DIS - Through the Valley of the Shadow

[Link8909]

I usually avoid discussions of Discovery because it makes me just... extremely tired. I had to drop Chuck's reviews of the series because they're, frankly, upsetting. And before you chime in with "Well, what about Voyager and Enterprise? Those reviews could get really angry, too!", yes, I feel the same way about those reviews, when they did get really angry. It seems to me he's softened on Voyager, and honestly Enterprise is the only show that actually deserves that level of vitriol... sometimes. But I sincerely believe he's not at his best when something gets under his skin. I hold no enmity for Chuck, he produces so many videos that I can easily just skip the ones that are going to upset me, and he deserves a chance to cut loose now and then.

And just to stress that this is unrelated to me being a fan of the subject, I feel this way about his Lost World review. A movie that I have thought about precisely one time in my whole life before his review came out, and the thought was mostly just "oh, ok, I guess there are dinosaurs again". I felt some suspense at the hanging car moment, and I thought it was kind of fun, in a campy b-movie sort of way, when the girl does gym-kata on a raptor. That's the fullest extent of my defense of the movie, but I was still bothered by the review, just because of how it was approached. Again, no hate on Chuck, it was just that I didn't enjoy the work in this case.

Agreed, I personally enjoy Chuck's analyzing of films and episodes, as well as looking into the history of the work, and while I do feel that their are episodes of Star Trek or any other media that do deserve being torn into like "Code of Honor" or "Unexpected" that are terrible and offensive, I do feel it's more constructive to talk about what worked and what didn't without going full angry reviewer, as I feel that someone simply ranting about how much they hate something can come across as fan entitlement than proper criticism, even when that criticism is justified.

And while I do agree with many of his points Chuck has made, at this point I watch his reviews about Star Trek Discovery more out of obligation, and I like to talk about what I personally like about the series here in the forums because I genuinely feel there is good things to talk about Discovery and I want to share that.

But I feel like I have something to contribute to the conversation about disability, so I want to focus on that. I don't feel like diving into my full medical history, but I will say that I have a certain chemical imbalance that has affected my life a great deal over the years. And as someone who struggles with a condition that, make no bones about it, limits me, I take umbrage with the idea that people like me simply wouldn't exist in a positive future. People should not be erased, and I feel like that's exactly what we would be doing if we were to presume that disabilities can simply be "fixed" in a sufficiently advanced, sufficiently moral future.

That being said; there actually are, in fact, disabilities that can be reversed, to one degree or another. The specific issue that I have, is not the idea that medical science can minimize the problems that some of us are born with or that some of us are afflicted with later in life, but the arrogant notion that literally all of them will be. There are things I just can't do, that I would happily undergo a safe procedure to be able to do, and I imagine that is the case for many people who are disabled in one way or another. I can't speak for everyone, but I have heard others express this same sentiment. But not everyone feels the same way, either. I have also heard people who wouldn't want to be "normal", regardless of if it would grant them increased agency in certain ways.

Now, the opposite bothers me as well. The idea that "disability is a social construct" is frankly... just disgustingly patronizing. It's misery porn of the highest order, and with real living people as the subjects. And I hate that there are other disabled people with this exact mindset, because it's a perversion of the truth, and a very important truth. The world is not made for disabled people. There is a socially constructed component to disability. For one thing, what exactly constitutes a disability is, ultimately, something that we just kind of decided on, and have tweaked one way or the other over the years. Just look at the way that mental health professionals have shifted the way that they talk about and treat people on the autism spectrum.

So, I think that it's important that we don't stand in the way of people who would choose to change something about themselves, but it's just as important that we stop shaming people for the way they are. And I think that there would be some folks who, right now, would make that change, but might change their mind if that shame weren't so ingrained into us by a society that was built in a way that often fails to even consider people with disabilities. And it's not a monolith, it's not like every singe part of society is hostile to disabled people, but there are definitely buildings that weren't constructed with disabilities in mind, and the way that we talk about workers rights often leaves disabled folks out of the discussion, and other things like that.

Ultimately, It doesn't make any sense to me that Star Trek should be completely devoid of disabled people, and one of the reasons for that is the fact that a big part of Star Trek's optimism is centered around the embracing of diversity. But the idea that all forms of disability would simply not exist isn't optimism; it's fantasy. And, you know what? That's fine, too. There's plenty of room for fantasy, even in Star Trek. So if part of what appeals to you is the fantasy of a world where your life would be completely different, then I say you belong in the fandom just as much as any of us. But what appeals to me is not that I would have a fundamentally different brain or body in the future, it's that my differences wouldn't have been looked down on, but instead that I would have gotten the help I needed much sooner in life. And I think there should be room for both of us in Star Trek, so I say that making people with disabilities visible in the utopian future shouldn't be frowned upon.

