QMX Star Trek General discussion thread

[Pauln6a]

With Discovery the heaviness I felt was in the manner of its storytelling. With Picard it's in the story itself, which I felt was very well told.

Discovery was an effort to get through, whereas Picard was a 'page turner'.

TOS, as with much enduring science fiction, was an examination of contemporary society, putting forward ideals opposing the current less than favourable reality. At the core of the story are the heroes, who in turn are part of a greater organisation. It's always been about problem solving, and finding ways of curing problems in ethical ways, of protecting minorities and treating them as equals. Unless it conflicted with the Prime Directive, which sometimes appeared to be an unfair hand dealt by a superior, advanced society to a more backwards one - a benign imperialism of sorts.

In Picard the 'heroes' are still true to their ideals, though the greater organisation has failed as a whole. This is anti-Trek in that it's a loss of innocence and hope, though as long as the heroes remain true then the vision is still alive. It's still a reflection of our contemporary societies. Trek has never been fully Utopian, but has often shown the journey towards a better world. Essentially, Utopia is impossible to reach because there will be people in it, and they must have free will to a certain degree. Unless those people are regimented and uniform (as programmed as robots to conform to somebody's ideal) they will undoubtedly find themselves in disagreements in how their society should operate.

After all, Data was initially a regimented and uniform being, but with the capability to evolve. He wanted to be human. He wanted free will, and eventually the choice to end his own life.

Very well put!

 

[NCC-1701 no bloody ABCorD]

Wow, this thread took a quick turn! I only like TOS, am I alone?

This all just goes to show that you can take the Trekkie out of the politics but you can’t take the politics out of the Trekkie.

 

[Candle Jack]

I watched the RedLetterMedia reviews of both Discovery and Picard and being that Rich and especially Mike Stoklasa are big Star Trek fans, I trust their take on things. I don't really have interest in the new takes if they don't make sense with what has come before in canon. Having said that, I bought both 2.0 versions of Kirk and Spock because I couldn't turn them down

 

[Pauln6a]

This all just goes to show that you can take the Trekkie out of the politics but you can’t take the politics out of the Trekkie.

You can't take the politics out of Star Trek though, some of those allegories were as subtle as a sledgehammer.

 

[Asta]

You can't take the politics out of Star Trek though, some of those allegories were as subtle as a sledgehammer.

 

[NCC-1701 no bloody ABCorD]

You can't take the politics out of Star Trek though, some of those allegories were as subtle as a sledgehammer.

Yes, TOS, and to some extent, Enterprise, contained OCCASIONAL socially charged commentary, but not so much politically charged and ubiquitous as today’s faux-Trek. TNG and beyond became a progressively snowballing onslaught to the point where Discovery is an unabashed Woke vehicle. So, thanks but no thanks! Believe it or not, I’m awake already.

 

[jal76]

When the folks behind Discovery decided to be ?woke? by casting an African-American woman as the show?s lead and including not one but two gay characters in the main cast they probably knew that they would lose the opportunity to appeal to some folks. I applaud them for telling the story that they wanted to tell and realizing that when you try to please everyone you end up pleading no one. In art and entertainment one person?s trash is another person?s treasure. Based upon the fact that they have just announced their third new series...have already shared that a fourth is in development, and two animated series too their decision making is paying off...CBS would not be throwing money at them to make more and more shows if they were not happy with the critical and commercial performance of their current slate.

 

[NCC-1701 no bloody ABCorD]

I don’t need to prop up the empty carcass of a politically generated TV show in order to prove to myself and to my friends that I am as woke as the next “progressive” bleeding heart. And as a Star Trek fan I do not appreciate that Trek has turned into a tool of the Hollywood apparatchik who cater to snowflakes needing to Discover yet another shoulder to cry on.

 

[jal76]

I think you mentioned that you have not seen the show...? I have seen every episode and I have no idea what you are talking about...you can dislike the plot, characters, ship design, respect or lack of respect for existing canon, action oriented story telling, or just dislike the show in general...all fair and legitimate criticisms of the show. This woke business that you keep harping on about? I would love to know, honestly, what in the world you are taking about...the entire first season is literally a war story...I will actually drop the whole thing if you can point to the bleeding heart, woke, liberal, Hollywood elements of the show...you prove the age old adage about familiarizing one?s self with something before you criticize it.

