Star Trek (Dis): Context Is for Kings

[Beastro]

Stargate Universe DID improve with time, IMHO. It was nowhere near as good as SG1 or Atlantis

You were going somewhere until this.

They may not be screaming obscenities, but the uncomfortable truth is we DO have unconscious prejudices and even the most progressive shows can screw that up or, at least, seem dated nowadays because what seemed progressive a long time ago is now just an example of dated writing. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that we realize something was ahead of its time or that it was much more behind in its thinking than it thought.

To me a show trying to play a progressive angle (or it's opposite) I playing a losing game, since it's playing with a fire that will enevitably consume it.

Better works of fiction ignore trying to be self-concious of trying to tick all the right boxes and just be what it is and have a chance at becoming timeless so we can appreciate it even if we find parts dated in ways that annoy us.

[Fixer]

1. At no point have I said all Star Wars fans are racist

2. This was in response to you ignoring the behaviour of Ghostbusters fans and trying to paint the culture war as the fault of the actors, directors, studio, media.

We can still see your posts and ours.

Admiral X's post was one where he simply stated that he thought it was sad that Chuck criticism of Janeway had people calling him sexist, to which your only sarcastic reply was to link an article about how Star Wars fans were racist sexists.

I make a post on how the Ghostbusters backlash was increased by an overzealous defence by media and crew which labelled all detractors as sexist man children. Your reactionary response was immediately to defend your tribe by bringing attention to only the actions of others.

Whatever your reasons and your stated goals, your actions have been only to defend baseless accusations of sexism and defamation of character by deflection.

I'm no mind reader. I can't tell what your personal motives are for doing this. All I can suggest is you take a step back, re-read your posts as if they were from someone you didn't know and reconsider them.

[Fixer]

Stargate Universe DID improve with time, IMHO. It was nowhere near as good as SG1 or Atlantis

You were going somewhere until this.

They may not be screaming obscenities, but the uncomfortable truth is we DO have unconscious prejudices and even the most progressive shows can screw that up or, at least, seem dated nowadays because what seemed progressive a long time ago is now just an example of dated writing. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that we realize something was ahead of its time or that it was much more behind in its thinking than it thought.

To me a show trying to play a progressive angle (or it's opposite) I playing a losing game, since it's playing with a fire that will enevitably consume it.

Better works of fiction ignore trying to be self-concious of trying to tick all the right boxes and just be what it is and have a chance at becoming timeless so we can appreciate it even if we find parts dated in ways that annoy us.

I though SG:U Was just hitting its stride when the end of Season 2 came. We finally had some really good sci-fi concepts going on, the crew was working well together. Eli was gaining confidence, we had a great cliffhanger aaaaaaand it's cancelled.

Same with Caprica at the time. Felt like someone had a hit out on sci-fi. At least Caprica's story sort of lead into what we know happened in BSG though.

I checked a while back and we didn't even get a follow up novel to SGU. I guess we have to assume the entire crew died

Many of the problems with progressive politics in entertainment media come down to them being external to the art. One is the unwritten rule "only ever positive" representation of minorities in a work, taken to its very extremes that no harm should come to a such a character.

An example being the backlash about a gay character that died in the 100. Something that was written because the actor was moving onto another job.

There were complaints about a character that I thought was a great. Sam Adama was a mafia hitman in the previously mentioned Caprica in a world where homosexual relationships were normalised. Being gay wasn't the defining aspect of his character, it was as relevant as anyone else's relationship in that world.
That was criticised for poor representation by one individual. Obviously the show writers were showing gay people as homicidal maniacs and re-enforcing the fear of gay men.

The sensitivity to this puts such characters in a narrative straight jacket where the options for them are limited, as a result they end up being almost uniformly very shallow.

As a result even if the work isn't filled with preachy political statements, strawmen or divisive provocations the expectation is that any work that proudly proclaims it's progressive values is one that has sacrificed quality of storytelling or character in some manner.

[Beastro]

As a result even if the work isn't filled with preachy political statements, strawmen or divisive provocations the expectation is that any is that any work that proudly proclaims it's progressive values is one that has sacrificed quality of storytelling or character in some manner.

Something I've run into that effected Westerns as the 50s went into the 60s. There's quite the divide between shows that tried to tell stories set in the era with as much of the era's outlook included, like Gunsmoke and Wagon Train, and pedagogical lecturing ones that fit the above like Bonanza and the Big Valley. Interestingly there was an in between, Have Gun will Travel which could be very preachy, but it's more philosophical tone and penchant for mulling over what episodes dealt with made up for Paladin haranguing everyone (It's no surprise it's the show Roddenberry really got started with as a writer. The tone and structure of the show completely matches TOS).

For anyone rolling their eyes to what Fixer said above, the same applies to anyone who puts their position before storytelling and is what makes many old shorts so damn amusing in the MST3K way.

[CharlesPhipps]

I really wish I watched Stargate to get the "point" of all the Stargate Universe lessons. All I know about that show is Elyse Levensque and Julia Benson were astoundingly hot. Plus well everyone else on the show too. It's doubly funny because of my lack of Stargate knowledge makes me the cricket chirping at my publishers where everyone is a huge stargate fan (since they publish them).

