actually hate the word “woke.” I’m about the most left leaning person I know and agree with the liberal messages in all Trek. But it really has destroyed the storytelling in the new stuff. It should primarily be a science fiction show, not a morality lecture.
I’m not going to argue with anyone who disagrees, I’ll just accept the downvotes, I just wanted to show a little support.
In the past, the story was the focus, and the wokeness was an addition to it. Now, the woke seems to be the focus, and it’s at the expense of the storytelling.
It should primarily be a science fiction show, not a morality lecture.
You nailed it there! Thanks for the support, I appreciate it <3
You say that it is at the expense of the storytelling but to me it is the storytelling or at least an essential part of it and what makes it special.
If you prefer, there is plenty of other sci-fi where it’s just two strait white dudes using cgi to save the universe. But then that’s also not really a rich seam for storytelling.
I’m not downvoting either of you, and I hope this doesn’t sound like me being argumentative, I just want to know what you’re seeing in Discovery that I haven’t seen in all the other Trek series (see me other comment in this thread, I guess). Morality lectures are central to Trek, IMHO.
Placing the bland Michael Burnham centrepoint isn’t something ST did before. The doc was fine, his partner nonsensicle, the redhead was ANNOYING and I’ve forgotten the rest - no, I don’t really care to spend too much time doing research - I just want to fucking vent. Nor did earlier ST FINALLY introduce another, possibly interesting character (the Freeza looking one) to IMMEDIATELY kill her off. My gods, I was fucking pissed. Then that one episode where a bomb was going to go off and someone had to be “left behind” or some stupid shit? There was NO reason to do that. And don’t get me fucking started on the LENS FLARE! THAT’S THE MOST UNSTARTREK THING I’VE EVER SEEN!
I never had the feeling that wokeness was shoved in one’s face. Disco has other problems that are very severe. Because it’s shit. But not because of wokeness.
In the first episode of Discovery, the first officer stages a mutiny because her captain refuses to fire on the Klingons unprovoked.
That is the kind of person who doesn’t belong in Starfleet. She should be court martialed, sent back to Earth or Vulcan or wherever she wants to go, and encouraged to open a Vulcan fusion restaurant or something. I have no interest in continuing to watch that ship or those characters. I think a character like that would be fine in a different show or on a different ship. Maybe make the crew mercenaries instead of Starfleet officers. You could do Firefly in Star Trek, that would be awesome. But Discovery just doesn’t look like Trek to me.
Also the Klingons are really boring and I can’t possibly see them enjoying a bottle of bloodwine or singing poems about Kah’less. IDK replace them with Breen or something. Not every Star Trek show has to be about the Klingon War.
Classic Trek literally had black&white people (ToS) as an analogue for racism, and a race of socially genderless people as an analogy for gender identity (TNG).
I prefer Classic Trek for sure, but it has always centred its wokeness. Writers just constantly inventing new races to talk about the social issues of the day.
I do wish the newer Trek was a bit drier. That’s what I miss the most: the boring episodes without any action happening, just characters talking and building out the universe, and yeah, wrestling with social issues.
What about Discovery felt like it had a spotlight on it more than “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”? Or that TOS put a diverse cast front and center on the screen, including folks hailing from nations that were currently/recently enemies of the USA at the time? I grew up watching TNG, and the way Geordi turned the concept of what it meant to be ‘disabled’ on its head felt really pointed, even for child me. Likewise the dehumanization of Data.
I’m happy to gripe about worse writing, but if someone wrote a shoddy story that included a couple giraffes (because giraffes were more popular nation-wide), I wouldn’t get mad about “giraffe messages” in entertainment, I’d get mad about shit writing.
TOS put a diverse cast front and center on the screen, including folks hailing from nations that were currently/recently enemies of the USA at the time
Yes and they had that diverse crew naturally work together as a team of professionals without loosing a word about it, instead of constantly reassuring each other and the viewer in dramatic pep talks with a lot of crying that it´s ok. That is exactly the understated wokeness I miss in NuTrek and appreciate in classic Trek.
Geordi turned the concept of what it meant to be ‘disabled’ on its head felt really pointed.
Agreed but that worked so well because Geordi being a full member of the crew was presented as something completely normal. There are no tearful pep talks to reassure Geordi that he’s a full fledged member of the crew. That would have been unnecessary, because it’s shown as just natural that he was. Another example of the understated, smart wokeness in classic Trek. This is the opposite of NuTrek wokeness, which constantly gets overstated and rubbed in the viewers face, like the viewer would be a mentally challenged bigot, who could not grasp the concepts of tolerance an humanism on their own.