 

[Scifi67]

I don?t need to prop up the empty carcass of a politically generated TV show in order to prove to myself and to my friends that I am as woke as the next ?progressive? bleeding heart. And as a Star Trek fan I do not appreciate that Trek has turned into a tool of the Hollywood apparatchik who cater to snowflakes needing to Discover yet another shoulder to cry on.

Yep,. I did watch the first season of discovery (woke in space) and I do get the political plots of TOS but the Discovery writers/producers decided to cram as many woke touchstones as they could into every minute of every episode to the detriment of the Star Trek franchise. And just because they have funding to further destroy the brand even further does not mean they have successful formula. I can't understand how anyone could miss it.

 

[davejames]

I don?t need to prop up the empty carcass of a politically generated TV show in order to prove to myself and to my friends that I am as woke as the next ?progressive? bleeding heart. And as a Star Trek fan I do not appreciate that Trek has turned into a tool of the Hollywood apparatchik who cater to snowflakes needing to Discover yet another shoulder to cry on.

What are you going on about? We watch these shows because we enjoy them, not because we're trying to prove how "progressive" we are to our friends or some crazy sh-t.

 

[abake]

While I find the gay doctor mildly annoying, I really despise the redhead... she really is a chore. In the end though, she's no different than Chekov, just some character put in there to appeal to a certain demographic.
But that doesn't prevent me from enjoying Discovery. It's an interesting show with some nuanced characters that are really fun to watch (too bad Burnham isn't one of the, but oh well).
I'm sure in the 60's there were a bunch of people offended by Uhura and positively enraged by Kirk kissing her, you might say that back then that was seen as being a "tool of the Hollywood apparatchik", except that back then the audience wasn't labeled "snowflakes".
The fact is, LGBTQIWYXZ inclusive woke etc, is the world we're living in today, so it's just to be expected that shows that purport to be futuristic should reflect that.
Again, TOS was being written and produced in the middle of the civil rights movement, beginning of the Vietnam War, still well within the grip of the Cold War, and it featured a black woman (who even kissed a white dude) and an asian man in prominent roles, had a "russian" teeny heartthrob, and the episodes more often than not commented on the stupidity and futility of war and the dangers of "doomsday machines" that could wipe out civilisations while championing unity and understanding between races.

 

[NCC-1701 no bloody ABCorD]

What are you going on about? We watch these shows because we enjoy them, not because we're trying to prove how "progressive" we are to our friends or some crazy sh-t.

I’ve learned that it’s impossible to describe colors to the color-blind. So we each enjoy the colors that we see the best we can.

 

[Doodlebob7]

https://youtu.be/h_7tovVA2P4

 

[NCC-1701 no bloody ABCorD]

https://youtu.be/h_7tovVA2P4

Exactly. And ‘nuff said.

 

[Scifi67]

https://youtu.be/h_7tovVA2P4

Outstanding, thanks for the link!

 

[Pauln6a]

That looked a bit too long for me to sit all the way through but it was interesting in the opener to see an admission that earlier Trek was described as 'softball' compared to the modern Trek that was intended to annoy fans. I think modern Trek writers want to challenge fans' expectations and that they expect varied reactions but trying to please the most the vocal, most polarised reactors is not the best way to tell a story.

I read an interesting, nuanced analysis of Picard on Trek BBS (spoilers below). When I read this, it doesn't make the show look 'woke', it looks complex and intriguing. They are referencing real world events, historical parallels, and painting shades of grey over the grey that already existed.

I do understand that it may not be to everybody's taste but I do find that labelling it as 'woke' is just a way of refusing to engage with its message. I was reading the vitriol directed at TMP for changing the Klingons. People have always done this for different reasons. It's fine, and looking at the evolution from Discovery to Picard, I do think that they are listening and that Strange New Worlds will mark another step in that direction.