Getting back to the point about representation, it's a fair criticism that Star Trek has often been good at representation but after TOS was lagging behind on it due to being a franchise everyone knew and loved that it actually became a trifle conservative. I remember a discussion about "Who Watches the Watchers" and how a lot of fans were stunned there wasn't more controversy and wondered if religious people didn't watch or understand it.

When I replied, being a religious person, "The problem with this argument is that it assumes any religious person would approve of impersonating a deity when they would be entirely on the side of Picard as revolted by the prospect."

Ditto the fact Star Trek had incredible issues showing a gay main character and now that it's 2017, a gay couple in Star Trek feels like it missed a boat (and unfortunately has ALREADY fallen into a trap of ruining what would have been progressive in a perfectly normal relationship).

But here is the BIG problem with "Context is for Kings" and that's the fact it sets up a big conflict between Michael as the "Moral voice of Starfleet" versus Lorca's "The Pragmatic voice of Starfleet" Then doesn't go anywhere with it. This is a series with themes but ones they can't do anything with because they are too busy trying to be dark and edgy. There's also the fact it's short run time (effectively its first season is two small seasons) means we don't get to know anyone before their dynamics are completely thrown.

[GandALF]

Getting back to the point about representation, it's a fair criticism that Star Trek has often been good at representation but after TOS was lagging behind on it due to being a franchise everyone knew and loved that it actually became a trifle conservative. I remember a discussion about "Who Watches the Watchers" and how a lot of fans were stunned there wasn't more controversy and wondered if religious people didn't watch or understand it.

When I replied, being a religious person, "The problem with this argument is that it assumes any religious person would approve of impersonating a deity when they would be entirely on the side of Picard as revolted by the prospect."

No, that was an anti-religious episode the point was "all gods are fake don't encourage a belief in them". 80's Roddenberry was militant atheist that was part of his vision.

Q and his talk of humans being barbarians in Encounter at Farpoint is Roddenberry's view of god and original sin. Picard's refutation of Q's arguments is supposed to demonstrate that humans in the future are perfect because they reject god.

Once Roddenberry was out of the picture the writers made Q more ambiguous and introduced the Bajorans as a deliberate contrast with atheistic humans (remember Riker demanding Ro remove her ear thingy?), but even then they had to worship wormhole aliens rather than "actual" gods that recquired faith.

The irony is that alongside being more comfortable with humans being depicted as flawed, 60's Roddenberry made a few religious allusions in his episodes and put in a Catholic couple in Balance of Terror as he felt they needed "representation" after the Kennedy election. So Starfleet gets less inclusive by the 24th century?

Fine, have a gay couple, but it might also be a good idea to not go all out on the progressive stuff and stick to being Horatio Hornblower in space as even the creator's idea of progress radically changed over the years. I mean what progressive message does Wrath of Khan have? And it's the best Trek story.

[MixedDrops]

The thing about "flaunting" so-called SJW things, to me that feels like the same argument people make of "Ugh, I don't hate gay people, but do they have to flaunt it in public so much?" when referring to, say, couples holding hands or making out - something they won't equally complain about heterosexual couples doing.

This sums up my feelings on how people are criticizing DIS and several modern shows on this particular aspect very well. We hear so often now, "I don't want politics shoved down my throat", when in fact when you look at the show itself the aspects they're talking about are just kinda there. The implication in such cases is that the simple existence of minorities is political to people who make this compliant. So many times I've found myself in conversations with people who start with a statement to that effect and it only takes playing 20 questions a little bit to figure out it's really just that they don't like seeing a minority on screen.

For DIS in particular, Sisko's being black came up more often than it does for Burnham, for whom it hasn't really been mentioned at all. You don't learn Stamets is gay until like, the fifth episode or something, and it hasn't taken up a great deal of screentime until recently.

If your first reaction is to say something like, "well, if so many fans were that racist why was there no huge backlash with Sisko but there is one with Burnham", it comes off as either naive or dishonest because it's completely ignoring the rise of neofascism in the Western world the past couple years. The Overton Window is a thing that exists.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

I haven't seen all that much of Discovery, so my comments are more about entertainment and social commentary in general. I really can't say to what extent my comments apply to the show itself.

Obviously there is a huge amount of great film, literature, and art in general that deals heavily with social commentary or criticism, and I have no problem with Star Trek dealing with that. As we all know, Trek has a longstanding tradition of social critique, and there's enough mindless action out there.

The problem is that how you approach the topic makes a huge difference. I think Chuck's distinction between concepts/ideas and labels hits on a big part of the problem. The Devil in the Dark is a timeless classic because it deals with a universal concept and isn't tied to one specific time and place. The same applies for the vast majority of, say, Twilight Zone episodes. Some fiction has become way too tied to the form of a problem rather than the substance of it. If you're fairly well-removed from the problem, then it has trouble speaking to you. The Mark of Gideon might be seen as a classic if anyone actually worried about overpopulation anymore, but now its over-the-top preachiness just makes it feel like a waste of an episode.