Also, no matter how advanced the medicine is in the universe of Star Trek, right now, down here on earth, in reality, there are still a lot of people with disabilities. And giving them characters they can see in the utopian future who are similar to them is a thousand times more important than any number of canon or continuity based worldbuilding details could ever be. Really, I love canon and continuity quite a bit, I mean, I read comics for Uatu's sake... But I love actual, real-ass human beings living here on earth a lot more.

Absolutely agree with all this, especially about Star Trek's optimism being centered around the embracing of diversity.

[Freeverse]

Seeing someone with mobility issues in Star Trek, speaking as someone with mobility issues, does not offer me representation. It just depresses me that even in fiction there is no escape of the prison of my malfunctioning flesh. I don't want to turn on tv and see someone in a wheelchair on a spaceship, because that just makes me feel that there is no relief no matter how great tech will get. The representation I want is a line of dialogue about how easy it was to fix the disability. I see no representation value in seeing someone trapped in a chair, even in a future where they still have all this magic tech.

My post may have been a little bit all over the place, but my main response to this is that I feel like there can be room for both ways of showing how the future has progressed. Both that we can achieve new solutions to disability, and that those of us for whom the solution isn't perfect will still have a place, and in Starfleet, no less. The organization that has consistently represented the best of the best. I know that when I see people with my condition in fiction who can just do some magic ritual, or take a one-time pill that whisks all the problems away, I get a bit upset about that. And actually, I'm being kind of generous here, because often when a character in fiction has my condition, there isn't even a magic/tech solution... they just kind of... get over it. Sometimes through character development, but just as often by pure plot convenience.

But I recognize that my perspective isn't universal, and I appreciate that you feel differently than I do. I don't think it would be okay for me to say that you're wrong to feel that way. I know that no matter what approach they take, not everyone will be happy with it. I just think that we should let them try to include both characters whose lives have been changed by the technology of the future, and characters whose lives have been changed by the society of the future. And that those two groups of people intersect in a lot of ways.

[Link8909]

Let me ask you a question: did you ever think when watching ENT that Chuck went overboard on constantly bringing up the Valekian cure, or over on VOY that Chuck when overboard on constantly bringing up Neelix, or that Chuck when overboard with his hate of TNG season 1?

Absolutely. But Chuck is funny while he does it which makes it tolerable and entertaining as opposed to irritating.

Agreed, Chuck's humor along with his analyzing and look into the history of the film or episode is why I love his work, even if I don't agree with his point of view I still understand where he's coming from and respect that opinion, and when he does have issues with a work I know it's not fan entitlement.

[Fianna]

I've got no problem with people in Star Trek having some disabilities; medical science can't be perfect in the franchise, otherwise you'd never get those tense sickbay scenes.

However, wheelchairs do feel a bit low-tech for them. I'd think they'd have moved on to hoverchairs or mechanical exoskeletons.

[Link8909]

I've got no problem with people in Star Trek having some disabilities; medical science can't be perfect in the franchise, otherwise you'd never get those tense sickbay scenes.

However, wheelchairs do feel a bit low-tech for them. I'd think they'd have moved on to hoverchairs or mechanical exoskeletons.

Same here, as Chuck pointed out he might have a disease or genetic condition that isn't treatable and requires aid much like Geordi La Forge's Visor, my only thought as to why not something more advance is that they run the risk of breaking down or being damaged, thus a low-tech solution runs less risks, but even then that answer can be scrutinized.

I personally would just like to see the character get fleshed out so we know why he needs the chair to begin with, and I agree with Chuck that he should be given more screen time.

[AllanO]

Speaking of sounding moodier, Chuck sounds real done with it.

Chuck's been usually good at not overdoing it with clips and saving them just for the right moment, so the Simpsons clip was pretty jarring-it was just explaining the joke. It's not even at all an obscure reference.

I actually did not get the reference until he played the clip. I had seen that episode of the Simpsons but not in like more than a decade, so I actually needed the clip to get it was a reference for whatever that is worth.

I actually think Chuck is less dismissive about Discovery (and Picard and even the new movies) than he is about Voyager or Enterprise (or even some aspects of the first two seasons of TNG). Part of this is I think he is reserving judgement about the new stuff whereas he has over the decades pretty much solidified his opinions about older stuff. I think he was even more guarded and even handed in his comments about the first couple of episodes of Discovery (or his first informal review of Into Darkness etc.).