It is Strange New Worlds not Straight New Worlds though so I think anybody hoping that genie is going back in the bottle might be disappointed. Here's the analysis - some if it responding to other quotes but I think it still makes sense:

In the flashback sequence of "Absolute Candor," he's respectful, but there's also more than a hint of paternalism present. He's very much in what we would today call "White Savior" mode. And the fact that he just abandoned them is not the act of someone who has fully internalized that the people he was trying to help are his equals.



So, if you're a refugee on a barely-developed planet and your homeworld has been destroyed and you're struggling day in and day out to survive and you've lost two children to treatable diseases common to under-developed refugee settlements and warlords are a constant danger that needs a government's fleet to keep away and you have been promised -- promised -- that help would be coming, and then it never comes and the representative of the government that made that promise just stops returning your calls...

... exactly how much sympathy are you going to have when he claims it was mental illness and he needed to be let loose from his promises?

If Jean-Luc needs a mental health break (which is legit), then he ought to be taking steps to make sure someone else with equal clout can step in and take over. For instance, Ambassador Spock.



They've got major social problems to deal with and lives are on the line. Sorry, but it is unreasonable of Jean-Luc to make it all about his feelings.



This is pure ******** of the sort that people with privilege use to justify ignoring the pain of marginalized people in real life all the time.



No one said he was. But that doesn't excuse not trying.



You sound like one of those people blaming Puerto Rico for all their deaths in Hurricane Maria.



I would find it very hard to imagine that they would have drawn upon the visual language of colonialism unintentionally. It seems about as probable to me that that might be unintentional, as the idea that they could have had a character dressed in a tie-dyed T-shirt wearing flowers in her hair and have it not be an intentional allusion to the 1960s counterculture.



That's part of why I think it was intentional: The episode was essentially saying that Jean-Luc had fallen into some anti-egalitarian patterns that would be dysfunctional.



I think the thing about the Federation is that it is so vast in size and scale that it's difficult to say the Federation is any one thing. Clearly, the Federation government has embraced a level of isolationism in its betrayal of the Romulan people -- but there again, the Federation is also actively sending scientists and doctors to help the Romulan Free State study the Artifact and liberate former drones. The majority of Federates seem to live in abundance and safety and comfort -- but, yes, there's also developed a level of anti-Synthetic bigotry. The Federation is I think is a complex structure that defies categorization as merely good or bad.



I think it was a particular commentary on Jean-Luc's mindset. I also think the Federation has always had a bit more of a colonialist mindset than people want to acknowledge. I mean, they literally tried to forcibly relocate a Native American settlement against their will in "Journey's End."



I think "dystopia" is a term that gets thrown around way too loosely. The Federation is flawed and did a terrible thing when they betrayed the Romulans, but it is also a society in which the overwhelming majority of people live in freedom, comfort, and safety. There's no evidence that Federation democracy has been compromised, or that Federates lack for free speech and other "sentient rights."



Okay, so, let's really think about the logistics of evacuating a planet. Let's do the math. This is going to involve starting off with some optimistic assumptions, and the move into some more pessimistic assumptions.



And all this was assuming that they had exactly six full years and that they didn't lose any amount of time on the need to construct, mobilize, recruit, or maintain the fleet.

This is a task that exists on a scale too monumental for any one interstellar state to accomplish in the amount of time they had. No interstellar government could do it by themselves.



No one said it was "left" to Jean-Luc. But he made a promise, and he broke it, and people died who would have lived if he'd done more. This is the unavoidable fact.



A questionable assumption.



I think it would depend upon Federation political culture. But the Romulan Star Empire and Klingon Empire are both imperial states with a high centralization of power in the capital; it's perfectly plausible that the loss of Romulus would lead to the collapse of the Romulan government and the emergence of multiple Romulan states.



Why don't you try asking real refugees who've had to flee their countries how they feel about the nations that refused to help them?



I mean, not in the sense of them going up to native worlds and conquering them. But it was Michael Eddington in DS9 who pointed out that there's a pseudo-colonialist mindset behind the Federation government's behavior:

I know you. I was like you once, but then I opened my eyes. Open your eyes, Captain. Why is the Federation so obsessed about the Maquis? We've never harmed you, and yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways you're worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it.