There are events or people which are iconic and culturally significant enough that you can continue to reference it and still leave an impact (e.g. Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, JFK and his death, certainly Biblical or Shakespearean references/rhetoric), but it's far more likely that tying yourself too closely to one event or person will just date your show. One of my favorite comedians is Norm Macdonald, and I'm willing to scour the web for his old appearances or interviews. His interviews from the 90s on Conan or Letterman are as hilarious as ever. What isn't still effective or very funny is his impersonation of Bob Dole on SNL.

A condescending pedagogical tone is another part of the issue.

What might be the biggest issue for me is where your priority is- your priority still needs to be a good story. A great writer can seamlessly integrate his "message" with his story. A bad writer checks off boxes and crams it into a story awkwardly. Honestly, I feel like the character of Burnham checks off a lot of boxes for the Discovery writers and producers, and throwing so much behind one character can only hurt a show that really should be an ensemble. Checking off boxes is what results in cringy after-school special moments. For example, it's blindingly obvious that the Discovery writers really wanted to cram an F-word into their show... I don't care that they want to use it, but I'd be hard-pressed to find a more ham-fisted way to introduce it than the way they chose.

[Asvarduil]

The thing about "flaunting" so-called SJW things, to me that feels like the same argument people make of "Ugh, I don't hate gay people, but do they have to flaunt it in public so much?" when referring to, say, couples holding hands or making out - something they won't equally complain about heterosexual couples doing.

This sums up my feelings on how people are criticizing DIS and several modern shows on this particular aspect very well. We hear so often now, "I don't want politics shoved down my throat", when in fact when you look at the show itself the aspects they're talking about are just kinda there. The implication in such cases is that the simple existence of minorities is political to people who make this compliant. So many times I've found myself in conversations with people who start with a statement to that effect and it only takes playing 20 questions a little bit to figure out it's really just that they don't like seeing a minority on screen.

You don't learn Stamets is gay until like, the fifth episode or something, and it hasn't taken up a great deal of screentime until recently.

So, I recently had a variation on this discussion with a coworker. The point of objection? Stamets and his partner.

I will make a "confession": seeing two men kiss makes me uncomfortable. When each of these kisses occurred, I looked away from the screen. I am not shy about stating my discomfort. I am also not shy about saying, A) a gay couple in a loving relationship is perfectly fine to have in any work, fictional or otherwise, and B) Discovery in general is actually pretty good, and this gay couple really doesn't detract from that, my discomfort aside. Also, C) ...and this may be a low-grade spoiler...this romance actually becomes quite plot-relevant at a point. In short, while brief bits of their romance may cause me some discomfort, they're a good and necessary part of Discovery.

This coworker, though, threw out some standard anti-gay talking points - a questionable decision, since our tech lead is a lesbian, and was sitting not 15 feet away - and claimed it prevented him from watching the show due to 'the writers pushing an agenda'.

I'm taken back to Burnham's analysis of the Terran Empire: "They are motivated by fear of anything and everything Other." Yes, there is the old response of questioning just how straight these people really are when it comes to it inherent in that, and possibly even a fair question. More simply, however, the feelings of discomfort I feel when I see something I don't agree with, are magnified significantly in these people, I think. What they're experiencing is not akin to my feeling of, "ewww gay kiss! >_<", but rather, "Oh shit, two men are kissing! They're coming after me, and they're armed with loaded, nuclear copies of Magic Mike!"

There's so great a fear and distortion of perception, focused through inherent narrow-mindedness, that what manifests is...well, shit Trump or any other fascist demagogue has ever spouted.

So, my conclusion? I'm afraid I don't have one. One can reasonably say the motives for these sorts of omniphobic statements is being a narrow person. There's more to it than that, though. In my coworker's case, they're not a dumb person. While I can't denounce the homophobic comments this person made strongly enough - they are an asshole - I also can't help but think what's needed here is rehabilitation. These people weren't born scared of everything Other to the point of chronic verbal diarrhea. Something made them that way, and I think that needs to be addressed by us as a society.

Most people, I think, can handle the presence of a gay couple, or naval officer who's both black and female simultaneously, or someone from a very different culture, without acting like an asshole to them. In our society, we have created a 'fold' of being able to live with each other peaceably, drawing on each other's strengths and talents. People who don't behave that way are perfectly deserving of the label, "asshole", but that's not going to bring them back into the fold, and out of their imaginary world of total, black terror. Shaming people into submission does not work.

I will never say I'm not judging. I will always say, though, maybe their fears are overblown, much as my own discomfort at two people in a loving relationship expressing that love to each other probably is.

I am straight, but I do my darnedest every day to not be narrow. I think that the Discovery Stamets romance has forced me to look my own discomfort in the eye, and question it, and be willing to discuss it in terms that don't include fear and OOGA BOOGA!

[Linkara]

I checked a while back and we didn't even get a follow up novel to SGU. I guess we have to assume the entire crew died

We're finally getting comics that follow-up. Three issues are out now, though they're being released kind of slowly.