I certainly agree that there’s more crying than I’m used to in Trek, but I wouldn’t call that wokeness (unless the crying was about a reason that was “woke”, I guess?). Mostly I chalk that up to popular entertainment dripping with CW style shows (for the worse, of course). That said there was a fair amount of crying/emotional outbursts from Sisko and others on DS9, especially if we take the Maquis into account - like Sisko said, it’s easy to be a saint in paradise. Doesn’t jive with the perfect crews we’ve seen on the Enterprises, but like DS9 being a run-of-the-mill station that got swept up in religious politics and galactic war, Discovery was “just” a bleeding edge science ship that went through hell, so it does kind of make sense that people would be more than a little traumatized and outburst-y.
Totally agree that the casts being treated like it was normal is a great message to send without focusing on it, but they did touch on it occasionally. In the TNG pilot itself, Geordi and Crusher talk pretty openly about his blindness IIRC, and he says something to the effect of “I was born this way”, and he rejects potential “cures”, showing how comfortable he was with what others would consider a curse.
Also there most certainly episodes reassuring Data he was part of the crew. An entire episode reassuring him he was sentient, right? It was central to his (and others’) growth over the series. Whether he was truly a sentient being or not definitely draws parallels to dehumanization in the real world, and was pretty blatant about it.
Plenty of folks on TNG had to talk through their problems - that was pretty much the point of Guinan, in a lot of ways, and even having a Betazoid on the bridge. Feelings and emotion were being pretty openly explored in a way that’s just different to the way things are now. Mental illness has over the decades been normalized in a way that is kind of incredible. Again though, the amount of crying does irk me (that much I agree with, especially when shit is literally on fire). I just don’t consider that to be wokeness in my face, just shoddy writing.
Sorry, you certainly have many good points. However, I am getting tired from replying to too many answers by too many people at this point, so I don´t have the energy to write you an adequate answer to your well written argument. Apologies.
One example would be the gender identities of Adira and Grey. Instead of just presenting it as a background detail and totally natural thing that there are NB/Trans characters on the crew (as it definitely should be in a modern Star Trek setting imo), there is a huge spotlight on their gender identities in the main plot and there is even a 2020 style pronoun talk, which feels extremely unfitting for a scenario so far in the future, when there should not be a need to discuss such things.
Then there is the presentation of Stamets and Culber, which is often more focused on their gay relationship than on their professional work as crew members, which similarly to how Adira and Gray are presented, feels like cheap queer baiting.
Straight cis presenting people are the default. The fact that you dont bitch and complain every time that is shown and only when any other manifestation of gender or sexuality is, is damning. Ultimately youd rather these people be sidelined so that you and all of the other people that they make uncomfortable by just existing can pretend they dont.
I am not going to rewatch the worst NuTrek show just so I can tell you what exact episodes that were. If you want to know, rewatch that crap yourself. Also, blocked for trolling.
Maybe you could refresh my memory with an episode or some more details because I don’t remember it that way. I remember Adira stating their pronouns, everyone accepting that and using those pronouns and never mentioning it again. I’m pretty damn sure there wasn’t some Jordan Peterson type that refused to get with the program.
I’m also pretty sure there wasn’t any focus on Stamets’ and Culber’s “gay” relationship. Their relationship was part of several story elements but the gay aspect was not. Please remind me of any plots involving their relationship that would have to be changed if one of them was a woman.
You are the one making a big deal about these characters because you can’t get over their simple existence.
You intentionally don´t understand the most simple arguments and just keep asking me to put in more argumentative work while all you do is dismissing my points independently of their validity. I am tired of talking to you and consider you a troll, who I will ignore from now on.
Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that Adira was from Earth, which at that point had left the Federation, and had become seemingly a much more paranoid place. So that Adira was uncomfortable and worried about what folks might think of them seems reasonable, since they weren’t used to living in the Federation, where being nonbinary isn’t something anyone should be worried about sharing with others.
I’m confused how you got to this conclusion because in my opinion, Discovery is pretty much a masterclass in treating their queer characters as normal. Stamets and Culber’s relationship is core to a lot of episodes, but the fact that they are gay is not—I can only think of a single time the word “gay” is even said. They’re full characters in their own right that just happen to be in a relationship. Queerbaiting would be if they hinted at a queer relationship but didn’t show it, but they show it plenty. They aren’t perfect either, they literally almost break up. They’re whole people.