I think Chuck is at his best when he has some interesting bit of analysis, some pertinent background fact to share or the like that gives us a different insight into things and he often brings an interesting positive and constructive way to think about something that many just dismiss out of hand. I am not always convinced but it is usually interesting. However I also enjoy his acid tongue as an angry reviewer with an analytic style even if it is less intellectual and more emotional and even if it is much more negative and less fair. I am sure some like only one or the other aspect of Chuck. I think the two are part of a continuum of Chuck but parts of his work shade heavily one way or the other.

I like Discovery and Picard okay, I find them to be contrived and gimmicky storytelling with a slick current aesthetic and an excessive of emotion, conversely I find older Treck shows to be contrived and gimmicky storytelling with a different aesthetic and a more cerebral core. All of them have serious flaws or inadequacies that mean they are not for everyone.

[clearspira]

Seeing someone with mobility issues in Star Trek, speaking as someone with mobility issues, does not offer me representation. It just depresses me that even in fiction there is no escape of the prison of my malfunctioning flesh. I don't want to turn on tv and see someone in a wheelchair on a spaceship, because that just makes me feel that there is no relief no matter how great tech will get. The representation I want is a line of dialogue about how easy it was to fix the disability. I see no representation value in seeing someone trapped in a chair, even in a future where they still have all this magic tech.

We kind of got that with Nog and his leg. It only did not work because of his ptsd.

I do like Geordi's visor as well. Apparently they wanted to give him eyes quite early on but Burton wanted visible representation.

[CharlesPhipps]

I think DS9 split the difference with the light gravity worlder that Bashir wanted to "fix" only for her to be pissed.

[Link8909]

Speaking of sounding moodier, Chuck sounds real done with it.

Chuck's been usually good at not overdoing it with clips and saving them just for the right moment, so the Simpsons clip was pretty jarring-it was just explaining the joke. It's not even at all an obscure reference.

I actually did not get the reference until he played the clip. I had seen that episode of the Simpsons but not in like more than a decade, so I actually needed the clip to get it was a reference for whatever that is worth.

I actually think Chuck is less dismissive about Discovery (and Picard and even the new movies) than he is about Voyager or Enterprise (or even some aspects of the first two seasons of TNG). Part of this is I think he is reserving judgement about the new stuff whereas he has over the decades pretty much solidified his opinions about older stuff. I think he was even more guarded and even handed in his comments about the first couple of episodes of Discovery (or his first informal review of Into Darkness etc.).

I see that, and I've noticed this more with his Star Trek Picard reviews, and while Chuck hasn't said his overall opinion on the series yet, I do like the reviews he's done on them so far, even the jokes about the series are really funny, the re-take with Admiral Janeway was great, I love the tuba over the combadge, and I do hope Admiral Clancy hating Captain Picard becomes a running gag.

Honestly this is also why I'm more constructive with my own criticisms and more positive and appreciative of these new series, they are still very new and can change and improve overtime.

I think Chuck is at his best when he has some interesting bit of analysis, some pertinent background fact to share or the like that gives us a different insight into things and he often brings an interesting positive and constructive way to think about something that many just dismiss out of hand. I am not always convinced but it is usually interesting. However I also enjoy his acid tongue as an angry reviewer with an analytic style even if it is less intellectual and more emotional and even if it is much more negative and less fair. I am sure some like only one or the other aspect of Chuck. I think the two are part of a continuum of Chuck but parts of his work shade heavily one way or the other.

Agreed

I like Discovery and Picard okay, I find them to be contrived and gimmicky storytelling with a slick current aesthetic and an excessive of emotion, conversely I find older Trek shows to be contrived and gimmicky storytelling with a different aesthetic and a more cerebral core. All of them have serious flaws or inadequacies that mean they are not for everyone.

Very true, not every series of Star Trek is perfect, and everyone has they own take on what they like and dislike.

Honestly taking time to think about it, I don't mind that Chuck has issues with Discovery, or any series or film, I'd rather he be honest and say what he thinks and feel about them, I think it's more me just getting tired of the constant negativity that seems to be lobbied at the new run of Star Trek that is permeating throughout the internet nowadays.

[Link8909]

We kind of got that with Nog and his leg. It only did not work because of his ptsd.

I do like Geordi's visor as well. Apparently they wanted to give him eyes quite early on but Burton wanted visible representation.

I'd be interested in seeing a character with a robotic arm in Star Trek, maybe doing something like what happened with Yang from RWBY.