So, that general mindset of wanting to bring everyone in under one government, one flag, one value system... Yeah, it's there in the Federation. It's an active thing, and it's dishonest to pretend that isn't part of Federation political culture.



I mean, yes, but also the whole "you're not my equal" thing is clearly present in how the Federation interacts with cultures that haven't adopted FTL drive, and it's a very colonialist mindset.



No one said the UFP is not on balance good! Saying that there are problems, saying that there's a neo-colonialist mindset that needs to be fought against -- these are not claims that the entire UFP's right to exist is nullified or that it's an evil thing. But it is an argument that it's not as perfect as it imagines itself to be and that it needs some more humility.



That puny thing? C'mon. Those ships looked like they had maybe the volume of three or four runabouts. You could fit maybe 200 people on each of those ships. That's only 40,000 people in that fleet, total. That's the kind of fleet you mobilize to evacuate a small city; utterly inadequate for evacuating a planet.



First off: Different Romulans have different opinions! All Romulans are not the same. Shocking, I know.

Secondly: Do you really not get that that's a conflict that happens in real life -- that a nation may desperately need help, but also desperately need to be respected and treated as equals, rather than condescended to or exploited?



That Romulan Senator is not claiming the Romulans were materially self-sufficient to achieve the goal of evacuating Romulus. But he is complaining about being condescended to, about being treated as lesser-than, about being disrespected and being treated with paternalism. These are perfectly reasonable complaints that people from marginalized communities have in real life.



Why do you keep essentializing "the Romulans" as one thing instead of acknowledging the diversity of Romulan cultures and beliefs and factions and interests that existed within the Star Empire and that survive after the Empire's collapse?



Is it really that hard to understand that he could be both in the right and the wrong at the same time?



Star Trek: Picard is not here to reaffirm a childish, two-dimensional sense of right and wrong. Real life is more complex than that; people are often right and wrong in the same measure. Benevolence and paternalism can go hand-in-hand.

 

[NCC-1701 no bloody ABCorD]

Outstanding, thanks for the link!

He’s like a breath of fresh air, exposing bare the elitists of Hollywood and their agenda. What they have done to Star Trek, and other classic sci-fi, is tragic but predictable since much of the new fandom has been spoon-fed the essence of their crap in their daily lives for so long that they apparently can’t so much as smell it anymore. I’ll have to watch it again in its entirety when I have more time, as I skipped past some segments nearer the end.

 

[Pauln6a]

He’s like a breath of fresh air, exposing bare the elitists of Hollywood and their agenda. What they have done to Star Trek, and other classic sci-fi, is tragic but predictable since much of the new fandom has been spoon-fed the essence of their crap in their daily lives for so long that they apparently can’t so much as smell it anymore. I’ll have to watch it again in its entirety when I have more time, as I skipped past some segments nearer the end.

I'm 50, I trained as a lawyer and I have enjoyed all versions of Trek, albeit some more than others. I'm an educated adult male. Nobody has spoon fed me anything, except perhaps legal precedents.

What I see in your tone is polarisation of the debate. Absolute right versus absolute wrong. That's not Star Trek at all. We're killers but we choose not to kill. Engage in the discussion. Learn from the debate. Understand other viewpoints even if you disagree. Find common ground.

THAT'S Star Trek in every iteration. That is also what makes for successful 1/6 figure lines too.

 

[Asta]

I'm 50, I trained as a lawyer and I have enjoyed all versions of Trek, albeit some more than others. I'm an educated adult male. Nobody has spoon fed me anything, except perhaps legal precedents.

What I see in your tone is polarisation of the debate. Absolute right versus absolute wrong. That's not Star Trek at all. We're killers but we choose not to kill. Engage in the discussion. Learn from the debate. Understand other viewpoints even if you disagree. Find common ground.

THAT'S Star Trek in every iteration. That is also what makes for successful 1/6 figure lines too.

Very well put.