And Adira and Grey… Adira has to come out, yes. I don’t know what’s wrong with that. You seem to think it should just be a “normal thing” that isn’t discussed, but coming out is an inevitable part of the non-binary experience. People in Star Trek aren’t mind readers, and seem to still assume binary pronouns by default. So it’s only natural that if someone wants other people to use they/them pronouns for them, they have to come out, even in the future. I think the fact that Adira was able to come out in a single brief scene and then it’s never mentioned again is great and not unnatural at all.
And Grey’s transition is alluded to as something that happened in the past, but is literally never directly mentioned in the plot. I don’t think the word “transgender” is ever uttered. He seems like the perfect trans character for you, his transness has nothing to do with who he is and is never directly mentioned but he’s just accepted for who he is. What’s wrong with his portrayal?
Its funny too because being a trill recipient makes the allegory very “conservative friendly” . They literally gained dozens of lifetimes worth of memories where their gender and birth sex were male and female. Normal trill symbiote candidates go through training in order to better retain their sense of self after they bond and better separate the memories. Adira did not have that training and was not ready for this or even the right species for it.
Riker absolutely lost himself while he had a trill implant and became the trill. Meanwhile Adira has a few hundred or more thousand years of being a mother, being a father, giving birth, and presenting as male and female and over that kind of time span even seeing gender roles and norms change and evolve. After all that they decide you know what I dont think Im quite a girl anymore but Im not a boy. Even a gender absolutist would have to give it to them.
I think they’re talking about that Discovery episode where they encounter a planet of Enby people and Burnham falls in love with one of them. So woke. They even kiss.
Sorry, I am discussing with too many people simultaneously already and I got tired of it. Please just read my several other comments in this thread where all my points have been made. Apologies.
Trek has always been woke but the woke messages in classic Trek were embedded in good stories so it felt smart and natural. That is why fans of classic Trek embrace the way it is woke. Discovery on the other hand constantly puts the woke element in the center, points three spotlights on it and then paints it neon until there is no more room left for a good story and mature viewers feel treated like they were idiots. It is sad how younger fans seem to be unable to perceive this significant difference and accuse people who do of bigotry.
Nobody is doing that. Literally nobody is writing those scripts, you just view them as “woke” because suddenly the hero isn’t male, or white. Pretend die hard doesn’t exist, If you were to write die hard exactly as it’s on the script but McClain is a woman, is that woke?
Why is it that when a woman or person of color gets even close to a leading role, suddenly it’s called “woke”
Lmao first interracial kiss, champion of non-binary, trans, and gay people for the super obvious if you used two or more brain cells when watching metaphor characters sprinkled all over the seasons.
Sure, go ahead and say this hasn’t always been star trek.
This is like people who think Starship Trooper is a Gung-go military action thriller… I’d ask if you’d like to know more, but if you did, you wouldn’t be this dumb.
… We are talking about the TV show with an episode where they show it’s wrong for aliens with black and white skin to discriminate against the same aliens with white and black skin, right? Just making sure we and the “the story is bad because wokeness is at the forefront” comment are on the same page.
I mean, zero issues with anyone creating any show to express any narratives. But sci Fi doesn’t NEED to address social issues to be interesting. It doesn’t need to be allegorical or anything else to do it’s job.
My dad is definitely the type to think Starship Trooper was a cool pro-military movie, but surprisingly he gets that it’s satire and mocking his former job.
However, he still upholds that the BUGS somehow managed to launch an attack against earth, somehow either aiming at a populated area or getting EXTREMELY lucky, from ACROSS THE GALAXY
Paul Verhoeven is great at satire that goes over people’s heads. Same with Robocop, which is a hyper violent satire on American police militarization, privatization, corporate corruption and a complete lack of government oversight.
It drives me up the wall how easily people just ignore Verhoevens satire. The ST:E discord is filled with people who think it’s an advertisement for fascism. Or those other people that think Heinlein had a great political philosophy.
I saw Starship Troopers shortly after it came out. Other than knowing his name and that he was a well known sci-fi author, I wasn’t familiar with Heinlein so I assumed he was a satirist. I picked up one of his other books and read half of it thinking I just wasn’t getting it before I suddenly realized “oh shit, this guy is being sincere.”
Add comment